sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anthropocene, Deep ecology, Environmental ethics, Thomas Berry

Forthcoming in Environmental 37(4), Winter 2015

The Practical Wisdom of : An Anthropoharmonic Phronesis for Moving towards an Ecological Mark Hathaway* may now be moving into a new epoch, the , in which activities have become a significant geological force altering (and often undermining) the planet’s life-sustaining systems. In this context, Berry suggests that humanity’s key task is to create a viable niche for itself that simultaneously enables the Earth community as a whole to thrive, effectively inaugurating an ecological epoch. Stephen Scharper proposes that this transition entails a shift from to anthropoharmonism. Anthropoharmonism recognizes the unique perspective (and power) of , but also recognizes that humans are wholly dependent on the wider Earth community and need to act in harmony with it. Moving from ethics to practice requires an ecological wisdom that enables humans to discern actions that are mutually enhancing for ourselves and Earth’s . Building on Arne Naess’ idea that ecosophia must be “directly relevant for action” as well as ’s understanding of phronesis or “ethical know-how,” this kind of wisdom can be understood as an anthropoharmonic phronesis that focuses on healing the Earth community, using sustainable practices and appropriate for specific contexts. Such a phronesis can be found in permaculture, a design system founded by Bill Mollison and David Holgrem which provides a concrete set of guidelines for discerning ecologically appropriate actions in specific contexts based on an ethic of care of Earth, care of people, and fair share. Key include using small and slow solutions, designing from patterns to details, and creatively responding to change. Like anthropoharmonism, permaculture envisions a role for humans as responsive participants in ecosystems who must first engage in protracted observation and only intervene with the minimal change necessary to achieve a goal. Permaculture can therefore be understood as a way to embody a practical, anthropoharmonic wisdom that could facilitate a shift towards an ecological epoch. INTRODUCTION There is a growing consensus that Earth may now be moving into a new geologic epoch, the Anthropocene, in which human activities have become a key force altering ecosystems, shifting climatic patterns, and driving hundreds of thousands of species to . Human systems, “for better or for worse,… have emerged as new primary Earth systems, not only by dramatically altering preexisting natural processes but also, more important, by introducing a host of new Earth system processes entirely novel to the

* Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, OISE and the School of the Environment, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. E-mail mark.hathaway[at]utoronto.ca. Hathaway is PhD candidate (ABD) teaching ecological worldviews and researching adult transformative learning processes that facilitate the cultivation of an embodied ecological wisdom. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the eleventh annual meeting of the International Society for . A special thanks to Katie McShane and other participants in the meeting whose comments helped to improve this paper. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37

Earth system.”1 Indeed, it seems that it is no longer the case that humans merely disturb Earth systems, but rather that human systems have become an “integral and defining… component of this planet’s processes.”2 Based on current evidence, it seems reasonable to assert that the global changes induced by human activities, particularly over the past two centuries, have pushed our planet into a new epoch3 and that the current changes are not temporary, but rather of long-duration consistent with geologic timescales.4 Paul Crutzen,5 the Dutch atmospheric chemist and Nobel laureate who, along with biologist Eugene Stoermer, first coined the term “Anthropocene,” notes that this new epoch poses a challenge for all of humanity: Failing a major catastrophe (either natural or of our own making), humans will be a major environmental, and arguably geologic, force for the foreseeable . With this power also comes a new responsibility to develop strategies “to ensure the of Earth’s life support system against human-induced stresses.” This “is one of the greatest and policy” – and arguably, one might add, ethical – “challenges ever to confront humanity.”6 What is clear is that humanity cannot continue on the path of “business as usual” without courting disaster – not only for ourselves, but also for countless other species. “We are passing into a new phase of human experience and entering a new world that will be qualitatively and quantitatively different from the one we have known” and which some frame as a call for “planetary … built around scientifically developed boundaries for critical Earth System processes that must be observed for the Earth System to remain within a -like state.” Failure to assume this responsibility “threatens to become for humanity a one-way trip to an uncertain future in a new, but very different, state of the Earth System.”7 While “stewardship” may not be the term to describe an ethic to guide humanity to consciously and wisely assume responsibility consonant with its power to fundamentally alter Earth systems, the essential point is still well taken. One danger, however, is that we may be tempted to adopt “solutions” – such as planetary-scale geo-engineering projects, which Paul Crutzen8 suggests may be necessary – that have the potential to compound

1 Erle C Ellis and Peter K Haff, “Earth in the Anthropocene: New Epoch, New Paradigm, New Responsibilities,” Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90 (2009): 473, p. 473.. 2 Ibid. 3 Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Alan Haywood and Michael Ellis, “The Anthropocene: A New Epoch of Geological Time?,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (2011): 835-41. 4 , Åsa Persson, Lisa Deutsch, Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Katherine Richardson, Carole Crumley, Paul Crutzen, Carl Folke and Line Gordon, “The Anthropocene: From to Planetary Stewardship,” : A Journal of the Human Environment 40 (2011): 739-61. 5 Paul J. Crutzen, “Geology of Mankind,” 415 (2002): 23. 6 Will Steffen, Paul J Crutzen and John R McNeill, “The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature,” Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 36 (2007): 614-21, p. 618. 7 Steffen, Persson, et al, “The Anthropocene,” pp. 756-7. 8 Crutzen, “Geology of Mankind.” Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 3 ecological problems rather than resolve them. How can humans assume an appropriate share of responsibility for the well-being of the Earth community while avoiding the kind of managerial ethos and obsession with control and “progress” that often characterize the worldviews of the modern technocratic societies9 that have caused so much ecological destruction? This paper will examine a number of ethical and practical frameworks that may serve to guide humanity in this emerging new epoch of the Anthropocene. In particular, it will explore ’s ideas concerning an emerging “Ecozoic” era, Stephen Scharper’s proposal for an anthropoharmonic ethic, and the and principles of permaculture which seem to elucidate the shape of a possible ecological phronesis (a practical wisdom or ethical know-how) that could guide humanity towards the creation of a viable, sustainable niche which simultaneously allows the wider Earth community to flourish and thrive. THOMAS BERRY AND THE ECOZOIC ERA While the noted Earth scholar Thomas Berry does not seem to have used the term “Anthropocene,” similar ideas are found in his writings. Indeed, Berry claims that humans now influence complex life systems on the planet “in a comprehensive manner” and that, “while the human cannot make a blade of grass, there is liable not to be a blade of grass unless it is accepted, protected, and fostered by the human.”10 For Berry, however, this change signals, not just a change of epoch from the Holocene (which began about 12,000 BCE with the end of the last ) to the Anthropocene, but the end of the Cenozoic Era that began following the extinction of the dinosaurs and much of Earth’s life: In evaluating our present situation I submit that we have already terminated the Cenozoic Era of the geo-biological systems of the planet. Sixty-five million of life development are terminated. Extinction is taking place throughout the life systems on a scale unequaled since the terminal phase of the Mesozoic Era...

9 See, for example, Charlene Spretnak observes: “Modern, technocratic society [is] fuelled by the patriarchal obsessions of dominance and control. They… [sustain a] managerial ethos, which hold efficiency of production and short-term gains above all else…” (“: Our Roots and Flowering,” In: Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein eds. Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, San Francisco: Books, 1990, pp. 3- 14, p. 9.) Similarly, in an article Crutzen himself co-authored, it is affirmed that “the belief systems and assumptions that underpin neo-classical economic thinking, which in turn has been a major driver of the , are directly challenged by the concept of the Anthropocene” and that the concept should actually challenge the whole “notion of human progress” as it is typically understood (Will Steffen, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen and John McNeill, “The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (2011): 842-67, p. 862). 10 and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era – A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos (San Francisco, CA: HarperSan Francisco, 1992), p. 247. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37

A renewal of life in some creative context requires that a new biological period come into being, a period when humans would dwell upon the Earth in a mutually enhancing manner. This new mode of being of the planet I describe as the Ecozoic Era, the fourth in the succession of life eras thus far identified as the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic, and the Cenozoic.11 A number of things are noteworthy in considering the idea of the Ecozoic in contrast to the Anthropocene. First, Berry coined the term in 1974 in an essay entitled “Alienation”12 written over a decade before the first formal use of the Anthropocene and predating Eugene Stoermer’s first informal usage of the term in the 1980’s.13 Secondly, Berry proposes that we are experiencing such a fundamental shift in the life-sustaining systems of the planet that the Cenozoic era is ending. This is no doubt controversial and more difficult to prove than the claim of a shift of epoch. It seems to be based primarily on the evidence of radical transformations in biotic systems (mass-, changes to ecosystems, etc.) rather than on geologic changes. For the sake of this paper, however, this is a secondary consideration. The most important assertion, perhaps, is that in this time when humans have begun to exercise a defining influence on Earth systems, we must find a way to “dwell upon the Earth in a mutually enhancing manner” – i.e. in a way that allows both humans and other species to flourish. Whether we name this new modality of life as the Ecozoic era or – more modestly – as the “Ecocene” epoch is less important than the kinds of changes it implies in the way humans live as part of the greater Earth community. Furthermore, Berry contrasts this new era or epoch to another alterative, the “Technozoic,” based on an industrial mystique that endeavors to shape “an even more controlled order of things”14 consistent, perhaps, with such ideas as planetary-scale geo- engineering projects and the like. For Berry, the industrial civilization that typifies the Technozoic is built upon a kind of destructive dream or cultural entrancement that should be considered a “profound cultural disorientation” that requires a “corresponding deep cultural therapy.”15 He proposes that a fundamental shift in human consciousness must take place that would be based on new “cultural codings” rooted in a “revelatory vision… that we describe as ‘dream’… indicating an intuitive, nonrational process that occurs when we awaken to the numinous powers ever present in the phenomenal world about us, powers that possess us in our high creative moments.16 Indeed, “the immediate goal of the Ecozoic is

11 Thomas Berry, The Ecozoic Era (Great Barrington, MA: Schumacher Society for a New , 1991), para. 5.29-5:30. 12 This essay now appears in Thomas Berry, The Sacred Universe (, NY: Columbia University Press, 2009), pp. 35-48. 13 Will Steffen, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen and John McNeill, “The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (2011): 842-67. 14 Swimme & Berry, The Universe Story, p. 249. 15 Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York, NY: Bell Tower, 1999), p. 165. 16 Thomas Berry, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco, Calif.: Sierra Club Books, 1988), p. 211. Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 5 not simply to diminish the devastation of the planet that is taking place at present. It is rather to alter the mode of consciousness that is responsible for such deadly activities.”17 Perhaps more concretely, the Ecozoic is characterized by a “renewal process… to establish a mutually enhancing mode of human-Earth relations”18 so that humanity may “establish a niche that is beneficial both for itself and the larger community.”19 In contrast to the Cenozoic – an era’s whose “brilliance was independent of any human influence” – “almost every phase of the Ecozoic will involve the human.”20 This does not imply, however, that humans should exercise dominating control over biological and geological processes, but rather that humans must enter into a creative response to the evolutionary processes of Earth and the wider cosmos. For Berry, humans are not alone in possessing consciousness nor the only subjects of creative processes: “That the universe is a communion of subjects rather than a collection of objects is the central commitment of the Ecozoic.”21 Furthermore, the Ecozoic will “be brought into being only by the integral life community itself”22 – i.e. humans must harmoniously act in concert with the greater community of life. Humans have a responsibility to “continue the integrity of that creative process whence the universe derives, sustains itself, and continues its sequence of transformations” – transformations too deep and mysterious for humans to ever fully comprehend, much less have the wisdom to control. At the same time: The human mode of understanding… does bring with it a unique responsibility for entering into this creative process. While we do not have a comprehensive knowledge of the origin or destiny of the universe or even of any particular phase of the universe, we do have a capacity for understanding and responding to the story that the universe tells of itself.23 As Satish Kumar24 has noted, naming the emerging age as the Ecozoic (or, if one prefers, the Ecocene) has the advantage of putting emphasis on repairing the destruction wrought by humans upon Earth and creating a new mode of human-Earth relations based on harmony, respect, and sustainability. In contrast, the Anthropocene – while well intentioned and while accurately portraying the power of humans to influence (and even undermine) our planet’s essential, life sustaining, systems – also carries the danger of over- emphasizing a managerial role for humans and neglecting the important role that all life must play in healing the Earth.

17 Swimme & Berry, The Universe Story, p. 250. 18 Thomas Berry, Evening Thoughts: Reflecting on Earth as Sacred Community (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 2006), p. 105. 19 Berry, The Great Work, p. 105. 20 Swimme & Berry, The Universe Story, p. 247. 21 Ibid., p. 243. 22 Berry, The Ecozoic Era, para. 5.32. 23 Swimme & Berry, The Universe Story, p. 251. 24 , “The Ecozoic Era: We Are Not in the Anthropocene Epoch, but Entering into the Ecozoic Era.” Resurgence July/August (2013). 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37

AN ANTHROPOHARMONIC ETHIC One way of describing the ethical framework at the root of the Ecozoic vision would be as “anthropo-harmonic” – a term first coined by Stephen Scharper.25 This ethic affirms a “primal interrelationship between the human and nonhuman realms” where “humans and the larger environment are mutually constitutive” and interdependent.26 While the human is seen as having an important role, it avoids anthropocentrism. More recently, Scharper27 clarifies that, while humans are not “focal,” this ethic does affirm human freedom and self-reflective consciousness that underlines the unique role of humans within the Earth community: Anthropo-harmonism is something that comes from a reflection of anthropocentrism, , and then cosmocentrism, in terms of looking at some of the environmental discourse on what should be “central” to our deliberations. But within this conversation, the role of the human is sometimes overlooked, exaggerated, or undervalued, and so anthropo- harmonism is a way to say that we will never be able to shed our human skin- our anthropos, in other words. We will never be able to see the world the way a blue whale does or the way a snail darter does; we will always be looking at reality through human eyes, and so the “anthropo” has to remain. However, what we do not have to do is see ourselves as lord, master, conqueror, and centre of all that is. And so that’s why “anthropo-harmonism” is suggested: while we don’t drop the anthropo, as we will always read reality through a human lens, we can drop our hubris that suggests we are the centre of both the biotic and the cosmic journey. Instead, we accept that we’re in a “radical intersubjectivity” with all of creation.28 Scharper emphasizes that anthropoharmonism requires a “radical intersubjectivity” involving the “co-penetration of the human and non-human” as well as intersubjectivity within the human community itself. Indeed, realizing the fullness of our humanity requires an integration of the individual with the communal – including the entire biotic community. Because of this, anthropoharmonism affirms the importance of both social (harmony within the human community) and ecological integrity (recognizing the interdependence of humans and the more-than-human communities). At the same time, while human agency is affirmed, the agency of non-human nature is also recognized and celebrated. Humans are not stewards or managers within this vision, but rather “plain citizens and members” (to use ’s words) of a wider Earth community in which they have their own unique role. Given the power at our disposal, this role must also encompass a measure of both responsibility toward the wider biotic community as well as a healthy dose of humility – a recognition of the limits of human wisdom and of

25 Stephen B. Scharper, Redeeming the Time: A Political Theology of the Environment (New York: Continuum, 1997). 26 Ibid., p. 188. 27 Stephen B. Scharper, For Earth’s Sake: Toward a Compassionate (Toronto, ON: Novalis, 2013. 28 Ibid., p. 183 Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 7 our utter dependence on other species and healthy ecosystems. Simultaneously, “anthropo-harmonism insists that feelings of awe and reverence for the universe play a crucial role in forming a lasting integration between humans and non-humans” based on “love, respect, and admiration.”29 Anthropoharmonism does not imply passivity, or simply “going with the flow,” in an epoch were human interventions are often undermining the stability of entire ecosystems; nor is it simply the idea of “living harmoniously with nature” in a world undergoing rapid – and often destructive – change. Rather, anthropoharmonism calls humans to work both actively and cooperatively with the wider biotic community to preserve, regenerate, and adapt healthy, functional, and resilient ecosystems. At its heart is the idea that the healing of Earth and its ecosystems can only be accomplished by working in concert with the wider biotic community. In this process, humans need to actively and respectfully engage with other organisms in a process marked by a humble, dialogical attitude that continually seeks to learn while letting go of domineering and exploitative dispositions, habits, and practices. At the same time, the anthropoharmonic perspective recognizes that humans – given their unique powers, abilities, and modalities of consciousness – can play a vital role in this great work. TOWARDS AN ANTHROPOHARMONIC PHRONESIS It is one thing to describe, in abstract terms, the characteristics of an anthropoharmonic ethic or to speak of the role of the human within an Ecozoic vision of human-Earth relations. Might it be possible, though, to go further and to imagine how, concretely, such an ethic might actually be lived out? Arne Naess described his as an ecosophia, or ecological wisdom. For Naess, “all ‘sophical’ insight should be directly relevant for action. Through their actions, a person or organisation exemplifies sophia, sagacity, and wisdom – or lack thereof. ‘Sophia’ intimates acquaintance and understanding rather than impersonal or abstract results.”30 This wisdom also implies a “conscious change of attitude towards the conditions of life in the ecosphere”31 – something echoed in both Berry’s idea of changing the dream at the root of the of as well as Scharper’s insight into the role of awe and reverence in forming an experiential bond with the wider Earth community. Indeed, ecological wisdom could be extended further to encompass a form of consciousness – rooted in a deep, experiential knowledge – that enables one to perceive reality relationally (as interconnected and intersubjective – with humans as members of, not separate from, the greater Earth community and the wider cosmos). This wisdom enables one to act in accordance with the ecological principles that enable life – including human societies – to consciously participate in evolution toward ever-greater differentiation, communion, and creative self-organization.

29 Ibid., p. 185. 30 Arne Naess and David Rothenberg, Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle: Outline of an (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 37. 31 Ibid., p. 38. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37

While Naess used the word “sophia” is speaking of ecological wisdom, the Aristotelian term “phronesis” may be even more appropriate. Common translations for phronesis include practical wisdom, ethical know-how, prudence, and moral discernment; it includes both situational (contextual) perception and practical insight.3233 In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes phronesis as “a true state involving reason, concerned with action in relation to human ”34 which he considers a , rather than a skill. At the core of phronesis is the ability to deliberate well about human affairs in a way that results in concrete action. Phronesis, then, is not focused on attaining knowledge, but rather on choosing well and making decisions that lead to well-being and a good life.35 While Aristotle’s use of phronesis focuses on human , he conceives of happiness as more than “a pleasantly exalted and fluffy feeling. It is flourishing… activities that ‘really work’ (energeiai) without deteriorating or destructing through their own activities.”36 Phronesis does not seek to manipulate or seduce, but takes the needs of others into consideration. From an ecological perspective, then, phronesis could be extended to focus on making decisions that benefit the health and well-being of other living organisms and the flourishing of the Earth community as a whole. Phronesis requires experience and “consists in one’s becoming able to see what matters in certain circumstances, and why;” moreover, phronesis goes beyond mere discernment and deliberation to action: “Unlike judgement, practical wisdom involves the virtuous person’s commanding himself (sic) to perform what is called for in the circumstances”37 – i.e. to enact or embody virtue. Curnow notes that there are two, complementary aspects of phronesis in Aristotle. One is that of conscious discernment (or “excellence of deliberation”) “which involves relating particulars to universals by a process of correct reasoning”38 (as in Nichomachean Ethics, 1142b). At the same time, though, phronesis requires an intuitive grasp of the particulars that he describes “in terms of both perception and ‘intuitive reason’”39 (as in Nichomachean Ethics, 1142a). In considering these two lines of reasoning, Aristotle combines a newer and older tradition of thought. While Aristotle seems to put more emphasis on the explicit process of logical deliberation and

