Reaction To Story of Stuff

Let me begin by saying that I loved “The Story of Stuff.” I thought it found success in presenting an easily digestible explanation of over consumption and how it affects the environment. After reading the New York Times article, I was happy to see that the film had been so successful seemingly for the same reasons I had found it so enjoyable. I think showing it to children of all ages in school is an excellent way of introducing the concepts of environmental stewardship and responsible consumption at a young age. The environmental curriculum in most schools is sorely lacking (I speak from experience; 4 years at a Catholic school and I heard the term ‘global warming’ twice, if that) and the video is an engaging introduction into environmental issues.

Given my thorough support of both ‘The Story Of Stuff’ and the responsibility it calls for, I knew I would have a hard time reading any criticisms. But I tried to keep an open mind as I read both Stephen Cohen and The Heritage Foundation’s responses. Cohen’s criticism presented some interesting criticism that I would be ignorant not to consider. Cohen argues that the video focuses too much on over consumption and yet does not offer any realistic alternatives. However, I cannot sympathize with his argument that Americans’ desire for ‘stuff’ is simply the result of our need to communicate. He seems to think it is hopeless that the American lifestyle will ever become dramatically less consumerism-based. The last paragraph of his article claims that we must spend our time searching for technology to reduce our ecological footprint instead of reducing our consumption. Again, I cannot sympathize with any of these arguments, I think that consumerism, materialism and capitalism are all modes of thinking that are ultimately incompatible with a truly sustainable and environmentally responsible way of life.

By now I think you can probably surmise what I thought about the Heritage Foundation’s response. To be honest, I felt my intelligence was being insulted at some points in the article. The article was fear mongering at its best, claiming that Leonard’s film is designed to teach our children to hate capitalism, the armed forces and America itself. I also fail to see how showing an ‘anticapitalist’ film to students is a violation of ‘academic freedom..’ Isn’t that the point of free speech, to introduce differing ideas? ‘The Story Of Stuff’ isn’t trying to make students feel guilt and shame for their way of life. It’s ironic that author Rory Cooper uses the story mentioned in the New York Times article of Torre Batker, who asked his father if he should buy Legos because of the environmental impact they have. Cooper turns Batker into the poster child for his conservative agenda, asking, “do you want your child to feel guilty for buying Legos?” The irony lies in the fact that at the end of the New York Times article, we learn that Torre did end up buying the Legos cause he would use them for a long time. Interesting that he could decipher the message behind ‘The Story Of Stuff,’ make responsible choices when consuming, while Mr. Cooper is left in the dark using the same tired arguments that conservatives have been using for years now.