These stories from across the world resonate with the class I teach on cultural anthropology. They invite the students, and indeed us all, to listen into the lives, the hopes, and dreams of the human condition.
When you experience this well-designed video installation, keep in mind a caveat: There is a point of view of the project developer, Yann Arthus-Bertrand - part climate change ideologue and part wealth redistributionist. The latter theme will be the focus of his new movie, Human. The upcoming movie echoes themes voiced by Godfrey Reggio in his trilogy about developed and underdeveloped countries and a world in chaos: Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, and Naqoyqatsi (the Qatsi trilogy).
You may well agree with Bertrand's perspective - or not. But in either case, his perspective ought to be transparent to the visitor.
The Museum of Photographic Arts orients itself, in part, as a center for visual learning. To avoid the problem of subliminal or social-action bias, MOPA could install an informational kiosk that plays short videos explaining the alternative perspective. So, for example, one can be for fighting pollution with or without assumptions about human-caused climate change. Or, one can be for lifting individuals out of poverty while arguing that any success is due to capitalism or to socialism. From a pedagogical perspective, one should present alternative narratives so that one can judge if the photographic narrative is overly narrow or excessively broad in understanding what affects the human condition. The Museum may state it is only interested in the art of photography; yet this particular exhibit, and others before it (Prix Pictet 2012), espoused agendas for social and environmental change that fit a partial understanding of these phenomena. The issue of a lack of transparency will be explored further in the comments below.
Climate Change Perspectives: True believers versus Realists
Many scientists and politicians argue that the science is settled: humans affect climate (note that 'affecting pollution' is often confused with 'climate,' but the distinction is an important one). Let's call those who believe that humans affect climate in a significant way the true believers since their minds are made up. Many other scientists and politicians are skeptics (which is the bedrock assumption of science): humans may affect climate, but show us the data as well as the various computer models that massage the data. Let's call this group the realists.
You may find yourself in one group or the other, but the question is one of pedagogy. How should one teach this subject matter, especially with photographs and associated text as narrative? It ought to be a startling and open-minded adventure. The problem is that myth-making and news hype get in the way. Recall the prediction that human caused climate change would cause an increase in seasonal hurricanes? That proved to be unsupported with seasonal hurricanes being far, far less. Recall the prediction that the Himalayas would begin to melt in 35 years? That proved to be a typo.
What then? It's time to explore.
In 7 billion Others, the dominant perspective about nature and climate change is: 1) nature is cuddly (few, if any, talk about hurricanes, volcanoes, pestilence, disease, etc.); 2) and that those who take issue with the anthropogenic view of climate change either do not care or are from another planet.
As one pages through the remarks of individuals from around the globe, the sense is that nature is wonderful and a sense of joy. I happen to agree with that perspective, but I would likely give voice to the terrible in nature as well. If the idea to be conveyed is that nature is something to be cherished, fine. No problem, but say so. Don't carry over the one-sided dimension into the assumed corollary that whenever nature is damaged it is the result of human activity. Yes, the Gulf Oil spill several years ago was the result of human action, but nature has extensive oil seeps as well. And, even then, scientists were surprised that much of the Gulf Oil spill disappeared in the water due to nature's own cleansing process.
From views on nature, 7 billion Others leads to views on climate change. Some individual views do show skeptical positions, but the dominant frame of reference is one of those adhering to human-caused global warming. If you don't believe in global warming, one interviewee claims that you must be from another planet.
Not only is the question about whether one's belief puts one in the category of being from another planet, those who resist the perceived needed change lack empathy.
It is true that many of us are indulgent in our personal desires, but this extends to those who see themselves as the caring. That sounds counter-intuitive and hard to believe - that those who say they care about equality often act in ways that demonstrate the opposite, particularly if it affects their own lifestyle.
A recent news article reports that several states are underwriting the affluent in buying more expensive electric cars at the expense of the poor; the less affluent are taxed to support the affluent's life style. One can argue that this tax policy benefits us all - we all breathe the same air; but one can also argue that the user should pay, especially so when there is an unfair tax on the poor. Question: Who should paying for the electric car charging station? Those who use it or everyone, including the less well off who cannot afford electric cars. Again, you may or may not agree with either policy, but that policy and its social costs should be transparent. In this instance, those claiming to care about X should explain how their benefit of owning an electric car actually helps X (who can't afford an electric car) rather than hurts X.
Perhaps the truck owner loves his truck, regardless of how it impacts the physical environment; electric car owners may think similarly, regardless of how it impacts the social environment.
A complement to 7 billion Others: Creating a dialog
Moving beyond a critique of the views embedded in 7 billion Others, a center for visual learning could include the following brief perspective that challenges the underpinnings of the installation.
What if climate change is something other than those who would have us fear carbon, CO2 and an assumed rate of temperature change that would bring environmental calamity beyond what nature has done for billions of years?
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, presents a useful counter-perspective, grounded in science.
What they haven't told you about climate change
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/What-They-Havent-Told-You-about-Climate-Change.html#.VcYp8LTZXi8
Without a precautionary commentary such as the one by Patrick Moore, the 7 billion Others installation works well as propaganda for its point of view, but not as an informed pedagogical approach encompassing the views of the true believers and the realists. The latter depends on the transparency of the hosting institution.
The producers' description of 7 billion Others
A ground breaking, multimedia exhibition, 7 billion Others brings voices and compelling video portraits from more than 6,000 individual interviews filmed in 84 countries by nearly 20 directors. For its premiere in the United States, the 30-week presentation will allow visitors to identify what separates and unites us by giving direct access to individuals as diverse as a Brazilian fisherman, a Chinese shopkeeper, a German performer and an Afghan farmer. These interviews touch on our most visceral emotions and pose many thought-provoking questions and answers that speak to the human condition. Created by Yann Arthus-Bertrand
The Museum of Photographic Arts [MOPA] will continue showing 7 billion Others through mid September 2015.
