Thought for the Week: Unpalatable truths
Laurie Michaelis reflects on denial and being honest with yourself
Denial is a normal way of coping with uncomfortable experiences, such as anxiety and loss. Climate change brings plenty of both, whether through its impacts if it continues unchecked, or through the deep changes in our lives that would be needed to slow it down.
When I started working with Quaker Meetings on sustainability in 2002, Friends often asked me for advice on engaging climate sceptics. It is now unusual to hear Quakers dismissing the science, but many Friends do not embrace reducing emissions as a priority or a possibility. This may be a form of denial or there may be truth in their position. Some think it’s too late, and there is growing interest in looking at how we can support our local communities to survive disaster. Some see climate change as a matter for spiritual acceptance and for exercising non-attachment. Some feel that they have other, higher moral priorities – like working to relieve specific instances of suffering and injustice – which often means they are committed to air travel. And, of course, there are many who feel unable to change.
In 2011 Britain Yearly Meeting made its ‘Canterbury Commitment’ to become a low carbon, sustainable community. We minuted that we need to be accountable to one another, but also to be tender with one another and to support one another through the grief and fear that radical change will provoke. That means looking carefully at how we work with truth and denial in our lives and Meetings.
For me, our Quaker testimony on truth means much more than just being honest. It’s also about a listening and watching spirituality: being open to new light from whatever source, being willing to see our own darkness, reaching for the meaning deep within others’ words. And it’s about a collective process: letting our insights take their place alongside those of others or be cast aside as the Meeting seeks the right way forward.
Climate science is just part of the light we need to be open to. There is also the moral truth about the hurt and injustice woven into our society. How do we collude with it? Can we hear the call to a deep nonviolence that Quakers used to call Gospel Order? To my mind using oil, like eating meat, is essentially violent. I’m happy without a car but I still rely on motorised transport in many ways. And there are many other moral challenges I still haven’t fully faced up to. In particular, unlike some Friends who have made positive choices to live in community with minimal property, I still own a house and more than a fair share of so-called ethical investments.
What about you? Be honest with yourself. What unpalatable truths might you be evading?
Laurie Michaelis is environment editor for the Friend
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.