Sustainable Living through Permaculture: A Social Ecology Perspective

Sustainable Living through Permaculture: A Social Ecology Perspective

Professor Stuart B. Hill, University of Western Sydney, NSW.

Abstract

Living sustainably requires an ethic of care and responsibility that enables us to maintain ourselves, our communities, our 'enabling' institutional structures and processes, and our environments, in ways that sustain and enhance life and wellbeing into the future. To do this successfully requires the appropriate and intentional design and management of all human systems in ways that are compatible with, and supportive of, all other natural systems.

Permaculture is both a design system and philosophy of living that effectively enables such approaches to sustainability to evolve through praxis (an integrated system of evolving theory and practice). To continue to be effective in realising its potential, however, it is important for Permaculture practitioners to critically reflect on their successes, failures and opportunities as they plan for the future. Social Ecology, because it integrates personal, social, ecological and 'spiritual' understandings in its enablement of sustainability, wellbeing, and our ‘progressive’ development and psychosocial evolution, can provide an ideal framework for doing this. Such reflection requires us to identify the complex internal and external driving forces of ‘progressive’ change and suggest ways to strengthen and add to them, and also to identify the restraining forces and barriers to such progress and to find ways to weaken, remove and get around them.

In this presentation, Stuart draws on his 40 years as an ecological agriculturist and social ecologist to illustrate these ideas. His background also includes chemical engineering, marine biology, zoology, ecology, soil biology, entomology, psychotherapy, education, policy development and international development. He has worked as an ‘enabler’ of ongoing ‘progressive’ change in over a dozen countries.

Some preliminary observations

Permaculture is an example of a contextually relevant, emergent praxis (integrated theory and practice). It was influenced and accompanied (from the middle of the last century onwards) by numerous other related emergent ideas – not only in areas such as systems thinking, energy and other resources, bio-ecology, landscape management, agriculture, community development, politics, social justice, technology, and our systems of ethics and values, but also in areas relating to our psychosocial evolution as a species and to ways of relating and child rearing – and it owes a debt to the numerous pioneers in each of these areas (some of whom have been acknowledged and some not). As with all such ‘new’ praxis, it was (and still is) a bit ahead of its time, and it challenged most existing praxis and those whose position and power were, and continue to be, associated with the dominant systems in place. Not wanting to be displaced, it is not surprising that most of these individuals resisted this perceived threat by means of a diverse range of strategies, including marginalisation (it’s only relevant on a garden scale and in less developed countries), impracticality (its working with complexity and ecological processes contrasts with agribusiness’ focus on highly controlled, input-dependent, simplified monocultures), and its irrelevance to an increasingly globalised economy (with its emphasis on production for export and profit versus Permaculture’s concern for nourishment and sustainable human and environmental wellbeing). In many respects, what we are dealing with here is a classic example of reactive resistance to a potential ‘progressive’ cultural transformation that is initially perceived as a threat. So, if we really want Permaculture to continue to expand and develop, then we will need to become as competent in the areas of cultural transformation as we are in the praxis of Permaculture in the field.

I consider my role as one of collaborating with others to help enable this process of the spread and ongoing development of Permaculture. This will necessarily involve expanding the boundaries of our understandings, and of our areas of concern and action; and it will involve some reflective critique of present praxis. It may lead to some similar feelings to those experienced by conventional agriculturists referred to earlier. If we fail to become open to further expansive thinking and deeper reflection, particularly in relation to the processes involved in cultural change, then Permaculture will predictably continue to be largely marginalised in our society.

First, however, some acknowledgements, appreciations and celebrations are in order. We know that we are part of a movement that holds out practical hope for the future. We are particularly grateful to the pioneering efforts of Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, and the many others who have taken on leadership roles. We can justly celebrate our extensive successes around the world, many of which have, for various reasons, been more readily embraced and implemented in so-called less developed countries than here in Australia. Although deteriorating global conditions are making the potential contributions of Permaculture even more relevant, the resistance to it within our institutions has not changed relative to the need. What we are witnessing is an adherence to patterned, stuck behaviours that are being ultimately largely kept in place by diverse, invariably unacknowledged, fears, with their associated, also unacknowledged, guilt and equally diverse compensatory, distractive and masking behaviours. Our whole consumptive, growth-based economy and society is a collective expression of this situation. The greatest challenge is that over years of adaptive change our dominant cultures have established institutional structures and processes that are designed primarily to be supportive of these adaptive (in the longer term, maladaptive) behaviours. Thus, sustainable, progressive change will require not only access to sustainable praxis, such as that provided by Permaculture, but also deep personal healing and transformation (what I have called ‘Permaculture of the Inner Landscape’), and extensive, radical (root-level), integrated institutional transformation. Widespread significant change will only come about when thresholds of enough of these two types of change have been reached; and we still have a long way to go to achieve this. As with all sustainable change, despite the natural tendency to point to others, this must start with ourselves – with our own behaviours and praxis. Common distress behaviours include egoism, dishonesty, control over and manipulation of others, efforts to impose ‘our’ agendas on ‘them’, diverse expressions of impatience, neediness, decontextual initiatives, not meeting others where they are, competition, exclusion, territoriality, prejudices and associated labelling, rigid thinking and practice, and many other adaptive behaviours. There are probably none among us who would claim to have never engaged in any of these behaviours, or who would say that they do not exist within our movement. As long as we deny and fail to deal with them, however, they will continue to contaminate and undermine all of our well-intentioned efforts. Failure to adequately address this personal level is the commonest blind spot and cause of disappointment in efforts to bring about social change.

