permaculture

[Killian O'Brien <admin@pri-de.org>]

To All:

I want to refocus this on the topic it started with. The issue is not *whom* 
to teach, nor how, though those points have come up. (Please, everyone, let's 
**stop** worrying about who other people are teaching! It's none ya! Git yer 
nose out other people's biz!)

The subject also is not whether to certificate or not. Not only do such 
processes give us a way to at least attempt to create a common sense of what 
a given level of knowledge or expertise is, but many people simply want or 
need formalized settings to educate themselves in. Institutionalized 
solutions meet that need. They do not meet the needs of non-traditional 
learners or those without the means to participate in the institutional 
structures.

So, the issue is how to go about it. On to my reply...

Hey Toby,

Let me start with this, " This is written fairly quickly; I hope that instead 
of nit-picking over the parts that aren't well developed you'll try to follow 
my intent. "

No problem there. Intent is big for me, and perhaps makes me a little too 
sloppy with my language as I expect too much of context and people *not* 
reading the worst into what I say/write.

Relatively, Toby, in parentheses, which was intended to convey, given 
context, a modified sense of "elite." The issue was affordability. Context 
was clear *to me*, but I will concede I perhaps should not have used the 
word. Negative? Sorry, that's on you to own. Emotionally charged? Ditto. They 
weren't for me. They still aren't. Reality: you are a (relatively) affluent 
American. We are speaking globally. In that regard, you are quite definitely 
elite on the financial scale. I don't see why that is either emotionally 
charged or negative.

"I don't think that an effective way to spread permaculture is to target the 
poor or the radicals (although I won't discourage someone from doing that). 
You only change one person at a time that way. I think it is far more 
effective to offer it to policy makers, universities, planners, CEOs, 
developers--the elite, if you will."

You are correct that we will disagree, but that is exactly what I was saying 
about old and new paradigms. Your approach simply doesn't seem to have much 
chance of working because we are so close to large bifurcations in all 
domains. Virtually all those you are speaking of, and to, have no sense at 
all that collapse is a possibility, so they *cannot* come up with the 
solutions except by accident. They don't understand sustainability because 
they don't understand 2nd Law implications.

Being aware of or knowledgeable about permaculture doesn't automatically make 
one open to the idea that complexity *is* the problem or that growth cannot 
go on forever. This does not mean don't reach out to those people. Obviously 
it's not really an elite/poor issue, but will be a matter of a combination. 
However, community-generated solutions are far more likely to deal with the 
scales we need to work at by default: they're not necessarily trying to save 
the world and work within the constraints they have on-site. The "elites" 
have vested interests that conflict with community solutions. No way around 
that. Thus, my faith goes to those who must live with their solutions.

Besides, Diamond, Tainter, Catton... all say simplify, simplify, simplify. 
That combined with common sense and past history all say you're likely going 
in the wrong direction. But again let me stress I think some of us need to be 
working it the way you suggest, just not most of us.

"Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply to, the above... I 
doubt that the future will be so radical that certificates, degrees, 
committees, voting, listening to leaders, and other familiar ways of getting 
things done are going to disappear."

No, they won't. But as things get sufficiently off-kilter, their 
effectiveness will diminish. I know of no organization here in Detroit that 
is self-supporting (though they may exist). When the funding goes, they go. 
Unless we do things differently from the start. We didn't pursue our own 
501(c)(3) status because we had an umbrella. We didn't pursue outside funding 
because we had a partner with global reach that was going to advertise for 
us. But, for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with programming or 
permaculture, and everything to do with money and CYA, they backed out just 
weeks before our first PDC. It's the difference between solvency and being 
destitute for us, but not them. My point is, structures fall for reasons that 
have often - usually? - nothing to do with the idea being promoted/supported, 
and they are typically very human reasons. Our current situation isn't 
because we had a bad business concept or that permaculture is a bad idea, it 
is because people are people and, at the end of the day, particularly in this 
day and age, are going to do for themselves before others, and that applies 
to ANY structure you care to create. As things get tougher, this will only 
increase in frequency and magnitude. Look at the Tea Party. Look at health 
care, the immigration debate, climate denial. Setting up a system that is not 
resilient to such shocks strikes me as risk assessment that is not robust.

The point above does get into the issue of what the future holds, and our 
assessments are clearly quite different, which may not be resolvable except 
with time's own special way of exerting reality. However, we can choose to 
set up a system that is resilient in either case. I don't think the systems 
being suggested do that. They are squarely based in the old paradigm and thus 
are sensitive to the same shocks.

"Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as communities and 
groups would form, unhappy with the old ways... a fraction of 1% survive 
today. ...there are formal processes such as consensus that show promise. But 
hardly anyone really understands those new tools. They are counter-intuitive, 
and I would argue that in many cases, egalitarian methods like consensus go 
against our essential tribal nature as social pack animals who inherently 
look to strong, competent leaders...

