The Death of Hope

Derrick Jensen's "Beyond Hope" (pages 27-31) argues that hope is an impediment to action. The only people willing to act are the people that have gone beyond hope, that have taken responsibility into their own hands, and who have shed the crippling influence of society.

If you look at the definitions of "hope" and "optimism," you find that their meanings are very similiar:

Hope (n)-- "A wish or desire accompanied by confident expectation of its fulfillment"

Optimism (n) -- "A tendency to expect the best possible outcome or dwell on the most hopeful aspects of a situation"

I strongly disagree with Jensen's basic premise. In reality, he's just a pessimist who sees the world as gasping its last breath, with his mission to bring it back to life.

For all of the Earth's problems, it's not gasping. An exaggeration of the problem helps no one, and neither does looking through a pessimistic lense.

Jensen denies the distinction between "false hope" and "hope," but there is a real difference. The idiom "hope against hope" means "To hope with little reason or justification," but that's not what hope means. And hope doesn't mean that you are giving up the right to act.

In fact, people act from hope, and I'd much rather act from hope than despair. Action and hope are not opposites, and hope does not equal powerlessness.

Even in this political cycle, politicians have mocked Barack Obama's audacity to promote the idea of hope.

Perhaps Jensen was right in one regard. Perhaps he and his supporters really are dead, and that's not the compliment he would have it to be.