If we label the present expression of Permaculture as ‘Phase One’, then we can be liberated to vision what ‘Phase Two’ might be, and what might be involved in enabling the transition from ‘Phase One’ to ‘Phase Two’, and beyond. Because Social Ecology, unlike most other social change movements, explicitly acknowledges the need for integrated personal and institutional change, all within the context of ecological limits and opportunities, I believe that it can provide an ideal supportive framework for imagining and implementing this transition (Hill 1996). I believe that it can also help us to further develop the principles and practices of Permaculture. To illustrate this I will describe my very preliminary brainstorm-type thinking about the principles documented in David Holmgren’s (2002) excellent book. Then I will share my tentative thoughts about the process of working effectively with sustainable, progressive change.

Expanding the Boundaries and Focusing Permaculture Design Principles

(words underlined are roughly the ones used by Holmgren, 2002).

1.Observe, to recognise patterns and appreciate details, and interact with care, creativity and efficiency.

Read about, become (the other), experiment (in small, meaningful ways), share ideas and collaborate in actions, be receptive through all senses, intuition, feelings, thinking/reflection/reflexivity, create aesthetic/artistic works that embody and effectively communicate this [INTEGRATE 1: WAKE-UP TO THE WHOLENESS AND AMAZINGNESS OF LIFE; ENGAGE AND SHARE WITH OTHERS]

The resulting greater awareness enables integration, a sense of wonder, respect for the unknown, and capitalisation on more opportunities and greater options when confronted with challenges.

2.Capture and store solar energy to build natural capital.

Build and maintain natural capital (energy, water, humus, nutrients, gene pool, functional biodiversity etc.), competencies (knowledge and skills), appropriate technologies etc. [MAINTAIN ENERGY SYSTEMS]

Building and maintaining natural (including human and ‘spiritual’) capital can be the only basis of genuine sustainability.

3.Obtain a yield to meet your immediate needs and look after yourself.

Be viable, practical, prioritise (needs before wants; be self-sustaining) [SURVIVE FIRST]

Effective self-maintenance is an essential pre-requisite for wise social and environmental sustainability.

4. Apply self-regulation and pay attention to, and respond to, feedback.

Note all outcomes (feedback/indicators of health/wellbeing), and design and manage to favour ‘positives’ and eliminate ‘negatives’, and enable self-regulation and production [INTEGRATE 2: TUNE IN TO EARLY INDICATORS/FEEDBACK]

Most wisdom has its origins in learning from outcomes (feedback), especially from early ‘integrator indicators’.

5.Rely primarily on renewable and living resources and services.

Work with nature to build, maintain and enable renewable resources, services and resilience; prioritise uses of non-renewables [MAINTAIN ECOSYSTEMS: STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES]

A key challenge for our culture is to enable the transition from systems based on non-renewables and linear, input-based designs to ones based on solar, renewables and ecological processes.

6.Produce no waste.

Reduce, prevent, use and eliminate waste [ENABLE EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE CYCLES]

Key among these ecological processes is the need to design and manage to enable the many cycles in nature to work effectively.

7.Design for energy, effort and resource efficiency and effectiveness (from patterns to details).

Develop foundational design principles, frameworks and patterns, and fine-tune for particular, specific contexts [REDESIGN, DESIGN AND REDESIGN: DEEP, HOLISTIC, HOLOGRAPHIC, SYSTEMIC, MUTUALISTIC, SYNERGISTIC, CONTEXTUAL…]

Long-term effectiveness of all detailed knowledge and action is limited by our foundational values and worldviews, and our understandings of bio-ecological and natural patterns (designs of structures and processes).

8.Integrate and work with complexity, rather than segregate and work with forced simplicities.

Enable collaborative, integrated, synergistic, mutualistic relationships, fine-tuned for time, place, ‘resources’ and opportunities [INTEGRATE 3: CREATE BALANCE]

The reactive (pathological) drive to simplify through homogenisation and control (deceptive simplicities) must be addressed at the psychosocial level if we are to be able to progress to working effectively with complexity and recognise profound simplicities.

9.Use small and slow solutions, and publicise them to help their spread.

Focus on small (generally slow), meaningful, effective initiatives that you/your group can guarantee to carry through to completion, and publicise (in local media, open days, etc.) to enable others to learn from them [DO DOABLES AND MAKE ‘CONTAGIOUS’]

Similarly, attractions to excessively large (‘Olympic scale’) and fast (instant/’magic bullet’) projects and interventions (especially ‘solutions’ to problems) is an expression of a compensatory (usually subconscious and denied) drive in response to systemic oppression and disempowerment (primarily in early childhood, through the imposition of parental agendas on children who are struggling to develop their own benign agendas).

10.Work with and support diversity.