And I see us in a similar position to where we were in 1970.  I hang around a 
lot of communities, and the complaint I hear over and over is that they love 
the community but consensus and related tools suck--"Nothing ever gets done, 
so why can't we just appoint committees and managers and move forward? I 
trust my peers to make good decisions without me.""

Hunter-gatherers almost exclusively are non-hierarchical, thus our "nature" 
is to cooperate. But this is all off-topic. I've not suggested anything like 
what these issues raise. Have others?

"If we wait until everyone is empowered and is a leader, we won't get there 
in time, and we will suffer from the "too many cooks" problem"

Also not an issue raised.

"The process of reinvigorating the national permaculture institute right now 
is hamstrung by exactly this defect in consensus: no one is allowed to move 
until we all feel equally empowered. So we are stalled."

I don't see this as an issue or even a topic of conversation. Are people 
talking about this? This question, for me, is solely about access and 
affordability, not empowerment. As a nominal permaculturist, I'm quite 
comfortable telling the rest of you to go straight to hell if you don't like 
what I'm doing within the constraints I must deal with, and expect the same 
in return should I choose to comment on your work. More so, due to how events 
have played out, I've had zero choice in moving forward regardless of 
circumstances, so were anyone to complain about that they'd be very much in 
the wrong. Let's not get sidetracked here. This isn't what needs to be 
discussed; it's a moot point.

"What's lacking is accountability, not decent tools."

No, both. To wit:

"many of the current methods, applied at the right scale, work very well, are 
comprehended by the mainstream and thus are more likely to be followed, and 
will get us there faster."

The current methods, or suggested methods, may build accountability, poorly, 
but very much limit access. Any certificate for design that is a diploma/cert 
alone is basically worthless. Knowledge does not equal ability. This is 
reflected in the current PDC process where there is virtually no practicum in 
most programs and, as you have said, very little in terms of rigorous design 
requirements or standards. Worse, passing the trainee assessment consists of 
nothing more than a two year time period. It has no definition of what to do 
in that period or assessment of that work or how much work needs be done. 
Adding a diploma on top of this achieves nothing, particularly since a 
diploma course will be no more able to get past these issues than the current 
system. Knowledge does not equal skill.

"once they are on board, we can move them yet farther. We need to meet people 
where they are, start with what they are familiar with. Few can make a giant 
paradigm shift as the first step, and it's a pipe dream to expect it as 
prerequisite for a solution."

Off-topic, really.

"We know that the big parts of the system are broken: national government, 
big corporations and banks, etc. But the same tools that work so badly at 
huge scale, when they are applied at small scale--local government, small 
non-profits and business, independent schools, committees, charismatic 
leaders--still work very well. I think we need to work with what we have at 
the same time we work on the replacements. If we insist on everyone learning 
new tools before we start, we will not get there in time. You cannot get 
anywhere if you don't start from where you are."

I have not meant to state categorically, that we just not have these other 
systems. I *don't* think you have time to create these courses, get thousands 
of people trained in them and reach legitimacy in the eyes of the wider 
world. This can be seen as supporting your contention that the focus should 
be on educating power structures, but the nature and history of power 
structures in periods of decline suggest otherwise (Diamond). Thus, I think 
this route will, in a sense, waste resources. Should we not try to change 
from within? No. Give it a shot, but...

I have tried to offer an alternative. Just as I find it a pointless 
conversation to discuss who is teaching whom, I find it pointless to debate 
whether there should be a traditionally institutional approach to 
certification(s) because 1. they already exist and 2. some people just 
need/want that sort of environment, etc.

Let me be clearer: A possible approach that can co-exist with the diploma 
course approach is a portfolio and oral/written exams process. This can, and 
should, be much less expensive because it involves no physical plant, no 
infrastructure. It will meet the needs of non-traditional learners, those of 
limited means, those of limited physical access (cost of transportation), 
those that are self-taught, etc. It does require organization and 
identification of people qualified to sit such boards. That process can be as 
complicated or as simple as people want to make it (but things always look 
infinitely simpler to me than to most). It will also be more legitimate in 
that it is based in people's work and ability to communicate that work. We 
are talking about design, right? I believe the core of licensing for 
architects is a portfolio and exam approach, is it not?

Identification of those qualified to sit such boards might well be a matter 
of acclaim in the initial phase, but should, in my opinion, be done by wide 
acclaim, not by a committee, for we are essentially in the process of 
codifying what a diploma might actually mean in terms of content. Content 
might well be determined by committee, but also should be held up for general 
vote, imo. Let's determine as a community, eh? (Look at the mess we already 
have with diploma level certs being offered by different entities, each 
apparently with its own criteria for the course and the teachers. Such a 
state will have zero legitimacy in the eyes of the public at large. This is 
already seen in the EFL/ESL field where a basic cert is a joke to everyone, 
but everyone needs one. It's just a money mill for the providers.)

