Metronatural: Discussion about the appearance but not substance of environmental lifestyles
Look at the picture of the underwear ad, and ask yourself how wearing fashionable panties prepares you for recreational activities, the hearty outdoors (notice the ice and mountain climbing background in the ad), or an active lifestyle. Seattle’s slogan “Metronatural” is believed to capture the spirit of the Northwest, big city and eco-friendly–urban lifestyle and rugged nature–all in one place. But what exactly is Seattle selling?
I am asking for comments and conversation regarding a conference presentation that I’m giving with two colleagues at the Rhetoric Society of America. We are questioning “The Rhetoric of Seattle,” or, in other words, we’re highlighting both the good and the shortcomings of the cultural way of thinking that makes sense in the Pacific Northwest. Please read our proposal below (click on the link) and add your two cents’ worth. I am hoping to instigate a lively blog discussion here, to stimulate my thinking and provide ideas for audience participation at the conference. So please read, comment, read comments, comment on comments, etc. Thanks!
March 20, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I think the ad represents Seattlelites’ desire to be earthy hipsters. To be good environmentalists who also benefit from a materialistic society of IPods and rock shows. I think the NorthWest is defined by incongruity.
March 20, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Ooooh, I like what Noella said about incongruity. My response is no where near as intelligent sounding.
I am not a Seattlite, and when I was living in Seattle, I felt a bit like a resident alien. One story I have about the culture of Seattle is when I was moving back home. The movers came to my apt in Seattle and packed up my whole house. At one point, I stopped from filling out all the paperwork (a ploy to keep owners out of the workers’ hair while they packed), and went to see the guy who was packing all my dishes. I guess I must have had a look on my face because he said something like, “now don’t say we’re using too much paper because this is what’s going to get your stuff to arrive safely.” To which my reply was, “Don’t worry I’m not from Seattle; use as much paper as you need to cuz I don’t want mu stuff to break.”
I figured the guy must have gotten a lot of comments/complains about how much packing materials they used–and it was a LOT of paper. (You really can tell how much it is when you UNpack.) But it never occurred to me to use less. Of course, now 4 years after my move home, my family, friends and I are still re-using the paper!
Anyway, back to your question about the eco-panties. I think the “natural” part of “metronatural” is to appeal to the eco-ethical side of Seattlites. And while some are willing to sacrifice high fashion or convenience for their principles/firm commitment to the environment, “metronatural” suggests that they can still be fashionable without being hypocritical. (It’s a bit like being a vegetarian to protest cruelty to animals, but still being able to have a cool leather bag or shoes.) I see it as saying, you don’t have to sacrifice being sexy (I mean, look at the model’s pose and facial expression) to be eco-friendly.
That’s my first impression. I’ll check back again later to see what others think and refine my answer.
March 20, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Oops, that last post was me (if you couldn’t tell). Forgot to change the name field.
And since I’m posting again, I noticed in the picture that the panties aren’t cut in that super-sexy Victoria’s secret kind of way. I think the cut even is to appeal to the more “natural” woman–a little more about comfort and less about trying to look like a supermodel with legs that won’t quit?
March 20, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I think of it as a case of hiding one thing inside the other–i.e. who really likes to be eco-friendly? It’s only fun in proportion as it’s sexy. Inversely, we don’t feel bad liking sexiness if it’s sexiness of the earthy variety. Rather than Seattle being “defined by incongruity”, I would say it’s defined by a studied opacity, wherein we hide desires we’re ashamed of by blurring the lines that delineate those desires.
March 20, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Wow, what smart comments! JUICY.
Beyong the panties, what do you guys think of the slogan that Seattle paid $200,000 for? And the lifestyle it sells? As my colleagues and I say in the proposal: “The promise of urban pleasures available within reach of outdoor recreation is a seductive lure because it offers simultaneous conservation and conquest of nature. The ideology of metronatural implies the global responsibilities of ecosensitivity and sustainability, but metronatural practices entail contradictory habits of consumerism and waste. While ecological beliefs and behaviors are essential, the selling of Seattle’s rhetoric, both as a marketing tool and as an urban perspective, must be critiqued.”
March 21, 2008 at 4:31 am
Who wouldn’t pout, dressed like that on a glacier?
I dunno–I kind of like “metronatural.” Compared to suburbanites, aren’t urban people easier on the environment? They don’t have long commutes and they can’t afford big houses. Is it any more hypocritical than ecotourism (burning a ton of fossil fuels to go somewhere and appreciate the natural environment)?
