permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>]

rafter wrote:

> Teaching Pc for, and to, white nationalists, would be bad for the movement. 

I think this gets to one of the central confusions of this discussion, and 
why at times we are talking past each other (and BTW, I know someone who 
taught a PDC for white ideologists, who told me that a lot of important 
insights came out--for the instructor as well). 

I think we fall into two camps: those who view permaculture as a movement, 
and those who view it as a design approach. Of course, most of us--myself 
included--hold portions of both views, but I think one will predominate in 
each person. 

If you think of Pc as a movement, then we are activists who are trying to 
transform people's view of the world, and we need everyone to see it our way. 
We are right. Permaculture is then a worldview, an ideology of sorts, and 
people need to do it our way, or the wrong side will win. And our ideology 
needs to remain pure and uncorrupted.  If the wrong people infiltrate us, 
permaculture will become tainted, ruined, and it will turn into something we 
don't want. You are either following it or not; you're with us or against us, 
and if you are against us, you need to be transformed.You can see that I 
don't like the idea of Pc being a movement, even though I'm often caught up 
in its evangelical qualities. And it's not a big step from being a movement 
to being a cult, which some accuse permaculture of being. Some of the 
arguments made here are almost cult-like: we have secret knowledge that needs 
to be kept from the army or they will do harm with it. 

Or the other view: If permaculture is a design approach, then at its essence 
it is a set of tools for Earth- and people-care that is not dependent on 
belief or ideology. It can't be corrupted because its use either does or 
doesn't follow the ethics and principles, and it stops being permaculture 
when those are not being adhered to. Or at least we can say it is a poor or 
incomplete use of permaculture. A person is either a good designer or a poor 
one. You use the principles in your work or you don't. You use ecological and 
social metrics to assess whether you've been successful: As biodiversity up? 
Are people healthy? This puts the responsibility on the user, and not on 
permaculture as a movement that may be corrupted by bad people.

Larry Santoyo's phrase is useful here: We don't DO permaculture, we USE 
permaculture in what we do. Activists in a movement do permaculture. 
Designers use permaculture in what they do. If the army uses permaculture, it 
will result in Earth care and people care. If it doesn't have that result, 
then they aren't using permaculture; they are ideologists applying 
capitalist/corporate ideology to yet another tool they have made poor use of. 
If we don't teach them permaculture, there is no chance of them doing the 
good it can do. It cannot make them worse, in my view. It will either be 
abandoned by them, or it will make them good designers of healthy systems.

Again, I think "go where you are invited" applies. I have no intention of 
trying to transform the army with permaculture: that's ideology.  But if they 
come to me to ask how they can use permaculture to have ecologically and 
socially successful and sound projects, I'll be there. The student must be 
ready for the teacher, or there will be no learning. 

And incidentally, I've really appreciated what Rafter and manyy others have 
written here, especially the Rafter/Scott dialog. Thanks for a thought 
provoking thread. 

And, Cory and all: Permaculture is already being taught in over 25 
universities in the US alone, at last count.

And: I absolutely approve, as Kevin suggested, of making the ethics, 
principles, and curriculum much clearer and less subject to wild 
interpretations. Hence the need for organizations that link permaculturists 
together,

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com



On Aug 12, 2010, at 2:55 PM, rafter sass wrote: