Towards Integrative Ecosocial Design

Aranya, my PDC-teacher, explaining the five zones of permaculture.

"Through the work experience we understood that permaculture folk, for example, see most problems of human society stemming from destructive land use practices, such as industrial agriculture, and that switching to sustainable and regenerative horticulture, repairing ecosystems and living lifestyles based primarily on resources derived from biological processes would enable us to reconfigure human societies to function within the carrying capacity of Earth."

Tror dere ikke Aranya plutselig dukket opp i feeden min, ser han postet denne videoen om permakultur for bare to dager siden. Vel, her ser dere hvordan det hadde sett ut i draget nedover Stabbursjordet, hvor bestefar dyrket grønnsaker, vannet av ila øverst i jordet, hvis vi hadde fått lov til å leve i fred her. Eller ved "The Permaculture Research Institute" ved Grue gård i Hurdal, hadde ikke bestefars bror partert tunet vårt.

"...within the carrying capacity of Earth."

Lenge siden man levde innenfor bærekapasiteten til jordkloden vår her ved stenelven Grýta, ikke siden man bodde i jordhytter i dalhellinga her, med kveldssola og klukkingen fra elva. Egentlig pussig, da økopietisten i Holmstadengen jo skulle vært vårt forbilde, hvor Martin Kløvrud skreiv at han klarte seg med nesten ingenting, slik det seg hør og bør for en pietist. Det fantes visst ikke et mer nøysomt menneske!

Det er også underlig å være den som skal avslutte dette her, etter 150 år i Grythengen, hvor man ikke engang får hjelp til å plante ei lita granplante.

Pussig da å tenke på all den hjelpen tippoldefar fikk, hvor alle, både herrefolk og husmannsfolk, lette etter stein til den nye mølla hans, i jordene under Holmstad og Grythe. Fant de en fin bygningsstein, ble de kjempeglade, og kjørte denne velvillig ned hit, hvor de hjalp Herman med å legge den fint opp. De gledet seg alle til å få Øverskreiens flotteste mølle, Fossemøllen II.

Men nå bor folk bare i enorme villaer i og omkring Grythengen, de har null interesse av vår historie og landskapsarv, og forbruker enorme mengder av arealer og ressurser. Her om dagen på butikken overhørte jeg faktisk en som kunne fortelle at de hadde 9 biler hjemme!

Og nå vil de bare bli kvitt oss, alle sammen, fordi vi ikke ønsker å leve slike liv som dem. Vi hører ikke til her, hevder de, men dette er selvsagt helt motsatt. Egentlig burde vi satt dem på et fly, alle sammen, og sendt dem til Houston, som jo må være paradis på jord for disse menneskene, slik som de lever.

De fatter selvsagt ikke at uten kværnenga til herr Fossemøllen og pietistenga til oldefar, kan aldri stenelven Grýta bli ei kulturelv igjen, og da går hele Toten og Mjøslandet med.

Og da er vi intet annet enn mjøsbarbarer!

On my PDC-Course in Sweden I learned about the therm Integrative Ecosocial Design, and I fell in love with it. Here follow the history and description for this therm, from Gaia University:

This descriptive name, Integrative Ecososial Design, arose from observations and understandings gleaned from years of work and action in the permaculture and ecovillage fields, and from around leading-edge developments appearing elsewhere. Through the work experience we understood that permaculture folk, for example, see most problems of human society stemming from destructive land use practices, such as industrial agriculture, and that switching to sustainable and regenerative horticulture, repairing ecosystems and living lifestyles based primarily on resources derived from biological processes would enable us to reconfigure human societies to function within the carrying capacity of Earth.

Ecovillage-focused people often describe the primary problem as a lack of spiritual awareness, hierarchical decision making systems, poor housing and physical community design and tend to respond by establishing consensus-based, experimental intentional communities wherever they can find land and permission.

While there is substantial value in both of these approaches neither of these views seemed complete, and each group, for quite a while, was actively antagonistic towards the other - the one considering the other flimsy and "new agey", the other seeing itself as spiritually superior to the grunts planting trees and digging swales.

From our explorations of the dazzling array of leading-edge design developments, we considered Integral Theory, Social Ecology, Human Ecology and more. There's much to commend in each of these ways of thinking, yet none manages to combine the practical, pragmatic, action-oriented, purposeful, leaderful, clear approach we're seeking to engender through Gaia University. Here are some brief sketches...

Integral Theory has some powerful conceptual models, but tends towards extreme abstract conceptualization, attracts esoteric thinkers and seems to be liable to that tiresome academic dynamic of seeking to value and create elegant/obscure philosophically dense theory above grounded action.

Social Ecology has great social analysis roots and capacities and a fine vision, and meanwhile generates impenetrable and lengthy arguments for change seemingly typical of the intellectual left-wing that places it beyond the patience of anyone without a good deal of time and a background in unpicking convoluted, verbose scholarly masterpieces.

Human Ecology, which unlike the two above, has been generated from within the conventional academy, has a thorough academic pedigree and long history. Part of its problem, for our purposes, is that it is still embedded in the establishment, which curtails its ability to act for deep social change lest it bite the hand that feeds it.

Thus at Gaia University we birthed the field of Integrative Ecosocial Design, which draws on the most practical elements of the above, but has its own character as an approachable, action-focused, practical/thoughtful practice of praxis.

What's In a Name?

• Integrative to emphasize a process and direction (rather than "integrated", a claim too bold, or "integral" which is rather like a branding).
• Ecosocial to indicate a balance between ecology, land-use and all social and economic aspects of human society.
• Design to underline our primary goal of bringing as many people as possible to a place of empowerment from which they can notice that the behavior, structures and institutions of societies and the people within them are products of human thinking and efforts. Thus all these aspects of culture are amenable to deconstruction and redesign.

This article is published at P2P-Foundation on January 29, 2013.