I grew up backpacking. I know very well that even that underwear model would like like hell after three nights in a tent with no hot water. But when my authentically “ruralnatural” brother started making sarcastic comments about the luxury resort that had been put up down the road from us, which drew people from the city who thought they were roughing it because they could see evergreens from their windows while they sipped their room-service hot chocolate, I told him to give it a rest because they were all going to go home feeling so woodsy that they’d pull out their checkbooks and make out a great big donation to Sierra Club. Perhaps “metronatural” is a useful fiction.
March 21, 2008 at 4:49 am
I like how Julie puts it: “perhaps ‘metronatural’ is a useful fiction.”
Without a doubt there is much to be appreciated in even the *appearance* of valuing the natural environment. I’d rather have the “granola” value system that Seattle favors than NOT have it.
But there is also the point at which it needs to be real, and I’m wondering how to know when we’ve reached that point.
March 21, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Cathy, do we ever know when anything gets to the point of being “real”? I think that’s a fiction in and of itself.
I agree with Julie that metronatural is a useful fiction. Or that it can be. I think the danger is when people aren’t really doing more good than harm. That is, being even a little better than we are about reducing waste is better than nothing (saving say 50 tons worth of landfill is a drop in the bucket, but it’s still 50 tons less and after 10 years it adds up). However, in SOME of these so called eco-friendly products, campaigns, etc. the end result doesn’t actually save anything; some do MORE damage, but we feel better about it because it’s called “natural” or “environmentally-friendly.”
Also to comment on Julie’s comment about urbanites being easier on the environment than suburbanites, yes, I have heard this and it makes sense to me (although I haven’t see any hard supporting evidence). It has to do with a lot of factors, but it does include the significantly reduced need for transportation (use less fuel and thus also produce less pollution). For me, I like the fact that it also then leaves more space for nature. Humans, houses, concrete and pavement are not spread out all over the place–connecting roads, strip malls and large manicured lawns. Makes room for more native plants–or at least plants better suited to the environment. My aunt lives in Vegas and the city at one point tried to give incentives to get residents to give up their lawns. Takes too much water to maintain a nice lawn in a dessert! Owners would get money if they switched to gravel or rock or something.
Anyway, so back to the rhetoric of Seattle (sorry, Cathy, I digressed for a moment) … I still think for me the rhetoric used here to “sell” Seattle–as being the best of both worlds, metro and natural–is an attempt to tell people they can have it all/they don’t have to sacrifice/they don’t have to put principles over desires, they don’t have to feel guilty about wanting it all. I am uncomfortable with this binary system, though, that’s been created by having “metro” on the one hand and “natural” on the other. Any time I am presented with only 2 seemingly opposing choices I am skeptical. (It’s yes or no, right or wrong, gay or straight, black or white, coke or pepsi. I mean, come on, doesn’t this leave out a whole slew of other options that might be more suitable, feasible, effective, efficient?)
On a slightly different, but related note: Cathy (or others) would you say that other consumer markets like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods feeds into this ideal of metronatural? The food is more “natural,” organic, etc. but still packaged as a very convenient product to be bought and consumed (and also waste to be thrown away).
Anyway, Cathy, I can see what you mean about the city and then conservation-conquest of nature. I don’t get that from the ad about panties (although she is in front of the glacier), but I see it in the larger rhetoric of the city. Seattle has a nice “metro” of art, theatre, sports, waterfront, restaurants, etc. But is close to “natural” areas for hiking, skiing, backpacking, rafting, etc. Again, having it all. It’s like saying you can live NEAR nature, without being IN nature. Close but not too close? Does that also tie in with the idea of the pristine, untouched, dare I say virgin wilderness? (We get this a lot in reference to Hawai’i as paradise–which is now covered with hotels and time-shares–not unlike Julie’s brother’s neighboring luxury resort. Warn your brother, Julie, hotels are like bugs, if you see one, that means there are dozens hiding in the woodwork! Get some combat or raid before they take over!)
