Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] On the edge

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Gaden@ziplip.com" <Gaden@ziplip.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] On the edge
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:10:37 -0700 (PDT)

Re: Toby Hemenway - 'People Without Cash' response

"So give me a break, eh?"

Absolutely! Not a problem, Toby. I quite enjoyed your response. My comments
here are not based on continuence of previous posts. That's done and closed.
You raised some interesting points here, I'd like to refer to them.

"by "skills and experience" I was referring to marketable skills"

I didn't know that. For me, the validity of skills or experiences isn't
necessarily measured by its 'marketability'. But that's cool, I can see where
you are coming from with that interpretation.

"single mothers without money often lack marketable skills....We have a
simple, ugly truth"

Relax, I'm not trying to be confronting. Yeah I do have a difficulty with
that passage. It's the ease with which this statement flows from the dual
pre-condition of 'single mother' & 'without money" to the conclusion 'lacks
marketable skills'. May lack, or sometimes lack, fair enough. But often,
seems to presume A + B = C. Arguable causality. Sometimes true but not
necessarily.

"Or is it that you don't think my statement is true?"

And that's the crux of this whole debate, Toby. No, I don't believe there is
necessarily a direct causal link between wealth and skills. Yes, there can be
a link, but it shouldn't be assumed to be such.

This simply represents a difference of opinion. Possibly one that relates to
us having quite different experiential backgrounds. Either way, no problem.
It is only a discussion, bloke.

Maybe this is flogging the horse, but I'll try to give an example. I tend to
wander in my discussions but I'll try to keep on track.

You mention what you call the 'involuntary poor' and a range of causal
factors. One of the things you propose that may alleviate this is
training/education. Sensible suggestion.

Social commentators like Ivan Illich & John Taylor Gatto would argue that
most of what passes for education here in America is less about skilling and
more about social conditioning.

"social engineering that condemns most people to be subordinate stones in a
pyramid that narrows to a control point as it ascends. "School" is an
artifice which makes such a pyramidal social order seem inevitable." Gatto

Achievers within such systems may be those who are most able to adapt to the
dominant social paradym. (know how to work the system) Some people may have
skillsets which are not compatible with that particular paradym. They are not
unskilled but they may lack what you describe as 'marketable skills'. That
doesn't make those skillsets irrelevant.

Sometimes, the dominant social paradym changes, leaving behind an age cohort
whose skills are no longer compatible with the changed paradym. What Alvin
Toffler calls 'Future Shock'.

English colonial period in India saw the widespread compulsory acquisition of
small traditional farms. These were aggregated into large-scale monocultures
with the introduction of non-traditional crop species. Highly skilled
micro-agraian farm managers and artisans became 'unskilled' serfs within a
foreign feudal system. Independance became dependance. Minimalist
self-sufficiency became poverty.

In other instances, the failure to adapt may be behavioual. When I was
teaching young people within the government education system, I often came
across youngsters deemed to have all manner of behavioural & social
problems, learning difficulties etc. The trend was to medicate them into
submission. Often though, they were good kids. They just didn't fit in to
that system.

Again, it wasn't that they were unskilled (or unskillable) but that their
skillsets were not valued by the system. So they drifted into other
counter-culture systems where their skillsets did have relevance.
Unfortunately, many of these counter-cultures are ultimately self-destructive.

I don't know. Does that make my views any clearer? In all seriousness, Toby,
I'm not trying to headbutt you. I'm not trying to 'dis' you or paint you bad.
We simply have a fundamental disagreement about the causal relationship
between wealth (good system player) and skills (systemic relevance).
Probably because we are accessing different referential pools of life
experiences. I can live with that. That's cool.

"...instead of anything resembling a genuine attempt, as Jamie kindly
suggests, to comprehend that person's meaning."

Now I don't get that. Isn't that exactly what we are doing? Isn't dialogue
all about assertion, challange, clarification? Isn't it a 'to and fro'
process?

In this medium, the process is becomes more drawn out because of the inherent
lag time between responses. And the lack of immediacy in conversational
feedback. Then throw in a few other communication hurdles like cross-cultural
communications, differing experiential backgrounds etc. etc. It might get a
bit confused, might get a bit contentious. But if we can't make it work here,
what hope in making work 'out there'?

The only reason I've persisted with this thread is to allow the process of
dialogue to run its course. It is not a point scoring exercise. It's about
presenting ideas, which sometimes may appear at odds with each other. That's
why I posted my original response. (as opposed to silent seditious offline
whisperings) It was a mark of respect for you, not an obtuse challenge.

Social experimentation/discourse. Unity through diversity. Honouring the
turbulence of the edge. The edge isn't always a comfortable place, but it can
be productive. And rarely boring....

Peace to you, Tobias

Gaiden





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page