32 Jana Noel, “On the Varieties of Phronesis,” Educational and Theory 31 (1999): 273-89. 33 Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983). 34 Aristotle, Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, edited and translated by Roger Crisp (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 108/1140b.. 35 Trevor Curnow, “Sophia and Phronesis: Past, Present, and Future,” Research in Human Development 8 (2011): 95-108. 36 Olav Eikeland, The Ways of Aristotle: Aristotelian Phrónêsis, Aristotelian Philosophy of Dialogue, and Action Research (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2008), p. 382. 37 Roger Crisp, “Introduction.” In: Aristotle, Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, p. xxv. 38 Trevor Curnow, Wisdom, Intuition and Ethics (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1999), p. 44. 39 Ibid. Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 9 discernment, there is simultaneously an element more akin to Heraclitus’ logos: “An understanding of ‘the whole order of things’ (traditionally associated with sophia)” that “could manifest itself in an ability to directly perceive how each particular fits into that order, and, as a result, how to ‘act accordingly.’”40 Thus, Aristotle integrates both “inferential and non-inferential processes into his discussion of phronesis.”41 Noel42 similarly notes that phronesis combines three aspects: rational deliberation or discernment, a kind of situational perception or insight, and an overriding concern for finding ways for living well. These insights are echoed as well by Richard Bernstein, who defines phronesis as “a form of reasoning, yielding a type of ethical know-how in which what is universal and what is particular are codetermined.”43 Phronesis implies a high degree of flexibility that is responsively sensitive to concrete situations; it is holistic in the sense that it is not only intellectual but is also “imbued with emotion and imagination;” it is “oriented beyond self towards the wider community and the interests of that community;” and it is also directly relevant to action or praxis.44 An ecological phronesis, then, would be oriented to the needs of the entire Earth community and – more contextually – to the well-being of the local , including both humans and other species. Martin Dillon defines phronesis as a practical wisdom that endeavors “to find out how the world works, and to incorporate that understanding in our actions with the hope that it will produce consequences more to our liking than those that follow from acting in ignorance.”45 Similarly, Brown and Toadvine speak of phronesis as moving beyond either “‘instrumental’ reason or scientific ‘objectivity,’” reuniting both head and heart in pursuit of “the good life for humanity and the earth.”46 Jason Springs notes that phronesis is “embodied, practical wisdom that begins by discerning and demonstrating connections, yet without collapsing the (occasionally radical) differences. It makes specific identifications, draws inferences, and renders assessments on a case-by-case basis, yet without losing a sense of broader scope.”47

40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Jana Noel, “On the Varieties of Phronesis,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 31 (1999): 273-89. 43 Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, p. 146. 44 Mignonne Breier, “Recognising Phronesis, or Practical Wisdom, in the Recognition of Prior Learning,” In: Linda Cooper and Shirley Walters eds. Learning/Work: Turning Work and Lifelong Learning inside Out (Cape Town, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council Press, 2009), pp. 182-193, p. 188. 45 Martin C. Dillon, “Merleau-Ponty and the Ontology of Ecology,” In: Sue L. Cataldi and William S. Hamrick eds. Merleau-Ponty and : Dwelling on the Landscapes of Thought (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2007), pp. 259-72, p. 260. 46 Charles S. Brown and Ted Toadvine, Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2003), p. xix. 47 Jason A Springs, “What Cultural Theorists of Religion Have to Learn from Wittgenstein; or, How to Read Geertz as a Practice Theorist,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76 (2008): 934-69, p. 942. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37

Breier48 observes that phronesis is a form of knowledge, like episteme (context-independent knowledge rooted in analytic rationality) and techne (pragmatic knowledge, for example of a craft or art, oriented toward production); yet, unlike techne (, technique) or episteme (epistemology), it is significant that no simple English equivalent for phronesis exists – perhaps indicating a neglect for phronesis, at least in English-speaking . Similarly, speaking of higher education, Dane Scott49 notes that while most traditional universities tend to emphasize abstract, rational knowledge (episteme) and while market-oriented universities emphasize practical skills and technology (techne), there is relatively little emphasis put on phronesis as practical wisdom or ethical know-how. Ideally, phronesis would lie at the center of learning where the relationship could be visualized as: Episteme <=> Phronesis <=> Techne In essence, the emphasis here is not placed simply on theoretical knowledge (for example, the theory of how suspended aerosols might cool the climate as well as the possible consequences of using such aerosols), nor on how it might be done (the way to design a system of suspending such aerosols), but on whether it should be done. Obviously, the question of discerning whether an action should be undertaken (and, if so, how it should be undertaken) is informed by both theoretical knowledge and technological possibilities, but neither of these by themselves should determine the course of action. Rather, phronesis is an ethical know-how that flexibly and holistically discerns what will lead to the “good life” for both humanity and the wider Earth community. Francisco Varela, while not speaking directly of phronesis, does write insightfully about what he terms as “ethical know-how” – one of the possible ways to understand phronesis. An important point he emphasizes is that the “a wise (or virtuous) person is one who knows what is good and spontaneously does it”– i.e. phronesis is characterized by an “immediacy of perception and action.”50 For Varela, most ethical behavior demonstrates this kind of intuitive immediacy and is not the result of conscious judgment, but rather a deeply embodied, contextual, and concrete knowledge or wisdom. Like the Taoist wu- wei (spontaneous action), phronesis “points to the process of acquiring a disposition where immediacy precedes deliberation, where nondual action precedes the radical distinction between subject and object.”51 For Varela, wisdom is characterized by non-intentional, intuitive action that embodies an expert kind of know-how that must be cultivated over time. In this respect, it may more closely resemble the older meaning of phronesis discussed by Aristotle rather than the more explicitly inferential mode of discernment and deliberation.