Once this process is done, we can trust the power structures to work as 
designed. Should we not, since we have the opportunity, go ahead and be 
inclusive at this stage, and define these things as a community?

Perhaps the various convergences should consider a design charrette 
methodology and start sketching out how we use permaculture principles to 
remake society...? IPC10 is coming up next summer, no? Or given work already 
done and programs already existing, these open dialogues can be used to 
narrow things done and IPC10 used as a final design charrette and 
determination of a list of people qualified to sit boards.

My last concern: if this process were to become a reality, also for existing 
programs, an issue of fairness will arise. Those required to go through these 
programs are being asked to reach a bar those now setting the bar did not 
have to reach. This is unavoidable. We must, however, keep in mind those that 
end up setting the bar will tend to forget how they got where they are, how 
they built their knowledge base, etc, and will be inclined to set the bar 
higher than is fair or necessary. This is simply how our brains work. Our 
brains forget experiences, they reframe difficulty, they allow us to work on 
assumptions that were, at earlier times in our learning process, as clear as 
mud, and allow us to ask too much because we have forgotten to account for 
the fact we've accumulated what we know over long time frames and via myriad 
experiences we are attempting to codify and compress into weeks, months, or 
years.

That is, be realistic, be gentle.

Please be aware in all this I am speaking as someone with 14 years of 
classroom and training experience. That is not to claim I am a world-class 
educator, nor that I am assuming what I suggest here is How Things Are and 
Should Be, only that I speak from a fairly well-founded perspective on how to 
educate, i.e. not talking out of my ass.

Cheers,

Killian O'Brien
PRI-De
admin@pri-de.org
(313) 647-4015

killiankob@yahoo.com
(760) 617-4693

-----Original Message-----
From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Toby Hemenway
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 5:39 PM
To: permaculture
Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification

Okay, this is one of my lengthy screeds. The more meaty stuff is toward the 
end.

On Oct 23, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Killian O'Brien wrote:

>
> Oh, Toby, do be careful when putting words in other's mouths.  . . . Read 
> again, more carefully, or ask for clarification, please.

Well, here's what you wrote-

> By making permaculture about money and formal certificates, you are 
> preventing/slowing its spread . . .
>  . . . makes it the playground of the (relatively) elite. And I guess the 
> assessors are chosen by acclaim or are self-appointed...? . . .  engage in 
> cannibalistic behaviors . . . Unless this more rigorous certification 
> process is going to be offered essentially for free, and that seems 
> unlikely, it will do more harm than good.

It's impossible for me to take this in any other way than as condemnation of 
the Gaia U program and certification; if you meant it as support for multiple 
options, those words don't convey that. I don't think I've failed to read 
carefully. Whatever you were meaning, when we lead off with negative, 
emotionally loaded language, it gets people's hackles up from the start, and 
makes it likely that any calmer, constructive points made later--as you did 
make--will be lost. It's the same thing that happened with Kevin's original 
post about the Army PDC; he started with condemnations and complaints, and 
then wondered why the thoughtful questions he asked later were ignored.

>
>  Money is just a proxy for all the various reasons people can't make it to 
> courses. Got course fees covered? What about air fare? Lost work hours? 
> Child care? And on and on. Your point is moot, imo.

No, it's not moot; it's at the heart of what you wrote: How do we spread this 
stuff? What I see from you is a list of perceived impediments that have been 
easily overcome.  People offer courses on the weekends, on a string of 
Saturdays, we offer child-care done by spouses (teachers or participants) who 
trade off, we offer local courses so there's no airfare, we offer parallel 
courses for their kids. There are people out there getting 30, 40, 70 
students, because they are creating those solutions. And those who hold cheap 
PDCs in crowded living rooms and advertise on the co-op bulletin board--maybe 
not you, but lots of teachers--complain that they can't fill their courses. 
They ignore useful tools that work, see only impediments, and then complain.

 Certification, far from being an impediment, is what attracts people to 
these courses. You have to give people a tangible take home. The certificate 
is exactly that for most people, much more so than making a compost pile or a 
general grasp of systems thinking. Non-certificate courses tend not to 
attract as many people, and I hear that from all the teachers I talk 
to--which is quite a few. The answer is not to give it away and lower 
standards, not in this culture.

