Lambert Strether: Dang, another book to read: Kropotkin.

By Elizabeth Svoboda, a science writer in San Jose, California, and the author of What Makes a Hero?: The Surprising Science of Selflessness.” Originally published at Undark.

In the opening scene of Robin Wall Kimmerer’s “The Serviceberry: Abundance and Reciprocity in the Natural World,” a flock of birds descends on a tree heavy-laden with fruit. Though the birds devour the waxy purple berries with fervor, there are more than enough to go around — not just for the robins and cedar waxwings, but for Kimmerer and her human companions. “There is no mathematics of worthiness that reckons I deserve them in any way,” Kimmerer writes. “And yet here they are.”

Kimmerer’s book, the long-awaited follow-up to her best-selling 2013 essay collection “Braiding Sweetgrass,” is a novella-length meditation on the abundance that sharing and mutual exchange can create. A botanist and member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, which is native to the Great Lakes region, Kimmerer grounds her worldview in traditions that resist attempts to quantify or hoard what the Earth produces.

Unlike Westerners who prize individual ownership and accumulation, many Indigenous peoples live in “a culture of gratitude” that recognize natural bounty as belonging to all, discourage mindless consumption, and embrace giving’s multiplicative effects. “A gift economy nurtures the community bonds that enhance natural well-being,” she writes. “The economic unit is ‘we’ rather than ‘I’, as all flourishing is mutual.”

Though these ideas wend their way through “Braiding Sweetgrass,” Kimmerer’s latest book examines them more rigorously. She brings a botanist’s eye to descriptions of natural thriving that evoke collaboration’s rewards. The berries she and the birds enjoyed, she notes, could never have ripened without a host of willing contributors — the cedar waxwing that dropped the serviceberry seed so it could germinate, the microbes that fertilized the soil. She traces repeated cycles of flourishing: After single-celled algae take up molecules of phosphorus, zooplankton eat the algae and excrete the phosphorus back into the ocean, where a new generation of algae can feast on it.

“The Serviceberry” continues a long tradition of naturalistic writing about interdependence in the wild. Among the first to cover this ground, over 100 years ago, was Russian naturalist and revolutionary Peter Kropotkin, who observed how animals on the steppe protected each other and collaborated to secure food — and whose work rebuked the idea that nature mostly consisted of winners and losers. “Sociability,” Kropotkin wrote, “is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.”

Like Kropotkin, Kimmerer draws on cooperative successes in nature to mount a vigorous case against human greed and opportunism. “The Serviceberry” broadly indicts economic and political systems that run on the idea that a win for one person must mean a loss for someone else. “There is a tragedy in believing the proffered narrative of our system,” she writes, “which turns us against each other in a zero-sum game.” She compares unchecked accumulators to the mythical Potawatomi villain Windigo, who eats and eats yet is never satisfied.

There’s a distinctly American fear — propped up by “welfare queen” stereotypes — that offering resources up to a communal pool invites freeloaders to drain that pool, a mindset crystallized in ecologist Garrett Hardin’s famed 1968 paper “The Tragedy of the Commons.” In this particular “mathematics of worthiness,” those who could benefit most from community aid are marked as least trustworthy and deserving.

But Kimmerer deftly turns this calculus on its head. Evolutionary scientists like David Sloan Wilson, she notes, are finding that cooperative human and animal societies actually do better across time and generations than those whose members distrust others and look out for number one. “When the focus shifts to the level of a group,” she writes, “cooperation is a better model, not only for surviving but for thriving.”

While “The Serviceberry” convincingly links hoarding to long-term decline, the book’s most resonant passages celebrate the joy to be found in connection and reciprocity, as well as the ongoing ways they multiply. Kimmerer profiles her neighbor Paulie Drexler, who invites community members to come pick her serviceberries for free — mostly because it lifts her spirits to do so. “In the berry patch, all I hear are happy voices,” Drexler says. “It feels good to give that little bit of delight.”

Yet the reciprocal effects of offering that delight, as Kimmerer shows, accrue to both Drexler and the wider community. Grateful berry-pickers may return to Drexler’s farm for sunflowers, blueberries, and pumpkins, and buoyed by their immersion in the joyful harvest, they might even end up voting for farmland-preservation measures on the next ballot. Kimmerer’s narrative complements years of research showing that people who share what they have — time, love, or resources — are happier and more fulfilled than their stingier counterparts.

Though readers are bound to wonder how thriving local gift economies can drive broader shifts away from zero-sum thinking, that isn’t really the province of this book. Kimmerer notes that gift economies do best in small-scale communities, village atmospheres where everyone knows each other on sight. What holds people back from spoiling the commons is a sense of obligation to those around them, and on larger scales, this communal obligation often disappears.

Kimmerer envisions gift exchanges, mutual aid networks, and all the rest as “yes-and” solutions that will play out against a capitalistic backdrop, not direct systemic rebukes. “I don’t think it’s pie in the sky,” she writes, “to imagine that we can create incentives to nurture a gift economy that runs right alongside the market economy.”

Yet Kimmerer is a bit vague about what would compel us to launch these smaller-scale giving ventures. She artfully describes the rewards reciprocal systems produce once we set them in motion, but she’s less clear about what might motivate more of us to do so. What would make a critical mass of Americans, marinating in a rugged individualist culture, want to become their neighbors’ keepers? How dramatically would our current system have to cave in — whether through climate disaster, civil unrest, or autocracy — before a more communal ethos could take hold?

The promise and peril of the world Kimmerer envisions is that it requires a leap of faith, a kind of hurling yourself into the universe and trusting that others will be there to catch you. In our dogged focus on punishing freeloaders, and on seizing whatever can be stockpiled, we’ve collectively detached from that trust.

“The Serviceberry” is an impassioned call not just to return to the natural webs of exchange that are our birthright‚ but to recapture the fulfillment that stems from interdependence. “To replenish the possibility of mutual flourishing, for birds and berries and people,” she writes, “we need an economy that shares the gifts of the Earth, following the lead of our oldest teachers, the plants.” Whether we emulate their example is up to all of us.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Economic fundamentals, Environment, Free markets and their discontents, Global warming, Guest Post, Income disparity on by Lambert Strether.

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.