48 Breier, “Recognising Phronesis, or Practical Wisdom.” 49 Dane Scott, “Transforming the Market Model University,” In: ed. Teaching Environmental Ethics (Brill Academic Publishers, 2006), pp. 12-34. 50 Francisco J. Varela, Ethical Know-How: Action, Wisdom, and Cognition (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), p. 4. 51 Ibid., p. 33. Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 11

What kind of phronesis, then, can guide us through the Anthropocene towards a genuinely ecological (or Ecozoic) way of inhabiting Earth so as to create a viable niche for humans while living with the greater Earth community in a mutually enhancing manner as suggested by the anthropoharmonic ethic? While Thomas Berry did not write about phronesis per se, both his reflections on the Ecozoic era52 and on technology53 suggest some key characteristics of a practical, ecological wisdom or ethical know- how: 1. Since Earth is a one-time , the focus of all human endeavors must be the healing of the Earth community, understood here as “a communion of subjects.” Because of this, all human technologies and actions must function in an integral relation with the systems, processes, and technologies of the Earth itself. In this process, “the spontaneities of nature need to be fostered, not extinguished.”54 Both humans and non- humans are understood as agents in this process of healing and regeneration. 2. In measuring or evaluating progress, health, or well-being, the entire Earth community must be considered and “every component of the community must participate in the process.”55 This implies that human action must always be envisioned and framed in a broad context of cooperation with other organisms.56 Related to this idea is the assertion that Earth is primary and the human is derivative: The health and well- being of humans is utterly dependent on the health and well-being of the wider Earth community. 3. All technologies and actions must be integral in the sense of taking care of their own disposal. Moving beyond Berry, we might even propose that the very idea of “waste” needs to be questioned and superseded. The human economy, as a subset of Earth’s economy, must follow an authentically ecological model where all materials are effectively recycled through the system. 4. Our actions and technologies need to take place within a bioregional context (while not neglecting the larger national or global scale). In particular, “the functional divisions of the human should accord with the functional divisions of the earth itself and its lifeforms.”57 5. A functional is required to “provide the mystique needed for this integral earth-human presence”58 that leads to a deep reverence for Earth and its life processes. It is interesting to note that, in speaking of the transformations needed to bring about the Ecozoic, Berry specifically mentions moving away from monocultures and industrial agriculture to “” and localized

52 Swimme & Berry, The Universe Story. 53 Berry, The Dream of the Earth. 54 Ibid., p. 65 55 Ibid., p. 66. 56 Berry, The Ecozoic Era, para. 5.32. 57 Berry, The Dream of the Earth, p. 67. 58 Ibid., p. 66. 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37 production.59 He does not, however, seem to develop this idea in any depth nor examine the ethics, principles, and practice of permaculture in any detail. PERMACULTURE AS ANTHROPOHARMONIC PHRONESIS Permaculture is an integrated design system encompassing ethics, design principles, and a wide variety of ecological practices and technologies that was first developed in Australia in the early 1970’s by biologist Bill Mollison and designer David Holgrem. Permaculture is a conscious system of design “based on direct observation of nature, learning from and the findings of modern science” which simultaneously embodies “a philosophy of positive action and education” while aiming “to restructure society by returning control of for living: food, water, shelter and the means of livelihood, to ordinary people in their communities.”60 Bill Mollison defines permaculture as a “system of assembling conceptual, material, and strategic components in a pattern which functions to benefit life in all its forms [emphasis added]. It seeks to provide a sustainable and secure place for living things on this earth.”61 McManus further notes that permaculture endeavors to create human habitats that “mimic the patterns and relationships found in natural ” in such a way that these systems are “naturally regenerative” and able to “solve their problems internally.”62 As such, permaculture may model a truly anthropoharmonic phronesis that seeks to work with nature in an integral fashion to heal the Earth community. The word “permaculture” combines three key words: permanent, agriculture, and culture and attempts to create sustainable designs that recreate the patterns found in natural ecosystems, drawing particularly on whole systems thinking63 that focuses – not so much on individual elements – but on the relationship between them and the way they interact to form a functional, integrated whole.64 Despite the word “permanent” in its name, permaculture should not be confused with a static or unchanging system. It is perhaps best understood as a “permanently sustainable” perspective, or one that seeks to benefit not only those who are currently living, but those who will follow in generations to come. At the same time, permaculture embraces the idea of ongoing change, evolution, and adaptation in keeping with insights from systems theory. In developing permaculture, Mollison was influenced in his philosophy and worldview both by his work with Aboriginal Tasmanians and by Taoism.

