permaculture

[Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>]

I guess it is the nature of the beast, permaculture, that there will be a
wide diversity of people and ideas that want to attach to or amend the
basic permaculture curriculum.  I am very much against that and
believe that the success of permaculture around the world has been
because it has remained a knowledge and data based design system. 
If you look at recent successes in enrolling governmental projects into
permaculture like Permaculture Research Institute working with the UN
refugee program in Bosnia and with the US Army at the Louisiana Army
Ammunition Plant designing a conversion of that facility into an
ecological industrial park, or with the United Nations Development
Program in Brazil which supported 18 permaculture courses last year then
it is easy to understand that moving into zone 00 or  zone 6 would
be met with glazed eyes and discomfort.

Permaculture has always left the metaphysical and psychological to other
disciplines or teachers.  I think it has been with good reason since
we are trying to convince people and institutions across the board that
we offer a system of design that will restore and revitalize destroyed
ecosystems as well as provide food and comfort to an ever expanding
population of the underprivileged.  In these areas I have no doubt
that permaculture has a very positive and lasting impact and that we can
walk our talk.  Once we slide into radionics, crystal land healing,
daevas, cloud busters, etc I fear we will lose most of our
audience.  Working in cultures that have a very strong cultural
tradition of magic and witchcraft like many African cultures you may be
treading where you would rather not go.

Like others who have written on this subject I have nothing against
people following whatever metaphysical path they find comforts them and
works for them, I find that Animism is the path that I resonate with, but
I would hope that people will keep their spiritual and political beliefs
out of permaculture.  This can be done, as Marsha Hanzi points out,
by using a different title or name for your teaching so that their is
clear differentiation between ones personal belief system and
permaculture. Just as some people have come to understand permaculture as
a gardening system, which is a severe diminishment of permaculture,
others may see it as a meditation system, or religious path which would
severely restrict our audience and thereby the good that we might
accomplish.

This conversation is at least fifteen years old and still evokes a lot of
emotion whenever it comes up but for me this is because there is a basic
misunderstanding that could easily be solved.  Permaculture, for me,
is clearly laid out and defined in Permaculture A Designer's
Manual anything outside of the general themes described in Bill's
book needs to be carefully looked out before being added to the
Permaculture Curriculum.  I know for a fact that Bill never intended
to incorporate psychology, politics, or metaphysics into
permaculture.  What is the problem with dealing with those items
separate from permaculture?  If people who attend my classes want to
talk about Feng Shui, or Geomancy I tell them I will meet them after
class and we can talk about it then but that neither of the topics is
part of the Permaculture Design Process.  This approach has never
seemed to cause any problems with my students.

It seems that many who would like to expand permaculture to include the
belief systems of the world take it very personally when they are met
with resistance from more conservative and traditional permaculture
teachers like me.  It is never a personal matter with me but a
matter of keeping clear boundaries between what can be clearly
demonstrated and replicated and those things that are a matter of faith
or belief.

Scott