Design and manage to enable the building and persistence of high functional, effective bio-, eco-, and human-diversity [WORK WITH MUTUALISTIC DIVERSITY]

Mutualism, synergy and synchronicity are the norm in nature. Designs are effective when they enable this, and this involves working consciously and intuitively with relationships, diversity and the vast ‘unknownness’ of nature.

11.Design and work with edges and value the marginal.

Design and manage edges, margins and hererogeneity to provide habitat, and enable interrelationships and productivity [WORK WITH EDGES]

This is perhaps the greatest ‘productive’ insight of Permaculture. Learning from membrane biology and edge-effect studies, and especially soil ecology, and the roles of edges and margins in social change, will be important in progressing this insight.

12.Work creatively with change, succession and co-evolution.

Aim to be proactive, and responsive to early indicators of change, to enable you to most effectively restrain and prevent ‘negative’ processes, and enable and add to ‘positive’ developments, successional processes and co-evolutionary change [WORK WITH CHANGE]

Sustainability (and resilience) paradoxically are dependent on change and this requires design for small cycles of ‘build-up’ and ‘break-down’/progressive reconfigoration.

Others that might be added include the following:

13.Continue to develop and fine-tune foundational principles and frameworks [CONTINUE TO DEEPEN AND BROADEN THE PHILOSOPHY

ETHICS, VALUES, UNDERSTANDINGS…]

All of the above are limited by the quality, clarity and strength of our values and foundational understandings, which we need to continue to work on and refine throughout our lives.

14.Identify and actively learn from inspirational models, mentors and places [BECOME A PROACTIVE, TRANSFORMATIVE, LIFELONG LEARNER]

The most efficient and effective way to learn (without having to repeat all of the mistakes of all previous generations) is to tap into the accumulated wisdom, especially by developing mentoring relationships.

15.Investigate your woundedness, patterned behaviours, biases, prejudices, blind-spots, etc., and recover from them [HEAL YOUR HURTS AND MAINTAIN YOUR WELLBEING]

The primary limiting factor of all of the above, over which we have absolute control, is our psychological wellbeing. It is also the greatest area of denial and postponement, and of potential gain when these barriers are overcome.

16.Build support networks (general to specific; local to global) and use and contribute to them (exchange of ‘gifts’) [COLLABORATE, SUPPORT LEADERS AND LEAD TO TRANSFORM OUR INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES]

Individualism, heroism and competition are similarly patterns that must be overcome to liberate our potential to relate, collaborate and develop our core social nature. Identify shared understandings and intentions in others and other groups, and collaborate across previously isolating boundaries (e.g., within other expressions of ‘alternative’ agriculture, and ‘alternative’ expressions in other areas).

17.Reflect on holographic and fractal expressions of all you observe, and apply learnings from the most developed to the least developed areas [BECOME TRANSDISCIPLINARY, HOLOGRAPHIC, HOLISTIC, WISE…]

As we do all of the above, the ways we perceive and act start to transform fundamentally, enabling us to experience wellbeing, oneness, connectedness, integratedness, and wisdom; and, as enough of us function in this way, our species will be enabled to progress to the next stage in our psychosocial evolution (from ‘socialising’ [the imposition of one generation’s agendas on the next] to ‘enabling’ [the support of the next generation’s process of clarifying and developing its own benign agendas]).

Some further observations

(modified from my ‘Foreword’ in Holmgren 2002)

Clearly, if the 'Permaculture Principles' that David Holmgren discusses in his book ‘Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability’ (2002) [or their above expansion] were applied to all that we do, we would be well on the road to sustainability, and beyond. Furthermore, we would be liberated from the lurking feelings of guilt that most of us feel when we reflect on what we are currently passing on to future generations.

Permaculture is about values and visions, and designs and systems of management that are based on holistic understanding, especially on our bio-ecological and psychosocial knowledge and wisdom. It is particularly about our relationships with, and the design and redesign of, natural resource management systems, so that they may support the health and wellbeing of all present and future generations. What is particularly puzzling is that whereas all engineers – people who work primarily with non-living materials – learn about design principles, nearly all agriculturists, and others working with living systems, are still able to graduate without ever discussing principles of design, let alone having any unit devoted to this critical competence. It is the persistent lack of recognition of the importance of design, of the importance of mutualistic relationships and high functional biodiversity within sustainable ecosystems, and of the need to design managed ecosystems based on this awareness that is responsible for so most of the problems we currently face in natural resource management.

Permaculture may be described in a diverse range of complementary ways. It is one expression of a next step in the evolution of natural resource management, particularly as it relates to agriculture, most of which is still stuck at an earlier evolutionary stage, characterized by deceptively simple designs based on specialisation, monocultures and simple rotations. These designs, the problems they produce, and the disruptive solutions commonly used to address them, have led to losses of topsoil, moisture holding capacity, fertility, productivity, resilience, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, including natural control organisms, and the gene pool upon which the system depends. To a Permaculturist, agriculture's growing dependence on resource inputs to compensate for this progressive degradation of its resource base and associated need to control pests and diseases, its increasingly negative energy budget, and growing waste production problems and environmental impacts, are all obviously predictable. This situation is particularly distressing because it can be largely avoided by applying the above 'Permaculture Principles'. Instead of repeatedly wasting expertise, time, energy and resources in efforts to address such problems, at the 'back-end' of the system, Permaculture enables us to avoid and minimise them by focusing on 'front-end' imaginative design and redesign initiatives. My particular experience of doing this has been focussed mainly on pest control (Hill 2004a), soil management (Hill 2003a) and the transformation of a coralline island in the Seychelles (Hill 1982).

