The Story of Stuff, or The Story of Propaganda

The Story of Stuff. Look first at the title of this educational website, directed by the enthusiastic environmentalist Annie Leonard, and notice its adorableness. It doesn't convey the boring or baffling rocket-science aura that other educational material usually have (assuming that you were an elementary school student, would you be interested in The Harmful Effects of the Unaware Citizen in Modern Society? I thought not), for, after all, it's the "story of stuff" - something that elementary school students will be prone to relate to through its innocent diction. As an elementary school teacher who wants to teach the students about the dangers of harming the environment, you might think The Story of Stuff the perfect educational material to show the children: a phenomenon happening all across the United States of America. But people always say that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover - or in this case, an educational site for its face value - and if you delve further into the site itself, you can see that it's not merely a story of environmental harms and concerns, but a story reaching to political stances, social values, and economic messages. It is the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing.

The Story of Stuff is the new hot potato in not only the environmental field, but also the educational and - if to go far - political fields. Although simple, clear, and direct in its message that consumerism has some detrimental effects on the environment, The Story of Stuff has many radical political, social, and economic implications that make it unfit for its current purpose of educating elementary school students.

The first problem of The Story of Stuff is its stance. Most people do not have a problem with the opinion that consumerism indeed provides problems to the environment to a certain extent, and that the environment must be taken care of before there are any further harms. But Leonard's opinions are too radical, at least for the purpose of education; the opinion that "consumerism is the basis of environmental disasters and the government is doing nothing to help, if not promoting more destruction" isn't all too instructive. Hear some of her rhetoric - that George Bush merely asked its citizens to shop after the outbreak of 9/11 - and she seems to be antagonizing the government and capitalism more than instructing the students about saving the environment.

The second problem is the video clip's inaccuracy. Yes, in some cases, we do make exaggerations to intentionally create a response: complaining to your mom that everybody has that new brand of cell phone doesn't really mean that the earth's whole population has it. But in others, especially when we are trying to teach elementary school children who might not always have the ability to discern reality and exaggeration, we must be very accurate in our basic facts. Annie Leonard gives us botched statistics and wrong analysis of the status quo, and uses persuasive rhetoric to present them. The "fact" that we dip our pillows in BFR (brominated flame retardants) and we sleep on them, thus setting our head on fire? The "fact" that the United States spends more than 50% of its federal budget on the military? As Dobb's critique points out, they are not really "facts" that they appear to be, but rather hyperboles or exaggerated interpretations of facts. The problems that Leonard wants to address might be already present in reality. She does not need to exaggerate her statistics to make her arguments more convincing; what she really needs to do is to accurately address the problems that are already present. Some people may find a problem with the US's military budget, whether it's 30% (the actual percentage) or 50%.  

The third problem is the video clip's selective blindness. The Story of Stuff does present some accurate facts, such as that the United States takes up 5% of the global population but uses 30% of the earth's resources. But delve more into reality and see (as mentioned in, once again, Dobb's critique) that the US produces 27% of the world's GDP, a notable base for the world's economy. Isn't it only obvious that the nation that produces much takes up as much resources? Or let's take the fact that 95% of the US's forests have been logged down. It sounds disastrous, and probably would have been - if not for the fact that the government has worked towards reforestration and preservation. Yet Leonard completely leaves out this addition to reality, leaving students to antagonize the States as a greedy and evil nation.

These problems can prove to be deleterious, especially with elementary school students. Show this same website to a group of high school students, who have already formed at least some bases of their opinions and worldly viewpoints, and, while being affect to some degree, they won't have their values flipped over completely. But elementary school students are just what they are: elementary school students, mere kids, to state, who are busy either watching the Disney Channel on TV or playing with their friends outside. Although I suppose that there is the possibility of a political prodigy who's more able than the average adult to engage in social controversies, we all have to rationally assume that most children haven't formed their exact social values yet. Show this to such students and their entire values might be decided for them. Yes, showing this website to elementary school students could have the desired effect of implementing early views that the environment simply must be saved (the all-too familiar solution to the current environmental inaction of the majority of the public: that we have to start teaching pro-environmental views to the new generation). But it also brings the danger that in the process, they will develop biased, wholly Leonard-based views that goes against the whole purpose of education: to teach them the basics, and to also raise their critical thinking abilities by providing them both sides of  things. Especially when considering that younger children tend to see more things in black and white, or good against evil, who knows what will happen when their education tells them that their government - and worse, the children themselves through the natural action of consuming goods - is terrorizing poor planet Earth? Perhaps this is another generalization, but you certainly don't see the average fourth-grader analyzing the political connotations of the video clip he saw at school; you see him thinking about the "good side" and the "bad side." It's happened before: in Korea, where Japan is usually antagonized by their history teachers, and many Koreans develop at least some sort of wariness or prejudice towards all Japanese.

What if, the Story of Stuff-advocate might claim, the elementary school teachers do use this website in a balanced manner? What if this website is actually being used to (its radical side being admitted) represent a certain side to the debate of consumerism and environmentalism? That through this material we are truly teaching our children the opinions of the left and the right? Very idealistic, but also very unlikely.The very characteristics of The Story of Stuff - its efficiency, its directness, and its clarity - reassure the teachers that it is the right material for elementary school students, simply because it looks and sounds like one. On the surface you certainly can't see the potential controversies of this video clip, especially if your primary task is seeking for material to use for your classroom.

So is The Story of Stuff appropriate to elementary school students? No. But is it suitable for the world at large? Yes. I'm not, despite my former aggressiveness, against either the conservation of the environment or Annie Leonard herself, whom I do respect for her intentions and educational action, if not for her botched statistics and educational policies. I do not wholly support Dobb's critique of The Story of Stuff, either.The problem today is not whether the environment must be saved, but whether the environment must be saved through hardening the political and social stances of the next generation in only one direction. Perhaps after the content, the statistics, and the diction are edited will The Story of Stuff be appropriate for elementary school students and in respect to the Lenoard's fundamental wishes: to save the environment. Delete some, fix some, leave some, and perhaps we'll be left with the truly "good stuff."



- A rather informal piece of writing about my thoughts.
+ Possible Motions:
THB that educational propaganda is protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech).
THB capitalism is the most suitable form of economy in modern society (somewhat weak and loosely related to this topic, though - still, related to the content of the actual video clip) 
THW let children participate in radical debates (discussions)

+ References
http://www.andybrain.com/qna/2007/12/07/annie-leonards-the-story-of-stuff-review-and-analysis/
"Annie Leonard's 'The Story of Stuff' review and analyses" - Like Dobb's rebuttals, this site also reviews and rebuts to some of the points on The Story of Stuff. I found the comments to the actual post more interesting.