59 Ibid., p. 62. 60 Permaculture Activist Magazine as cited in James R Veteto and Joshua Lockyer, “Environmental Anthropology Engaging Permaculture: Moving Theory and Practice toward Sustainability,” Culture & Agriculture 30 (2008): 47-58, p. 48. 61 Bill Mollison, Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual (Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari Publications, 1988), p. 36. 62 Brad McManus, “An Integral Framework for Permaculture,” Journal of 3 (2010): 162-74, p. 162. 63 David Holmgren, “Essence of Permaculture,” (Hepburn, Australia: Holmgren Design Services, 2007). 64 Bert Peeters, “Permaculture as Alternative Agriculture,” Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 26 (2012): 422-34. Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 13

As well, he and Holgrem were influenced by the ecosystems perspectives of ecologist Howard Odum, the work of Masanobu Fukuoka on natural farming, and P. A. Yeoman’s work on keyline planning and landscape analysis.65 While permaculture is probably the best-known and most widely practiced form of ,66 its design principles may be applied more widely to nearly any situation where human ingenuity is employed.

Figure 1: Layered polyculture system of a forest garden. (Image by John Kitsteiner, tcpermaculture.com. Used with permission.)

A well-functioning permaculture system will be characterized by a wide diversity of species, spaces, and zones; a diverse and plentiful yield of food, fiber, and other useful products; sufficient ecological complexity and stability to enable the storage of energy and water while guaranteeing resiliency as conditions change; and the ability to be sustained by local, renewable resources (sunlight, rainfall, and self-regenerating soil) without external

65 Bill Mollison, Permaculture Two: Practical Design for Town and Country in Permanent Agriculture (Maryborough, Australia: Tagari Community Books, 1979). 66 Rafter Sass Ferguson and Sarah Taylor Lovell, “Permaculture for Agroecology: Design, Movement, Practice, and Worldview. A Review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34 (2013): 251-74. 14 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37 inputs.67 In practice, permaculture often uses a multi-layered system of tree and plants (along with livestock) with different zones (in roughly concentric circles, with the inner-most zone requiring the most monitoring and human labor and the outermost requiring the least), and relies on perennial crops as much as possible (to reduce soil disturbance and human labor). A forest garden – characterized by the “stacking of functions” using different layers – would be a typical kind of permaculture system. By some estimates, forest gardens can feed up to 25 people per hectare, or about double of what is possible using industrial agricultural systems, albeit supporting a different diet less dependent on .68 While permaculture employs a wide variety of methods and strategies, Bill Mollison insists that, as a design system, permaculture really “contains nothing new”69 in the way of techniques, most of which are drawn both from traditional practices as well as modern agroecological science. Instead, “the practical stratum of permaculture might be more productively regarded as a conceptual framework for the evaluation and adoption of practices [emphasis added], rather than a bundle of techniques.”70 Collectively, this framework for ethical discernment and action, along with the kinds of techniques and practices they employ, might be considered a kind of phronesis – or, at the very least, a system of principles and practices that enable the cultivation of a living, ecological phronesis over time. This framework for discerning and envisioning actions is evident in both the articulation of permaculture’s ethical and design principles. In terms of ethics, three key points are proposed.7172 The first is that of care for Earth, which includes the nurturing of soil, forests, and water; working with nature; preventing damage to natural ecosystems; and minimizing environmental impacts. This outlines a strongly anthropoharmonic ethic insofar as it emphasizes both preventing damage to natural ecosystems as well as the healing and regeneration of natural systems. The second principle, care of people, recognizes the importance of and right relationship within human communities by urging each person to look after one’s self, one’s kin, and one’s community; to work together with others; to assist those without to gain access to healthy food and clean water; and to design sustainable systems that produce the necessities of life. Finally, fair share reinforces both the theme of social justice and ecological care by encouraging limits on and reproduction; redistributing any surplus production to those in need; building economic lifeboats; and modifying lifestyles to make them truly sustainable. Permaculture’s design principles then attempt to move to more concrete criteria for designing systems and discerning actions; they create a broad

