From Wikipedia:
“The origin of the term is an archaic dative plural form of lag (“law”), in this case referring not necessarily to judicial law but common sense law. A translation of this could be “according to common sense”. A popular folk etymology claims that it is a contraction of “laget om” (“around the team”), a phrase used in Viking times to specify how much mead one should drink from the horn as it was passed around in order for everyone to receive a fair share. This story is recounted widely, including on the website of the Swedish Institute.”

It’s a concept that’s creeping into US culture (the shift from consumerism to transumerism is an early sign). Our generation especially has embraced the idea that if we each have our needs met sufficiently, and not to excess, then there will be enough to go around.

We recognize rampant consumerism has contributed to many of the disparities and inequities on earth. We’re willing to “settle” with sufficiency in the name of peace, sustainability and equal opportunity.

We’re the Sufficiency Generation. That’s lagom.

(But let’s be honest. Some freelance reporter or blogger is going to name us, on accident probably.)

The Climate Movement, the Movement to Stop Climate Change, the New Economy Movement, the Sustainability Movement, the Movement for Peace and Justice… Names work partly because they are descriptive enough for people to use them. I’m not convinced the name is as crucial as what we say right after (or before the name). Its ok to have an identity around a narrower issue if we can still network and stand in solidarity with, and cross pollinate with activist in a wide range of causes. All the while bringing in people who don’t identify as activists but have every reason to demand a change in the world.

yeah, lets keep working on this one.

If you think you have an idea of how we can go about doing that in a strategic way, in a way that gets results and builds our power, there will absolutely be people passionate to work on it.

BTW, I’ve always thought it a bit odd to classify ourselves as the “climate change movement.” After all, it was the civil rights movement, not the racial discrimination and segregation movement. We should capture and convey what we’re fighting for, not what we’re fighting against.

For example, we are the target market for many News Corporation products, including movies like Avatar and TV shows like Glee. We may not have much direct influence over how climate change is presented on Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, but we can cripple the parent company by organizing a national protest against all their holdings, and use this lever to change how climate is reported in their subsidiaries.

The trouble is that we tend to *like* those services that are intended for our consumption. We can fume about ridiculous media portrayals of climate issues, but we are not the group they are trying to sell to with that reporting. We are, however, an enormous part of the parent companies’ overall revenue stream, and if we put our foot down, they will change their line.

Is it too much to ask the Youth Climate Movement to challenge News Corp?

But as you point out, although climate is better, it may still be too limiting. So what term, then, do we use to describe this movement?

It’s not a silly question. People make sense of the world around them through language, and our choice of words influences their perceptions. I think that we need a term to describe this movement, beyond just “The Movement,” as if this was the only one in the world. Settling on a description of our movement allows people to identify with it, to tangibly perceive that they are a part of something larger, something imaginable, something with momentum.

My concern with focusing on economic uncertainties, while an important and immediate concern for many, is that is based on mechanisms of trade and development which reinforce the necessity of current economic systems. True, we can talk about redefining economic systems, but again, that will be an uphill battle like reclaiming “environmental.”

We need to look at what the common concerns of our generation and find a term inspiring and descriptive, yet not exclusive. This is a difficult thing to deliberately seek, but we may as well start the conversation. So what are we?

The innovation generation? The longevity movement? the prosperity movement?

These are late-night thoughts off the top of my head, but it’s a serious question: How can we redefine our movement to be more inclusive and more mainstream?