Anyway, Cathy, (I digressed again!), I like your idea of the global responsibilities vs. consumerism which preys on individual desires (although I think is still social pressures–not unlike global responsibilities as social pressure). Hmm, that’s what I forgot to say before. I think the metronatural ad is a counter argument to the more Vegas-like marketing of uber indulgence. This is indulgence with a conscience. Anyway, ok so … ok. I also like the “seductive lure” of “simultaneous conservation and conquest of nature”–this for me goes way back to those books (you can tell I’m not a lit major)/movies about man conquering nature. Western frontier, Alaska wilderness, climbing Mt Everest, skiing the K9 (or whatever). Man vs. nature. But modern rhetoric is changing. Many are pushing a more paternal relationship–man as caretaker of nature, man as protector of nature (it’s kinda like the fox guarding the hen house though–or man protects nature against other men?). So, this combined/blended/contradictory rhetoric is trying to appeal to both of these strong tropes (I don’t know if that’s the right word)–to reconcile these roles that have been constructed for us.
Okay, I’ll stop here. And check back later. Cathy, I’d like to hear more about what you/your panel proposed–and what you’re thinking now, if that’s changed.
March 21, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I also wanted to say as an aside that I think it’s hubris to think that man can be the guardian of nature. There are too many instances of how our lack of knowledge and underestimation of nature has only made things worse. There are many examples in Hawai’i alone. And apparently, we are on the verge of making one more. Doesn’t anyone ever learn from history?
March 22, 2008 at 4:08 am
Lovin’ all your sassy and sexy and savvy thoughts, there, Mere. While I’ll have to digest them one at a time, I want to respond here to one in particular (and I’m likely to start a revolt at this opinion): Trader Joes.
OMG. Talk about THE quintessential metronatural, it’s that store. I looked it up online and found comments that called it a cross between Wall-Mart and Ben and Jerry’s.
A new Trader Joe’s just went in for the first time in my precious, more-natural-than-Seattle granola city of Bellhingham. The residents here went loco!!!! I was DISGUSTED. (And any Bellinghamsters who read this, I know I’ve just committed blasphemy.)
Every INDIVIDUAL piece of “organic” food is packaged in swaths of plastic. WTF?? Look at the origin of 99% of the merchandise. New Jersey is NOT an instance of our ideology here to “buy local.”
In fact, in the strip-mall where Trader Joe’s built their store, there was a local video store owned by one of the few African-Americans in this town, and along with the other local small businesses there, was forced out. The reason? Trader Joe’s corporate business policy is that no other stores in the shopping strip may rent space if they are not chain stores!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Side story: this particular video store is owned by a guy who has ties to New Orleans. After Katrina, the owner single-handedly raised community support for 3 truck-loads of water and food and goods. The owner himself paid for the trucks and gas for the cross-country trip. I think he mortaged his business to fund the project.)
Needless to say, I am NOT a fan of Trader Joe’s. For the very reasons I now critique the shortcomings of the notion of “metronatural.”
As Mere says above: “However, in SOME of these so called eco-friendly products, campaigns, etc. the end result doesn’t actually save anything; some do MORE damage, but we feel better about it because it’s called ‘natural’ or ‘environmentally-friendly.’ ” Or, I would add, low-priced.
(By the way, I would encourage all you readers to read the conference proposal, not just my opening paragraph on this blog. Here again is that text.)
“Metronatural Seductions: Selling Seattle’s Rhetoric”
Seattle’s tourism slogan “metronatural” is the newly coined $200,000 tagline that describes the city’s geographical and ideological blend of urban lifestyle and pastoral philosophy. Metronatural, according to Seattle’s Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, characterizes both Seattle, a fast-paced “metropolis within wild, beautiful natural surroundings” and the Seattleite who “respects the environment and lives a balanced lifestyle of urban and natural experiences.”
The promise of urban pleasures available within reach of outdoor recreation is a seductive lure because it offers simultaneous conservation and conquest of nature. The ideology of metronatural implies the global responsibilities of ecosensitivity and sustainability, but metronatural practices entail contradictory habits of consumerism and waste. While ecological beliefs and behaviors are essential, the selling of Seattle’s rhetoric, both as a marketing tool and as an urban perspective, must be critiqued. The notion of “the natural” is already a rhetorical construction, but co-opting nature for urban capitalism results in an irresponsible environmentalism and a lifestyle based in Baudrillard’s simulacra.
This multi-modal roundtable presentation interrogates Seattle’s rhetoric in order to assess both benefits and consequences of a metronatural mindset. The five panelists will use as entry points five imperatives common to discussions of natural lifestyles: “eat” organics, “drink” pure water, “feel” a connection with nature, “do” (bicycle, walk, etc.), and “act” (recycle, compost, wear natural textiles, etc.). The panelists—all Pacific Northwesterners—will reflect on ways they’ve been constructed by Seattleite rhetoric, although they do not all agree upon the extent of critique necessary to examine it nor the degree of tension between real and artifice. They will initiate audience discussion via brief introductions (4-5 minutes each) using images, narratives, and a slide show; then they will invite participants to a lively appreciation and deconstruction of metronatural rhetoric.