Permaculture also reflects the ongoing evolution of our knowledge systems. These are currently being driven by challenges from post-modernists and post-structuralists, feminists and ecofeminists, social ecologists, deep ecologists and ecopsychologists, and those interested in post-normal science, holism, sense-of-place, sustainability, communalism, spirituality and indigenous knowledge systems. Many factors have contributed to the development of Permaculture. Key among them are:

• synchronicity and collaboration across difference (the chance association between David Holmgren – the modest, reflective, thorough, follow-through person – and Bill Mollison – the wild ideas man with the public persona);

• the visioning of Permaculture as an international movement;

• the requirement for teachers to have extensive training and field experience and to maintain ongoing practice in order to teach courses; and

• the integration of ethical and design principles into all aspects of theory and practice.

This comprehensive quality, and its associated heavy demands on the process of holistic planning and action, has also been a major barrier to many who would benefit from Permaculture. Just as most people tend to opt for the Aspirin rather than get their life in order, most farmers and gardeners remain similarly dependent on chemicals to 'fix the headaches' in their maldesigned and mismanaged production systems. Those who have crossed this barrier, however, and found permanent design solutions to problems – that only need to be discovered once – are never willing to go back to the dependence, inefficiency and illusion of 'magic-bullet solutions'. I believe, however, that Permaculture now needs to shift its focus from ‘training teachers’ to ‘enabling practitioners’; and to spend more time trying to better understand why so little of the wisdom of Permaculture is actually put into action, and what it will take to achieve this.

Psychological aspects of working with change

(modified from Hill 2001)

It is common for proposals for change, which usually imply criticism of current practices, to bring up fear and a diverse range of defensive behaviours. These extend from withdrawal, non-compliance and argument to ridicule, angry confrontation and even violence. Attempts to deal with this usually focus on strengthening the case for change, often by doing more research, and seeking legal and political solutions. Although these initiatives are often essential components of the change process, they can never adequately address the psychological and emotional barriers to change. Because these are usually not acknowledged they invariably undermine and weaken all other efforts to bring about lasting change. These barriers have their roots in personal histories, particularly during childhood, of having to adapt repeatedly to disempowering experiences such as repeated exposure to violence, ridicule, rejection, abandonment, and lack of respect.

This adaptive process usually results in loss of access to one’s potential, lowering and narrowing of awareness, loss of creativity and vision, lack of clarity concerning values, and the development of numerous compensatory behaviours. All of these are reversible. Compensatory behaviours are so common in our societies that they are widely regarded by many as the norm. They include a wide range of consumptive, stimulatory and distractive activities, as well as attraction to symbols and illusions of power and control. This is partly achieved by owning impressive properties, powerful machines, the simplification of designs (such as monocultures and a monetary system of values) and processes – to make them easier to control – the division of the world into resources and enemies, and the excessive use of overkill solutions to control and eliminate the latter. The aggressive seeking of positions of power within hierarchical organisations and within society in general – often by using inequities of gender, age and race – is also part of this compensatory and often addictive process. So, paradoxically, many of our so-called leaders and public figures are, in reality, disempowered individuals who are attracted (largely subconsciously) to such positions to compensate for their internal sense of powerlessness. Such an understanding makes their common lack of genuine leadership no longer a puzzle.

In a 15-year study of health in the UK (the Peckham Experiment: http://www.thephf.org.uk; www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2598) it was found that 60% to 70% of all behaviours were of this compensatory, adaptive nature (Stallibrass 1989, Williamson & Pearce 1980). With such behaviours as the dominant way of being in the world, it is not surprising that we have largely designed adaptive political, religious, economic, work, welfare and recreational structures and processes to support our compensatory patterns of behaviour. It is also not surprising that most efforts to reform these are resisted, and when ‘successful’ result only in temporary or very minor change. Indeed, because of the early nature of the establishment of most adaptive compensatory behaviours, efforts by others to change them are often experienced – largely subconsciously – as threats to one’s survival, and so responses often have desperate or irrational characteristics.

With this understanding it is also no longer a puzzle as to why it has been so difficult to develop and implement genuine, ecologically sustainable systems of food production, handling and consumption, and Permaculture in particular.

Thus, to bring about such change our maps and models of the processes involved need to include these psychological factors (Hill 1998, 1999 a, b, c, 2003b). These maps also need to integrate our understandings and actions within the personal, socio-cultural and environmental domains. We need to know much more about how individuals, groups and ecosystems function, and how they relate to one another in the processes of health and wellness creation and maintenance. Also, we need to have a better understanding of our psychosocial history (deMause 1982 provides a controversial and challenging view of this – see also Hill 2004b), of our coevolutionary potential (Norgaard 1994) and of the processes involved in benign change (Beck & Cowan 1996, Heron 1996, Hunter et al 1997, Lewin 1935, Peavey 1994, Rowan 1993). And we particularly need to revise our ideas about child rearing (Sazanna 1999, Solter 1989 [1], Stallibrass 1989) and about the importance of forming mutualistic relationships (Josselson 1996, Shem & Surrey 1998). With respect to child rearing, I believe that it is particularly important to foster the development of autonomy, mutualistic relationships and a sense of place (Hill 2003b). These three competencies are foundational for the accumulation of personal capital, which is a pre-requisite for the building of social capital, itself a pre-requisite for both the conservation of natural capital and the design and maintenance of just, humane and sustainable societies (Roseland 1999).

