So for me, arguments that we should go anywhere and teach Pc to
anyone, for anyone, because Pc is automagically transformative, are
wrongheaded.
A good PDC might actually be able to transform anyone that takes it -
but that doesn't mean that teaching that class is good for the
movement. As Annie Pollock points out, greenwashing is real, and we
are already dealing with the challenges of the Permaculture label
being applied to all kinds of things we don't want to be associated
with.
We could go and teach a PDC at a whites-only Afrikaaner "ecovillage"
like Orania, and maybe it would have a profound impact on the people
who took it. But (1) most of us would be, shall we say, reluctant?
for Pc to be seen as a tool for building a racially pure Volkstaat,
and (2) the Oranians already identify with Permaculture, so I guess
an ecological holistic worldview WON'T necessarily guide someone out
of an oppressive, ethnocentric social vison.
Teaching Pc for, and to, white nationalists, would be bad for the
movement.
(For more evidence that fascism and ecology can survive in the same
brain, look into Rudolph Steiner's theories on race. Or even more
frightening, search Stormfront.org for entries on Permaculture. Note:
the point here is to debunk oversimplified models of change, and
magical thinking about Permaculture education - not to compare the
National Guard project to white supremacy.)
And vice versa: what's bad for the individual or project can be good
for the movement. The lynching of civil rights movement workers James
Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, in 1964, was a
horrific tragedy for them, their friends, and families - and a
historic watershed for the civil rights movement.
The point of these case studies is to say: we may not know how to
design a movement, but it ain't entirely like designing a PDC.
We are called, by our commitments, ethics, and desires, to figure it
out. With each other.
What are we doing to do with this movement of ours?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.