Can a car owner belong to the World Carfree Network…or would that be hypocritical? This is a question I have heard from people…if I still drive, if I still like my car, but I agree with some or most of what WCN is all about, can I still be a member? Is it possible and proper to both drive and work against cars?
Mind you, I know a thing or two about this hypocrisy issue. I don’t believe in wasting water, so I collect used water (greywater) from washing clothes and dishes in a bucket and use that to flush the toilet. The bucket gets heavy. Soapy water stinks after a couple days. I worry that watering my plants with fresh water could make me a hypocrite: should I get rid of the plants? I also realize that my energies would be better expended fighting for greywater reuse systems in the building code than in lugging buckets around my home. Instead, I have to hope that I am sufficiently annoying my husband that he will do so…while I try to get my other work done. It’s not a great compromise, and I’d feel better focusing on the work with the bigger impact than the minor lifestyle change that is, indeed, only a drop in the bucket in a city of 12 million people.
So I’m actually a bit happier with my decision to accept getting into a car occasionally as long as I remind myself that I would be willing to undergo a fair amount of effort and discomfort – walking long distances in the rain while lugging groceries, for instance – to get by without a car, if alternatives really existed. And in the meantime, I’ll work hard to realize that vision, comfortable in the knowledge that even if I am a hypocrite, I’m in good company…and it sure beats sitting comfortably in a car, oblivious to the effect on my city, secure in the knowledge that at least I’m not a hypocrite.
One of the most useful things I’ve read in recent years is Neil Postman’s claim that there are worse things in life than being a hypocrite. (Bless you, Mr. Postman. According to most accounts I’ve seen there are no cars in heaven, so I assume that you are enjoying a peaceful and happy existence there.) Postman made his case in defending himself against those who say that it is hypocritical to want something better for children than for adults: if attempting to defend children from some of the uglier aspects of life is hypocritical, he writes, well then, the alternative is even worse.
And thus goes my argument: it is probably not hypocritical for car owners to want (and more importantly, to work for) carfree cities…and even if it were, it is better to be a hypocrite than to accept what we’ve got and stop fighting for something better.
The simple realities of the case are that unless you’re very fortunate in where you live –or too poor to buy one – you will need a car unless you’re willing to make sometimes extraordinary efforts to get by without one. Most cities punish rather than reward non car-users, and few of us relish the status of 3rd class citizens and all that involves (being pushed to the side of the road, cycling through bone-jarring potholes and at the risk of serious injury or death, subjecting yourself to noise and fumes while on foot and being forced to wait long intervals to cross a street while cars go sailing past…). Rural areas are typically even worse. Where walking and cycling are unpleasant and require a strong commitment to suicidal behaviour, it is no wonder if people prefer the safety, comfort and convenience of a car. Too bad about the expense, the environmental harm, the waste of space, and the consequences to others – what choice do we have?
But it is one thing to continue driving because one sees no other choice and quite another to believe that no other choices can or should exist. And there is the crucial point. Reluctantly accepting reality while working resolutely to change it would more accurately be labelled heroism than hypocrisy.
It helps to remember that the easiest way not to be a hypocrite is to set one’s standards very low. According to Webster’s, a hypocrite is “one who affects virtues or qualities he does not have”. If you have no values, you never have to worry about betraying yourself.
In the end I suspect the hypocrisy argument, in its various guises, is paraded out to prevent people from trying to become better, in order to make those who never try feel better about themselves. Nothing could be easier than scoffing at others; one needn’t do anything positive oneself, but simply point out where those who are trying to do good things have contradicted themselves. We do ourselves – and future generations – no favour when we fall for such flimsy criticism. Would we really have been better off if Abraham Lincoln, being consistent, had not abolished slavery? If car owners can help end our enslavement to cars, they are more than welcome in the movement.
Written by Debra Efroymson