One framework for understanding the psychological structures and processes involved in change

Most psychotherapies are explicitly or implicitly based on a ‘model’ of each of us having a ‘true’, essential or core self that can be spontaneous, autonomous and experience mutualistic and caring relationships with oneself, others, other species and with place. The model also assumes that we have a range of adaptive, distressed, patterned selves (or expressions of self) that are what we have had to become at various times to survive often repeated external insults. In this adaptive process we give up our consciousness and ability to live proactively – from the inside out – and we increasingly become expert at living primarily responsively and often fearfully – from the outside in. In such a state we are vulnerable, to varying extents, to manipulation, colonisation and also violence; and we tend to do to others what has been, and is being, done to us. This constitutes our ‘negative’ cultural inheritance and it undermines our ‘positive’ cultural inheritance (named ‘memes’: by Dawkins 1989).

a MEME (or values-attracting meta-meme) reflects a world view, a valuing system, a level of psychological existence, a belief 
structure, an organising principle, a way of thinking or a mode of adjustment.  It represents...a core intelligence that forms 
systems and directs human behaviour....it impacts upon all life choices as a decision-making framework....[it] can manifest 
itself in both healthy and unhealthy forms... [it provides a]...structure for thinking, not just a set of ideas, values or 
cause...[and] it can brighten and dim as the Life Conditions (consisting of historic Times, geographic Place, existential Problems, 
and societal Circumstances) change.
	(abstracted by R. Lessem in the Introduction to “Spiral Dynamics” by Beck & Cowan 1996, pp. 4-5)

Although I am presenting some of these ideas in a dualistic way, I am aware both of the dangers of dualistic thinking and that the processes that determine our behaviour are undoubtedly much more complex. Nevertheless, I believe that the model I am describing can still help us to think creatively and responsibly about the issues being discussed here.

In the book ‘Alternative Futures for Prairie Agricultural Communities’, I traced two contrasting ways of designing and managing agroecosystems – conventionally and ecologically – back to their possible roots in the contrasting two expressions of the self described above (Hill 1991, Fig. 4), and in Hill & MacRae (1995) to their collective manifestations in our institutional structures and processes. Similar analyses could be done for our political systems, economic systems, technologies, religions, and even our psychotherapies. Our multiple selves (core plus adaptive selves) have very different interests, priorities, values, and ways of relating to others, to place and to problems (Hill 1998, Table 4). Predictably the cost of maintaining these different selves, based on their associated resource requirements and personal, social and environmental impacts, may often differ by orders of magnitude. Because our core selves have no need for compensatory consumption or for impressing others they are likely to be both less expensive to maintain and more effective and efficient. As we are all made up of these multiple selves, it should not surprise us that much of our lives have a grey and contradictory quality, this partly being the result of our various selves constantly competing for centre stage. Because of this psychological complexity it is impossible to accurately identify the specific roots of any observed action. Yet the implications of this psychological understanding are clear. There would be enormous benefits – personally, socially and environmentally – from doing whatever it takes to live as much as we can from the core self end of our psychological spectrum. Indeed, this is a prerequisite for effectiveness in efforts to conserve and build personal, social and natural or ecological ‘capital’.

Lest it be assumed that I am unaware of the social aspects of the problematique I have been discussing, let me say a word about that. I am certainly not implying that ‘to change the world’ all that is required is for each of us to reconnect more with our core selves. Such connected individuals would still be stuck with having to live within cultures that are often largely the product of adapted selves. These cultures are characterised by compensation, oppression, regulation, judgement, fragmentation, exclusion, hierarchy, and adversarial and uncaring relationships. Acting in contradiction to these ‘norms’ alone, or even as a member of a mutually supportive group, may still result in marginalisation, ridicule, persecution and, in some societies, even death. Various thresholds of ‘enough active core selves’ and ‘enough mutualistic relationships’ have to be reached to start to be effective in deconstructing and redesigning our various maladaptive institutional structures and processes.

The primary barrier to the development of autonomy, mutuality and a sense of place in children is that those who influence us, particularly our parents, and the environments in which we live, are adapted and designed, respectively, largely in ways that both accommodate a loss of these three qualities and regard a comprehensive range of compensatory behaviours, and their supportive social structure and processes, as ‘normal’. To put this another way, it is difficult to give what one has not received, does not have or is unfamiliar with. Our common inability to pay loving attention to children while they cry and recover from their hurts – the crying being a necessary part of their healing process – illustrates this point. The deprivation of such opportunities for recovery leaves residues of unhealed hurts in our subconscious, which is uncontrollably awakened by the sound of a child’s cry. It is predictable that we would try to stop children crying, driven by our subconscious, which is protecting us from painful memories (an adaptive response), while we consciously reason that we have solved the hurt problem by stopping the crying (Solter 1984, 1989). This is just one example of numerous similar adaptive patterns of behaviour that, in the face of crises, get established as solutions that are beneficial in the short-term, but that have considerable, largely hidden, long-term personal, social and environmental costs. A parallel process to this at the physiological level has been labelled by some in the field of environmental medicine as the ‘adaptation, addiction, allergy, degeneration syndrome’ (e.g., Rea 1992-95). Note that parallel, related stages may also be recognised within our institutions and the environment. When our potentially beneficial and needed capacity to adapt in the short term becomes overloaded, it results over the longer term in maladaptations, which may eventually result in immune system breakdown, chronic fatigue, isolation, severe depression or other expressions of system overload and degeneration.

