permaculture

[rafter sass <liberationecology@gmail.com>]

Hey Toby,

As usual, I'm crazy about your response, in tone, quality of thinking, and 
content.

All except for the third paragraph where, for reasons I can't fathom, you 
redefine
the concept of "movement"  - and by implication, movement participants -
as simpleton ideological cliques. It bears no relation to any recognizable
definition of social movement. 

Why, Toby, why? [insert wringing of hands]

Why work to isolate Pc from the inspiring history, and critical present-day
reality of global social movements? Advocate for your vision of Pc, please.
It's needed. Plus I mostly agree with you. ;) 

But don't paint this distorted picture of social movements. 

Do I agree with you about avoiding evangelism, self-righteousness,
and "purity vs. pollution" thinking? Absolutely. And the distribution of these
traits - on this list alone! - makes it clear that there is no correlation 
with 
the trait of movement thinking. 

Permaculture is a design approach and a movement at the very same time - if 
you use
a recognizable definition of movement. (I guess I'm camping in both of your 
camps.) 

It is certainly not unique among movements. It's a fellow traveller with many 
other 
examples of: large numbers of people working together in a more-or-less 
organized, 
more-or-less spontaneous fashion, to make the world safe, just, and 
sustainable. (Check out Hawken's
Blessed Unrest to see this point made in vastly more detail.) Like other 
grassroots movements, it's
not pure, it's not objective, and to the degree that it's adherents are 
self-righteous evangelical
nincompoops, it will fail!

Every significant historical gain in freedom, worldwide, has been fought for 
and won -
not through some idealized, objective, design practice, but through messy, 
difficult social movements.
Furthermore, they've been fought for with tactics of disruptive protest, 
among other tools in the toolbox. 
It's bad form, to say the least, for white males in the North, like you and 
me, to foster ignorance of that fact.

Likewise for so much of the significant defenses of ecological health that 
we've been able to accomplish - 
c.f. the success of the disruptive, law-breaking, anti-nuke movement here at 
home. Do you think
that we'll get decent climate treaties, or stop mountaintop removal mining, 
without
the pressure brought to bear by disruptive protest, and the movements that 
make it happen? History tells us, decisively, "No."

We can't do an end-run around the need to think about the Permaculture milieu 
as a whole, by focusing
on practice alone. And we need to regard ourselves, our whole movement, as 
part of a greater whole -
and not only ecologically. We do this so that we don't isolate ourselves from 
our fellow travelers, so we 
can share the crucial and unique resources that we bring, with the folks most 
prepared to make good use of them. 

And also because we need those other movements that we are making this path 
with. 
Permaculture alone won't get us the world we want - a world that's worth 
living in.

Thank for all your incredible contributions, Toby. I'm confident that you 
will receive this in 
the spirit of collegiality and respect in which it is intended.

Best,
Rafter




rafter sass
liberationecology.org

> From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
> Date: August 16, 2010 10:38:59 AM EDT
> To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] Designing a Movement (was: Ethics of whatever)
> Reply-To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture