The
author, Sam Alexander, Ph.D., is the Director of the Simplicity Institute and
lecturer in Environmental Programs at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
The full
title of the paper is Sacred Revolt: Why Reverence Before Restraint
Transforms the Limits-To-Growth Predicament. The paper was published just
one week ago, on 8 July 2026. At the end of this review is a link to the paper
where it can be downloaded. I strongly suggest reading the entire paper.
The
Review
As the
full title alludes, the current ecological crisis is often framed in terms of
limits, how we keep within them (if at all) and thus become sustainable. Framed
in this way, the questions that are asked are of the nature what do we do? These
types of questions often comprise technological and mechanical answers on the
one hand. Or, the answers suggest restraint, limitation, and self-control.
Neither
answer satisfies Sam Alexander. We are failing with both approaches he claims.
We need to ask an entirely different sort of question. We need to ask, he
states, ‘How might humanity learn once again to love the world enough to not
destroy it?’
A simple
sounding question, isn’t it? Deepening the question poses more questions and a
variety of answers.
Much of
the literature in this field offer technological/mechanistic answers to the
question, what do we do? A smaller section of the literature present critiques
of these answers.
An even
smaller segment of the library suggests kerbing consumption and the growth imperative.
Both these
approaches are failing Alexander tells us.
The
restraint approach fails because it does not adequately address the
psychological and spiritual underpinnings of modernity. Modernity constructs
and reinforces a strong worldview in its subjects (us humans) that coerces us
into believing that our purpose can be found in continued progress, a success
orientation, and an eternal future hope of betterment. Our self-identity,
modernity tells us, is wrapped up in more; more possessions, more money, more
power, and ultimately, more growth.
Against
this, the restraint message comes across as limitation and having to give up
something. Rather than restraint, our psyche receives the message as
deprivation and scarcity.
Psychologically
then, the message of restraint gets interpreted as a denial of our human
destiny, whether we understand this consciously or not.
So, what does
Sam Alexander prescribe?
Prior to submitting
a prescription, Alexander notes that modernity has desacralized the world. Alexander
is not advocating a religious revival here. He makes his position clear. ‘A desacralized
world is not merely a world without gods. It is a world emptied of wonder, awe,
and intrinsic significance.’
Sam
Alexander reminds us of psychotherapist Erich Fromm’s classic 1976 book To
Have or to Be? in which Fromm declares that modernity promises happiness
and freedom via material possessions and a domination over nature. This is the have
mode. The Be mode, on the other hand, he posits as more fulfilling.
To Be is to partake in the world in a
reverential manner. Furthermore, as Alexander notes, ‘reverence deepens
rather than expands.’
He elaborates
on this by explaining that ‘The ecological question cannot ultimately be
separated from the question of what human beings consider sacred.’
This leads
Alexander to offer the phrase Sacred Revolt, which he describes as ‘a
cultural and existential rebellion against the reduction of existence to
commodity, utility, and exchange-value.’
A sacred
revolution then results in sufficiency becoming not just necessary, but
beautiful.
How many
of us are willing to hear this calling and become Sacred Revolutionaries?
This paper
is only 12 A4 pages long, so can be read easily in a short amount of time.
Implementing its invitation may take a little longer. The paper can be found at
this link:
https://samuelalexander.info/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Sacred-Revolt-Samuel-Alexander-1.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blogsite is dedicated to positive dialoque and a respectful learning environment. Therefore, I retain the right to remove comments that are: profane, personal attacks, hateful, spam, offensive, irrelevant (off-topic) or detract in other ways from these principles.