At one time or another, most of us feel some degree of emptiness, loneliness, inadequacy, idealism, or spiritual longing.  
We recognise the ... desire to escape pain, and ... seek answers in activities, substances, or relationships….  
The irony is, no external activities or substances satisfy the initial craving or the feeling of emptiness….  
This intense and at times painful craving is deep thirst for our own wholeness, our spiritual identity ... or core.... 
this fervent thirst for wholeness, as well as the discomfort with it, is the underlying impulse behind addictions.                    
     (Grof 1993, pp. 12-17).

I have mentioned the above examples of children crying and system breakdown to acknowledge how challenging it is for most of us to think clearly about what might actually be required to develop a framework for understanding and for supporting the development of autonomy, mutualism and sense a place in children. I believe that the framework recently proposed by Ruthellen Josselson (1996) for the development of ‘relationship competencies’ can also be used to deepen our understanding of the development of these three qualities. Based on an extensive review of the literature, Josselson recognises eight overlapping and mutually supportive processes, four that are sensory grounded (holding, attachment, passionate experience, and eye-to-eye validation), and four that are cognitive (identification and idealisation, mutuality and resonance, embeddedness, and tending and caring).

In working therapeutically with clients to resolve relationship problems and develop relational competence, Josselson finds that she can recognise deficiencies in one or more of these developmental ‘stages’. She finds that by addressing them, rather than accommodating (adapting to) them, she is able to help her clients resolve their relationship problems and deepen their experiences of relationship. A compatible and equally impressive approach is that of Shem and Surrey (1998), who emphasise focusing on a separate ‘we’, rather than on ‘you and I’ and our deficiencies, when working to improve relationships. I would like to emphasise again here, however, that such change work is likely to be most effective if it is part of an integrated approach that includes both personal and political components. If either type of change is conducted in isolation it will sooner or later be limited by barriers associated with the other. Note that Permaculture may be understood as designs to enable productive, sustainable, meaningful ‘WEs’ in nature.

Awareness of Josselson’s eight expressions of relationship could help parents, teachers and others to take actions that would facilitate exposure to experiences supportive of their development (such as those advocated by Van Matre 1990). This might involve modelling and mentoring, proactive planning and the setting aside of time and resources to make such experience possible, co-experiencing (where the experience is new for all involved) or delegation (when additional expertise is needed). Community and special interest groups, clubs, educational institutions, and commercial service providers can play important supportive roles in this area, as can an empathetic media. For the needed developments to take place, the boundaries around what constitutes effectiveness (parenting, media, public policies, education, etc.) need to be extended, as do those around responsibilities within our health and social systems.

Applying this psychological understanding to working with farmers, and others, in the transition to sustainable agriculture and Permaculture

Usually change agents are over-eager to quickly firm up plans and implement actions. Behind plans and designs, however, are ideas and visions, and behind these are loves, passions and feelings (Heron 1992), all of these existing within a context of one’s worldviews, values and beliefs. Thus, as change agents, rather than rushing to discuss plans and actions, it is more effective to start by opening up a space to talk about these ‘background’ influencing factors, where often greater agreement can be reached. Also, appreciation of the diversity within the group is a valuable pre-requisite to subsequent effective collaborative planning and action.

My experience of working in this way has been one of repeatedly being amazed as I listened to farmers talking about their deep love of the land, the wonders of nature, and of mateship and community.

Thus, when working as a facilitator with farmers, and with other groups interested in improving situations, I start by opening up a space for participants to share their passions, interests, fears and hopes. Gradually an agreed upon focus for that particular meeting emerges – perhaps better soil or pest management, bush regeneration or windbreak and wildlife corridor design – and my first question (as a go-round) is ‘what have you already done towards making progress in this area?’ My experience is that most change agents are so eager to inflict their ideas on others that they neglect to check what the present levels of understanding and competence are, and what has already been done. More important, usually they fail to acknowledge and celebrate the latter.

By sharing these first steps, participants are enabled to connect with others with similar interests, and a context is created in which they automatically start to think what their next steps might be; and, in fact, this is my next question.

Usually, again, connections are made across the group, particularly offers of and requests for help. Such very basic community building processes considerably increase the chances that any plans we come up with will actually be implemented. One can then use a combination of Lewin’s (1935) force field analysis and Fran Peavey’s (1994) strategic questioning to see what the resources and supports needed, and barriers, are to taking these next steps; and to see how any needs and barriers might be addressed – as Peavey says, ‘what will it take for you to actually do this?’

