permaculture

["John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net>]

Aloha,

>> I'd rather permaculture 'the mainstream' (which IMO is a dangerously
mythical over-generalization anyhow) than mainstream permaculture.

> I'm interested in your comment about "permaculture the mainstream" (a
long-held desire in permaculture) as a "dangerously mythical
> over-generalization".

I was unclear in my free-form parenthization.  What I think is a
dangerously mythical over-generalization is "the mainstream."  If I do use
that term, I'd rather design from an intent to "permaculture the
mainstream" than "mainstream permaculture."  IMO it's not a trivial or
merely semantic distinction.  "How I do what I do is who I am becoming." 
Am I 'permaculturing' or am I 'mainstreaming'?

I'm thinking in terms of designing for increased understanding and
application of permaculture as a design system and practice, by itself or
within/around other design systems/practices.  Models of design I'm
familiar with involve activities for identifying 'stakeholders',
'clients', and other involved or related parties.

Using "the mainstream" is not specific enough to be IMO good design,
regardless of which way the phrase is turned.  Who are the stakeholders? 
Who are the clients?  What are the 'ultimate particulars' of the design?

Russ and Robyn's responses to my questions about TAFE, etc. (thanks for
the details!) provide some answers to those questions for that particular
design context.

What I'm suggesting is that whether one wishes to 'mainstream
permaculture' or 'permaculture the mainstream', "the mainstream" is not
useful as a design parameter.  We need to develop more specific contexts
in which to act.  The observations about roles and effects of
horticulturalists relative to community activists/organizers, etc. is an
example of such context development.



John Schinnerer, MA
-------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Cultural & Ecological Designing
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net