See, here's where I think we differ, and I'm going to say something very 
politically incorrect: I don't think that an effective way to spread 
permaculture is to target the poor or the radicals (although I won't 
discourage someone from doing that). You only change one person at a time 
that way. I think it is far more effective to offer it to policy makers, 
universities, planners, CEOs, developers--the elite, if you will. One CEO who 
pushes permaculture through to all employees, one Hollywood star who gets on 
Oprah, will make far more difference than a blockfull of anarchists or 
impoverished. It is still a top-down world; I don't like it but I will use it 
to my advantage. I know I will be pilloried for that, but I'm looking for 
leverage points, and that's where I see them. I've done the other--I've done 
PDCs for $40, and almost nothing came of them, maybe a keyhole bed in a 
backyard. My PDCs to professionals result in amazing projects that go on to 
be implemented in schools, go
 vernments, neighborhoods, and businesses.

>
>  I said the solution proposed maintains structures of the past that are 
> unlikely to apply in the future, as well as limiting access, so why not do 
> it differently?

Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply to, the above. On one 
hand, the way many current management and decision-making processes are used 
is indeed dysfunctional, overly hierarchical, based on continual growth, and 
all those other points. On the other hand, most of the replacements for them, 
like consensus, NVC, etc., are either little-tried, not well understood or 
understood in conflicting ways, easily mis-applied or stonewalled, and have 
other serious problems. There is, indeed, huge urgency in moving forward. But 
if we wait for these new tools to come on line, for everyone to agree how to 
use them, it will be too late. So it's a mistake to throw out the old tools 
right now, and that's why I think certification, clear rules, and common 
decision-making processes still have plenty of value. I doubt that the future 
will be so radical that certificates, degrees, committees, voting, listening 
to leaders, and other familiar ways of getting things done are going t
 o disappear. There's the short version of the problem. Here's the long 
version, if that's not clear or you want more:

Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as communities and 
groups would form, unhappy with the old ways, and they'd throw the rules out 
completely, and try to design a new way to be together.  Almost none of them 
lasted more than months; a fraction of 1% survive today. The impetus was 
honorable: end the patriarchy, etc, etc, but they had no functional tools to 
replace what they threw out, and in most cases, their efforts devolved into 
the ancient pattern of a few people under a charismatic leader, and everyone 
who disagreed with the boss left. We've learned a lot since then, and there 
are formal processes such as consensus that show promise. But hardly anyone 
really understands those new tools. They are counter-intuitive, and I would 
argue that in many cases, egalitarian methods like consensus go against our 
essential tribal nature as social pack animals who inherently look to strong, 
competent leaders. And I see us in a similar position to where we were in 
1970.
  I hang around a lot of communities, and the complaint I hear over and over 
is that they love the community but consensus and related tools 
suck--"Nothing ever gets done, so why can't we just appoint committees and 
managers and move forward? I trust my peers to make good decisions without 
me."

Years ago, I ran a business, and had a crew of really gifted employees. I 
went to them with a profit-sharing, co-management plan where they would have 
equal power in the business, and they said, "We just want to come to work, 
then go home and forget about the job. We see all the work you do, and we 
don't want to share it." If we wait until everyone is empowered and is a 
leader, we won't get there in time, and we will suffer from the "too many 
cooks" problem, which I see constantly in new endeavors. The process of 
reinvigorating the national permaculture institute right now is hamstrung by 
exactly this defect in consensus: no one is allowed to move until we all feel 
equally empowered. So we are stalled. I think the idea that we will evolve to 
"decentralized leadership structures" flies in the face of our human and 
animal nature; we respond to and need clear, focused leadership. What's 
lacking is accountability, not decent tools. God, the last thing I want is to 
have to partici
 pate in every decision that affects me. I trust other people to be 
competent. So while we continue to hone newer and more equitable ways of 
sharing power and responsibility, many of the current methods, applied at the 
right scale, work very well, are comprehended by the mainstream and thus are 
more likely to be followed, and will get us there faster.

Another example: there are tours in many cities of "sustainable living 
examples" or the like. The ones that look like hippie houses are scoffed at 
by most of those on the tours. The ones that look like familiar houses get 
people excited. They aren't as "sustainable" as the hippie houses, but they 
get far more people on board. And then, once they are on board, we can move 
them yet farther. We need to meet people where they are, start with what they 
are familiar with. Few can make a giant paradigm shift as the first step, and 
it's a pipe dream to expect it as prerequisite for a solution.

We know that the big parts of the system are broken: national government, big 
corporations and banks, etc. But the same tools that work so badly at huge 
scale, when they are applied at small scale--local government, small 
non-profits and business, independent schools, committees, charismatic 
leaders--still work very well. I think we need to work with what we have at 
the same time we work on the replacements. If we insist on everyone learning 
new tools before we start, we will not get there in time. You cannot get 
anywhere if you don't start from where you are.

This is written fairly quickly; I hope that instead of nit-picking over the 
parts that aren't well developed you'll try to follow my intent.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com


_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
Read the public message archives here:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
brackets)]
List Usage & Guidelines:
http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
Permaculture Mailing List Blog
http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com