Because we live in a culture that over-values Olympic scale initiatives, which are impossible for most of us to be involved in, we should make a special effort to emphasise the importance of small, meaningful initiatives that individuals or small groups can guarantee to carry through to completion. Indeed, I put forward the fairly revolutionary idea that by celebrating these publicly (for example, through the local media and social gatherings) they are likely to be copied by others and, paradoxically, be much more likely to bring about positive sustainable change in society than the mega-projects that currently attract most attention and resources. These latter rarely deliver on their promises, often have unexpected harmful side effects, they generally undermine community ownership and participation, invariably give a poor return on investment, and are often unsustainable. Classic examples are the building of large dams, versus small dams together with integrated, community-based water management programs; and the widespread spraying of biocides or release of biological controls versus the creative local redesign of agroecosystems to make them less favourable for the offending pests and more favourable for the crops and their natural controls (Hill 1990, Hill et al 1999, 2004).

The next step in the facilitation process is to help clarify the actions that will be taken, identify who will support whom (to contradict another dominant message in our society that ‘you have to do it alone’), and re-frame these actions as ‘commitments’ (contracts with oneself and the group) with specified outcomes and time frames. When we get together again, in a month for example, we check what has been done, and acknowledge and celebrate it, and identify what has been learned from the outcomes and feedback, and what were the barriers for whatever was not done, and we then see how these can be addressed. We then go through the cycle again. Usually there is a high level of participation, commitment and follow-through when employing this approach. It is both enjoyable and productive – and it has important side-benefits such as community building and meaning making for the individuals involved.

Outcomes

As a result of doing this sort of work over the past 30 years I have found that the initiatives that are taken tend to evolve from strategies that focus on efficiency (for example, more accurate and controlled uses of inputs and minimisation of waste) to substitution (for example, from more to less disruptive interventions, such as from biocides to more specific biological controls and other more benign alternatives) to redesign – fundamental changes in the design and management of the operation (Hill & MacRae 1995, Hill et al 1999). Examples include the design of complex crop rotations and the use of inter-crops and planned field borders, rotational grazing, composting, solar and renewable resource based energy systems and the more radical design of information-rich, multi-storey polyculture systems (Mollison & Slay 1991, Holmgren 2002). This progression generally involves a shift in the nature of one’s dependence – from relying primarily on universal, purchased, imported, technology-based interventions to more specific locally available knowledge and skill-based ones. This usually eventually also involves fundamental shifts in world-views, senses of meaning, and associated lifestyles (Hill 1991). My experience is that although efficiency and substitution initiatives can make significant contributions to sustainability over the short term, much greater longer-term improvements can only be achieved by redesign strategies; and, furthermore, that steps need to be taken at the outset to ensure that efficiency and substitution strategies can serve as stepping stones and not barriers to redesign ones. The institutional implications required for the implementation of such changes have been discussed more extensively in previous publications (MacRae et al. 1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1993; Hill & MacRae 1995).

Using the approach advocated here with Quebec farmers interested in organics and in adopting more sustainable systems of farm design and management led to much higher rates of change than had been achieved elsewhere using the more conventional top down, preaching or shaming approaches (Hill & MacRae 1992).

People often ask me if I am optimistic or pessimistic about the future. I am definitely optimistic, partly because this is my nature and because we have only just begun to take the sorts of initiatives that I have described above. As we do this I am confident that significant improvements will follow. Let us not postpone this collective project a day longer.

References Cited

Beck, D.E.; Cowan, C.C. 1996. Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Dawkins, R. 1989. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

deMause, L. 1982. Foundations of Psychohistory. Creative Roots, New York.

Grof, C. 1993. The Thirst for Wholeness: Attachment, Addiction and the Spiritual Path. Harper Collins, New York.

Heron, J. 1992. Feeling and Personhood. London: Sage.

Heron, J. 1996. Collaborative Inquiry. Sage, London.

Hill, S.B. 1982. Lessons from studying a tropical island. Macdonald Journal 43 (6): 31, 40.

Hill, S.B. 1990. Cultural methods of pest, primarily insect control. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Pest Management Society 36: 35-49.

Hill, S.B. 1991. Ecological and psychological pre-requisites for the establishment of sustainable prairie agricultural communities. In J. Martin (ed.), Alternative Futures for Prairie Agricultural Communities. Faculty of Extension, Univ. Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Pp. 197-229

Hill, S.B. 1998. Redesigning agroecosystems for environmental sustainability: a deep systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 15: 391-402.

Hill, S.B. 1999a. Landcare: a multi-stakeholder approach to agricultural sustainability in Australia. In A.K. Dragun & C. Tisdell (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture and Environment: Globalisation and the Impact of Trade Liberalisation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. Pp. 125-134

Hill, S.B. 1999b. A social ecology framework for achieving an organic New Zealand. Soil & Health 58(6): 24-26.

Hill, S.B. 1999c. Social ecology as future stories. Social Ecology Journal 1: 197-208.

Hill, S. B. 2001. Working with processes of change, particularly psychological processes, when implementing sustainable agriculture. In H. Haidn ( ed.), The best of…Exploring Sustainable Alternatives: An Introduction to Sustainable Agriculture. Canadian Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Saskatoon, SK. Pp. 125-134.