The objective of the roundtable is twofold: to advocate the rhetoric of Seattle’s sensitivity to ecological concerns, but also to undermine unquestioned consumption of ideology (and the retail products) that sells the image without the responsibility it implies.
March 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Great discussion.
Just to play devil’s advocate about the Trader Joe’s thing… it is an interesting predicament. Yes, the plastic shrink-wrapped, well-traveled produce runs counter to the idea of buying local, etc. On the other hand, TJ’s IS cheaper than most stores. Is it better to buy the organic produce from far away that is packaged in unfriendly ways…or to buy regular produce? Better for the environment? Better for individual health?
Where I live now opportunities for buying organic food are pretty limited. For the most part, it’s Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. Whole Food’s produce is rich and colorful and NOT wrapped in plastic. It’s also WAY expensive. I can’t afford to shop at Whole Foods. I can afford Trader Joe’s. What do I do there?
To bring this back to the metronatural, I guess the problem for me is the correlation between metronatural and MONEY! Let’s face it: Seattle ain’t metronatural for all Seattleites. I’m not just critiquing Seattle here; being able to live the “eco-chic” lifestyle is a luxury. As one of my friends put it the other day: nature is the modern cultural currency. To which I now want to add that the currency doesn’t circulate freely (for a whole lotta reasons).
March 25, 2008 at 3:32 pm
It’s a little embarrassing to admit I was trying to avoid this blog by talking with you directly, Cathy. I hate blogging. It makes me feel weird. Ha!
I live in Seattle; no one that I know in Seattle (and I’ve asked everyone I know because the phrase is icky) has heard Metronatural, and we listen to NPR even. Seattle may be calling itself Metronatural in trade publications, but the word is not buzzing around town via inhabitants having conversations about the phrase. I think that is interesting.
I, like Mere, feel like a bit of an alien in this city, and what I’m about to say is from my etic perspective even after living here for five years. Seattle is just as consumerist and (hmm…what is the opposite of green….gray?) as Houston, TX; it just buys products that create the illusion that harm is mitigated and good is accomplished.
Trader Joe’s is, Cathy, a good example of the whole picture. Yes, the food is cheaper; yes, that means something to many many many people (including me and three hungry kiddoes). That does not change the fact that TJs is trading on the idea that you are doing something GOOD for the planet, your neighborhood and your body when you shop their store – none of which is as true as they say. The reason TJs is a good example is because, like Seattle, the rhetoric runs counter to the action. The rhetoric is “yummy healthy organic food”; the action is individual plastic wrap. The rhetoric is “your neighborhood store”; the action is no non-chain businesses competing (interesting particularly because I smell a bit of fear of local competition in that policy…yay!). For Seattle, the rhetoric is “city living where your values (greenyness) matter”; the reality is this is a city where money gets you around any pesky city planning ordinances that would keep developers from making maximum dollars due to silly environmental concerns. The rhetoric is “you’re on the edge of nature”; the reality is that that edge has grown by 20 miles in each direction (save into the sound) in the last ten years.
The slogan is, in my opinion, meant to assuage the guilt by assuring us that we are only buying what is necessary for the good of the planet. But buying isn’t necessarily good. If you need something – food – then do your best. Good on you. What if you don’t need it, though. The question of need (do we need these things we’re buying or will we be throwing them out when REI has a new color) is not part of the Metronatural equation. Metronatural means all the consumerism and feckless living of any old city with a schmear of “sold at REI” or “organic cotton” thrown on top. Here comes the most obnoxious comment yet: the laundry list of ways products and services are advertised in Seattle, and perhaps other places as well, is the “hail Mary” or “our father” of the early 21st century…”shade grown, fair trade, biodynamic, Leeds certified……full of grace”
Love and miss you, Cathy.
March 26, 2008 at 12:49 am
What a fascinating discussion. All over the topic of rhetoric!
Though I understand that the English language must, and does, evolve, I dislike the idea that a purchased word can be slid into our vocabulary. My how I love my Tivo and the grand ability to fly by all that advertising rhetoric. I shiver at the thought that when listening to NPR, I will hear “metronatural” as if it were a real word versus a Pinnochian construct. Does that bulging $200,000 wallet offset their noses growing longer?
