Marie Antoinette's husband, the 16th Louis, gave her some
land in Versailles as a wedding gift. On it she had her architect, Richard
Mique, build her a peasant village complete with a farmhouse, dairy, chicken
coop, mill and barn. Not to mention a marble-walled boudoir so that she might
retire from a day’s work. Despite having the world's luxury at her whim, the
queen of France spent the time she could playing peasant, hosting friends and
eating her chicken’s eggs. The trend spread throughout the nobility and
peasant villages popped up all around what was agrarian France. America’s gilded
aristocracy did the same in the Adirondacks with their Great Camps. While the
romantic tendencies of consumptive lifestyles have exhibited themselves in different
ways, the notion of “roughing it” for a short time, along with its criticism, continues.
We can look to these aristocrats playing adventurer or
peasant, despite the massive social and economic inequalities that came to define
their time, and tell ourselves how different it is now. This is not the case. Many
Americans live a fairly similar lifestyle to the last queen of France and the
Robber Baron clans- one based on consumption. While we do not get all of the
perks, little is asked of us and much is given. Overall safety is not an issue,
sugar and spices are everywhere and the only thing which keeps me from a full meal
is the walk from Bundy to Commons.
The rustic appeal also continues today. WWOOFing is a
popular trend among upper-middle class whites that lets them work for a short
time on a farm anywhere in the world. Over this coming break, I will be going
to Nicaragua with a group of peers to work on an organic coffee farm for one
week. This is called voluntourism and would make Marie proud. As we learned from McKibben, many young and
educated people, capable of the massive investments required, are choosing a
life of farm and toil that was abandoned by their ancestors.
Yet these rustic escapes seem to be inherently selfish and do much more to restore the advantaged individual than anything else of use. Marie Antoinette did not return dignity to the French peasantry,
Durant and Rockefeller did not restore wilderness to America, Essex and Asgaard
Farms will not feed the world with organic food and I will not steer Nicaragua
out of its economic tailspin. But would it have been better if Antoinette had
stayed in the palace, or Rockefeller in the city, or organic farmers on Wall
Street? Would my spring break have more worth on Palm Beach or Cancun? I am
biased but, I do not think so.
Also, I have 18 eggs from the presentation and no idea
what to do with them. If any of you want eggs, let me
know.
Pictures:
Sources:
Schneider, The Adirondacks
There are benefits and criticism to pretty much anything anyone does these days... Back in "the day" when Marie Antoinette went out into the country side with her painted sheep and elaborate meals, one might argue that this gesture is empty (which it kind of was) and further demonstrates her ignorance (along with "Let them eat cake!"). A similar argument can be made (as you say) for the wealthy upper class "roughing it in the Adirondacks" and for this next generation of privileged young people spending a single week in the wilds, serving poor communities. But arguing that these gestures are meaningless further estranges the ends of the economic spectrum. Yes, in the end this week of poverty in a year of wealth might not mean much, but it does bring money into less economically developed areas and it does instill in the thrill-seekers a respect and connection with these landscapes, which could in the end bring more money into the area. We could argue over the different philosophies and psychological motives of these trips until the cows come home, but the hard results (I would argue) are good ones.
ReplyDeleteALSO, I live in the Coop! Bring your eggs here and we could make so many omelets for whoever wants to eat them!
In the face of overwhelming odds it is hard to see the benefit of the individual. If the climate is warming so quickly, or forests disappearing so quickly why should I bother doing anything to help? Every group begins with one person with an idea it is important to remember that. Rockefeller made himself. If one man can make an oil empire one person can rally people to help those in need. While roughing it is condescending, it can give those who leave home an appreciation for their lives, and could motivate them to action. They might grow to love where they camp or worked, and fight to try to keep them in the condition they are or work to help the area. There is a great quote from Batman Begins where commissioner Gordon asks how one man can change Gotham. Batman turns to him and says "now we are two". I think this embodies the idea of how grass roots movements can affect change. While it may seem as though your spring break trip does nothing if more people continue to go and help year after year, change will occur.
ReplyDelete