Hill S. B. 2003a. Yeomans’ Keyline design for sustainable soil, water, agroecosystem and biodiversity conservation: a personal social ecology analysis. In B.P. Wilson & A. Curtis (eds,), Agriculture for the Australian Environment. Proceedings of the 2002 Fenner Conference. Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University: Albury, VIC. Pp. 34-48.

Hill, S. B. 2003b. Autonomy, mutualistic relationships, sense of place, and conscious caring: a hopeful view of the present and future. In J.I. Cameron (ed.), Changing Places: Re-imagining Australia. Longueville, Sydney, NSW. Pp. 180-196.

Hill, S. B. 2004a. Redesigning pest management: a social ecology approach, In D. Clements & A. Shrestha (eds.), New Dimensions in Agroecology. Haworth, Binghampton, NY. Pp. 491-510.

Hill, S.B. 2004b. Camping to change the world. Australian Journal of Outdoor. Education 8(1): 60-68.

Hill, S. B. in press. Social ecology as a framework for understanding and working with social capital and sustainability within rural communities. In A, Dale & J. Onyx (eds.), Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development: The Missing Link. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Hill, S.B.; MacRae, R. 1992. Organic farming in Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 39: 71-84.

Hill, S.B.; MacRae, R. 1995. Conceptual frameworks for the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Journal Sustainable Agriculture 7: 81-87.

Hill, S.B.; Vincent, C.; Chouinard, G. 1999. Evolving ecosystems approaches to fruit insect pest management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 73: 107-110.

Holmgren, D. 2002. Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Holmgren Design Services, Hepburn, VIC.

Hunter, D.; Bailey, A.; Taylor B. 1997. Co-operacy. Tandem, Birkenhead, NZ.

Josselson, R. 1996. The Space Between Us: Exploring the Dimensions of Human Relationships. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lewin, K. 1935. A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers by Kurt Lewin. McGraw Hill, New York.

MacRae, R.J.; Henning, J.; Hil1, S.B. 1993. Strategies to overcome barriers to the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada: the role of agribusiness. Journal Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(1): 21-51.

MacRae, R.J.; Hill, S.B.; Henning, J.; Bentley, A.J. 1990. Policies, programs and regulations to support the transition to sustainable agriculture in Canada. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 5(2): 76-92.

MacRae, R.J.; Hill, S.B.; Henning, J.; Mehuys, G.R. 1989a. Agricultural science and sustainable agriculture: a review of the existing scientific barriers to sustainable food production and potential solutions. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 6(3): 173-219.

MacRae, R.J.; Hill, S.B.; Henning, J.; Mehuys, G.R.; 1989b. Farm-scale agronomic and economic conversion from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 43: 155-198.

Mollison, B.; Slay; R.M. 1991. Introduction to Permaculture. Tagari, Tyalgum, NSW.

Norgaard, R. 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge, New York.

Peavey, F. 1994. By Life’s Grace. New Society, Philadelphia, PA. Pp. 86-111.

Rea, W.J. 1992-95. Chemical Sensitivity, Vol. 1-3. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL.

Roseland, M. 1999. Natural capital and social capital: implications for sustainable community development. In J.T. Pierce & A. Dale (eds.), Communities, Development, and Sustainability across Canada. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Rowan, J. 1993. The Transpersonal: Psychotherapy and Counselling. Routledge, London.

Sazanna, J. 1999. Understanding and Supporting Young People. Rational Island, Seattle, WA.

Solter, A.J. 1989. Helping Young Children Flourish. Shining Star, Goleta, CA.

Solter, A.J. 1984. The Aware Baby. Shining Star, Goleta, CA.

Stallibrass, A. 1989. Being Me and Also Us: Lessons from the Peckham Experiment. Scottish Academic, Edinburgh, UK.

Shem, S.; Surrey, J. 1998. We Have to Talk: Healing Dialogues Between Women and Men. Basic Books, New York.

Van Matre, S. 1990. Earth Education: A New Beginning. The Institute for Earth Education, Cedar Cove, Greenville, WV.

Williamson, G.S.; Pearse, I. H. 1980. Science, Synthesis and Sanity. Scottish Academic, Edinburgh, UK.

Professor Stuart B. Hill is Foundation Chair of Social Ecology, University of Western Sydney (s.hill@uws.edu.au). He has published over 350 papers and reports. His latest book (with Martin Mulligan) is Ecological Pioneers: A Social History of Australian Ecological Thought and Action, Cambridge UP, 2001 [The contributions of P. A. Yeomans and David Holmgren are documented in Ch. 8]. Prior to 1996 he was at McGill University, in Montreal, where he was responsible for the zoology degree and where in 1974 he established Ecological Agriculture Projects, Canada’s leading resource centre for sustainable agriculture (www.eap.mcgill.ca). He has worked in agricultural and development projects in the West Indies, French West Africa, Indonesia, The Philippines, China, and the Seychelles, as well as in the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

This is a background paper prepared for my Keynote address on 11 April 2005 at the ‘8th Australian Permaculture Convergence’ (April 10 – 13, 2005) (‘Permaculture: Creating Pathways to Sustainability’ Symposium – 11 April), at the Edmund Rice Centre “Amberly”, above the Yarra River in north-eastern Melbourne, Victoria.