The Monkey Wrench Gang Seminar Reflection

A common theme that my peers expressed throughout the

seminar was that each member of the monkey wrench gang had
personal almost selfish reasons for monkey wrenching, ranging from
religious ideology to the need for destruction. As Hayden expressed,
the characters in the book were just throwing a tantrum because
theyre pissed off with environmental destruction. This illuminated the
idea that maybe saving the environment wasnt every characters full
and or true intention for monkey wrenching. Throughout The Monkey
Wrench Gang, this was evident in the text, for example, when Seldom
Seen Smith was praying How about a little old precision-type
earthquake right under this dam?" I also found that their other motives
got in the way of their destructive success. As Lyle stated, the
characters are too narrow minded to be successful as a unit. In
general, the Gang was a motley group of misfits who bonded over what
seemed to be a common cause but whose ideals were often motivated
by other reasons that made them ineffectual.
The question that I felt was most intriguing was pondering if
monkey wrenching is justifiable or just a form of extreme
environmental terrorism? I personally believe that there are no
justifiable reasons to be destructive of property, potentially destroying
the homes of little critters and more of the ecosystem by blowing a
concrete slab to pieces. It is almost undermining the environmental
progress they are attempting to demonstrate. At a certain point in the
book I felt that monkey wrenching was somewhat pointless
destruction just to create a scene and draw attention to the
environmental cause. In the book when Hayduke stated, whats more
American than violence?, it reiterated that destruction was
perfunctory and not justifiable. Nick said during the seminar this is a
very selfish act with self motives. When someone believes in
something so strongly to become an extremist their rationality seems
to slowly disappear. Abbey wrote poor Hayduke won all of his
arguments but lost his immortal soul. Clearly, their passions fueled
their extremism and their extremism fueled a dangerous destructive
intent.
Loathing industrialization and blowing up a damn is no more
justifiable than loathing the United States and crashing two planes into
the World Trade Centers or beheading journalists. In the course of their
destructive actions, the characters of the book seemed determined to
justify their deeds and the violence of monkey wrenching. As
Hayduke claimed, my job is saving the fucking wilderness I dont know
anything else worth saving which he declared as a noble statement. I
am conflicted though, because although I see this great urge to save

the environment and I recognize how crucial and urgent it is, I am not
in agreement with using destructive force. Yet, in the back of my mind
it almost seems so urgent that these destructive actions are the only
ones loud enough to capture the worlds attention and focus. However,
destruction is never the solution. In an earlier chapter Abbey wrote
The wilderness once offered men a plausible way of life...now it
functions as a psychiatric refuge. Soon there will be no wilderness.
Soon there will be no place to go. Then the madness becomes
universal...and the universe goes mad. Maybe destruction of
industrialization is the only fast acting action to take or maybe not.
Abbeys writing, especially The Monkey Wrench Gang, is very
powerful to me and has introduced me to many new ideologies and
concepts that I either agree with or have expanded my thoughts. On a
very personal level I connect with Abbey and his characters; we share
a rage about what the human race has done to our planet. I feel the
same urgency and anger to help revive Gaia. Also In an odd way, I
connected this book to Cats Cradle since it seemed each character
lived by a different foma, which made each characters true intentions
for monkey wrenching different. These different fomas allowed each
character to create a justifiable ideological reason for being
destructive. I also related the book to the artist in Damnation who
paints the cut here marks on a dam; it was obviously a less
destructive metaphorical way of getting across what Abbey was trying
to convey.
I am still pondering whether or not civil disobedience is enough to
convey a message or if possibly destruction is the answer to draw
attention to a cause, but I am very conflicted with this concept. I feel
that I will find a solid viewpoint on this as I age and experience more in
life. I would love to participate in civil disobedience and maybe a little
minor destruction to see what comes of it. I also wonder still if
monkey wrenching is any more justifiable than Jihadist terroism, but
this opinion may also gel as I see the world through a broader lens.
Although my questions are unanswerable for now, I feel deeply
connected to Abbeys writing and concepts. He makes me ponder so
much that I get lost in a mess of contradictory thoughts and opinions.
This is obviously an amazing book if it leaves me with rhetorical
questions to answer throughout the course of my life.
Resist much obey little Walt Whitman

Self-Assessment
Perspective: I believe I deserve a B because I offered my opinions
and thoughts and spoke on topic. I also responded to multiple peers
ideas and attempted to challenge them by offering my own ideas.

Evidence/Text Reference: I deserve a B on this as well because I

backed up my claims/opinions with evidence and for seminar prepared
many quotes from the text to use as evidence. Also, all of my text
connections seemed to be relevant.
Communication and Clarification: I deserve a C in this because I
actively listened to my peers, tried to move the conversation, didnt
monopolize the seminar, connected back to the question, defined
concepts, and asked clarifying questions. I did not however
consistently clarify other students ideas nor did I consistently invite
others into the conversation.
Connections: I deserve a B in this because I connected the text back
to many personal and real world connections. I, however, did not make
a connection to other classes although I did connect it to other content
that weve learned in Humanities.
Seminar Leadership: I deserve a C because I did drop intellectual
bombs, posed original questions, and I try to clear up confusion. I did
not fully help others participate, and keep the group on topic. I tend to
fail in these categories, but I am still improving!