You see, for me “metronatural” is a lie. It rings hollow, even way up here to Bellingham. What does it mean…bears partying on a subway? If a tree falls in the woods and nobody’s there, does it suddenly look glam or just deforested? Is that sound I do hear fingernails on a chalkboard?
$200,000. $200,000? Give the money to some land trust and trust that Seattle has enough of its own charms not to need an ad campaign. We moved to the Pacific Northwest from a long ways off and we didn’t need no stinkin’ bastardization of the English language to seduce us here. In fact, if I’d heard the term “metronatural” I might have turned tail and run the other way.
March 27, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I am fascinated that this conversation has (inevitably?) turned to the argument of the “bastardization of the English language”–which some of you know is a phrase of interest to me. For me, and I would ask Bliss if this is part of the reaction of … horror, aghast, offense? … that the word was bought–that someone (or a group) was PAID to come up with a new word. In the grander scheme of things, I don’t consider $200K a large sum of money, but of course, I wouldn’t pay any amount (of my own money) for someone to come up with a new word.
For me, I’m not so upset that there is a new word–I kind of like new words–like verbal hygiene or whatever–but for me the fun factor does involve the meaning of the word. I’m not sure what “metronatural” means (which is why I like coming back to this discussion) and depending on how this word gets used and circulated, I may decide I don’t like it. Like Bliss said, “it rings hollow” and so I think, what kind of word is that? I love that “do’h” has made it into the Oxford English Dictionary, but I may not want “metronatural” to get an entry just yet.
Also, I love that Lori said that “the edge of nature” has been pushed back by 20 miles–so again, are we more “metro” than we are “natural”? Or, that our “metro” needs/desires outweigh in the end our “natural” interests?
March 28, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I’ve been lately reading a good deal about dialect, change, and the evolution of language, getting ready to teach linguistics next quarter. Just watched the documentary “Do You Speak American?” last night and enjoyed Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil/Lehrer) touring the West coast, tracking language change. So, like Mere, I like how words change.
And that’s what makes this discussion so interesting–that the ideas are really a result of words. Rhetoric. How we make meaning with words. The social rhetoric of what makes sense.
Which is why studying of “the rhetoric of ____” (fill in the blank with whatever issue of concern you might want to explore) is pertinent. It’s not the word “metronatural” that is questionable for me, but the idea it conveys IF that idea is an appearance of environmental lifestyle without the substance of it.
March 29, 2008 at 9:20 pm
So Cathy, have you drafted your talk yet? I’d love to see what you wrote!
April 1, 2008 at 1:36 am
First I go to NOLA for C’s. Then on the next Friday, I give a conference presentation of the new media research I’m doing (got a nice little grant to study it with a grad student). Then I’ll write the paper for RSA. Since it’s a “special format” session, there is supposed to be lots of audience interaction. So we might do less of a paper and more of a group discussion. Wish you could be there!
April 1, 2008 at 8:37 am
Ahh, yes, I forgot about all the fabulous academic things you guys are doing. Riki said she’s headed out to the Cs also. I wish I could go with you all. =( I would love to go to RSA also, but I can’t afford it.
I just saw the CFP for Western States in Oct. It looks really good. Right up my alley–theme is culture and writing. Scott Lyons is the keynote speaker. I don’t really have a burning desire to go to Montana, but that’s where it’s going to be this year. I’m sure there are worse places to be. I’m not sure that I can afford to go to Western States in Oct either, but it’s pretty tempting given the topic and keynote.
Anyway, have a good trip! And stay healthy. Busy times like these, people tend to get sick.
April 1, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Talk about being sick! I’ve had an uber-cold bug for 3 weeks! Just when I started to recover, I relapsed. Yuck. But after several trips to the health food store (and one useless trip to the doctor), I’m finally feeling better today.
Speaking of conferences in Oct. I’m on a panel for the Hofstra Conference in Oct. The theme is “Who Owns Writing?” My new work on self-sponsored digital literacy is right up that alley. Yeah.
The same week asHofstra is the Watson Conference. It’s bigger and more popular. I wanted to go there too, but I’m glad I can’t do both. Too crazy.
Ever since that last Western States conference all 6 of us went to in San Fransisco, I’ve ditched WSRLC as a legit conference possibility. Remember how awful it was? But I do love that god-awful picture of the 6 of us right before we spoke. Remember that?