67 Peeters, “Permaculture as Alternative Agriculture.” 68 Christopher J. Rhodes, “Feeding and Healing the World: Through Regenerative Agriculture and Permaculture,” Science Progress 95 (2012). 69 Mollison, Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual, p. 9. 70 Ferguson & Lovell, “Permaculture for Agroecology,” p. 14. 71 Holmgren, “Essence of Permaculture.” 72 Rhodes, “Feeding and Healing the World.” Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 15 framework allowing for a wide range of methods that may be applied in specific contexts.7374 Twelve main design principles are often outlined, but others also appear in permaculture . One that deserves particular attention is the first principle, which is to observe and interact. In beginning any design process, the first step is to carefully and thoughtfully observe the land or place where one is working over a prolonged period. Holgrem speaks of this as a “two way process” in which one must overcome “Cartesian dualism” and genuinely interact with the land, but he also speaks of it as a “process between subject and object.”75 So, while a degree of humility is present here, to become truly anthropoharmonic, this principle may need to be deepened to make it genuinely intersubjective. Instead of simply “reading a landscape as a textbook,” a more profound form of communication may prove more fruitful, even entering into the realm that Berry refers to as the revelatory. More promisingly, permaculture urges practitioners to use small and slow solutions, and to “make the least change for the greatest possible effect.” An idea of actively cooperating with nature is evident in the assertion that “everything gardens… and has an effect on the environment” and that, among plants and other animals, we may find “allies in our efforts to sustain ourselves and other species.”76 At the same, time, the principle of producing no waste seems to move beyond Berry’s advice that each system needs to take care of its own . The idea of catching and storing energy, nutrients, and water also portrays a strong conservation ethic. Both the idea of using and valuing diversity and integrating rather than segregating demonstrate an ecological sense in which diversity and community are understood to be inter-related, as does the idea of designing from patterns to details. Creativity also is valued by the principles of creatively using and responding to change along with using edges and valuing the marginal as the places where creativity is often most evident. The principle of applying self-regulation and feedback implies that permaculture systems must be open to continual modification and evolution, enabling them to adapt as conditions change. At the same time, permaculture is meant to satisfy real needs – both those of humans and other life – so another design principle is to obtain a yield that enables the system to be as self-reliant as possible. Overall, a key goal of permaculture is to create genuinely resilient and adaptable systems that function with their own integrated ecology. The dynamic nature of permaculture should also be emphasized. Permaculture is more than a collection of techniques to be applied with knowledge and experience. By integrating ethics and a series of more flexible design principles, it creates a framework for discernment and deliberation that transcends the mere application of methods. In a time of rapid and the challenges of ecological and social transformations, the importance of the principle of creatively using and responding to change is particularly

73 McManus, “An Integral Framework for Permaculture.” 74 Holmgren, Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustanability. 75 Ibid., p. 15. 76 Mollison, Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual, p. 16. 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37 important. According to Olav Eikeland,77 a key difference between phronesis and habitus is the ability of the former to discern the right action in times of significant transformation. At such times, habit, accumulated experience, tacit knowledge, and even quick wits may be insufficient. Phronesis provides the kind of ethical framework that enables one to analyze and discern – often taking some time to ponder and deliberate (as implied in the principle of protracted and thoughtful observation, as well as using small and slow solution) and consulting with others (implicit, for example, in the principles of applying self-regulation and feedback as well as that of valuing diversity and integrating rather than segregating). At the heart of the permaculture vision is an emphasis on both cooperation and mutual responsibility. Permaculture portrays life as being fundamentally , not competitive, and seeks to foster mutually beneficial interactions among species in a way consonant with both anthropoharmonism and Berry’s idea of “mutually enhancing” relationships. As Mollison notes: The philosophy behind permaculture is one of working with, rather than against, nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless action; of looking at systems in all their functions, rather than asking only one yield of them; and of allowing systems to demonstrate their own evolutions.78 Overall, the worldview underlying permaculture presents a positive role for humans as conscious designers of and participants in ecosystems – yet, there is also a healthy dose of caution and humility infused in this view insofar as practitioners are urged to engage in profound and protracted observation, to use small and slow solutions, and endeavor to minimize the changes necessary to achieve ones goals. At the same time, permaculture often uses a zoned approach to design, moving from areas with a higher degree of human intervention (for instance, gardens near to home and pathways) to progressively lower degrees of intervention further away (zones for animal grazing or orchards, and then areas such as wild forests or grasslands). In so doing, permaculture also recognizes the need and respect for areas of with minimal human interference. Yet, it eschews a rigid separation between the human and more-than-human spheres, instead opting for graduated degrees of interaction. “This perspective on human–environment relations cuts against the of the dualistic worldviews of both growth- oriented development and preservation-oriented conservation, each of which describe a fundamental conflict between the needs of society and those of nature.”79 As such, the worldview underlying permaculture appears to be genuinely anthropoharmonic in nature. CONCLUSION: CHALLENGES AND FURTHER QUESTIONS While permaculture seems to be a promising approach for cultivating and applying an anthropoharmonic phronesis, just how practical is the wisdom of

77 Eikeland, The Ways of Aristotle. 78 Mollison, Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual, pp. ix-x. 79 Ferguson & Lovell, “Permaculture for Agroecology,” p. 16. Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 17 permaculture? For example, could a food production system based on permaculture principles really produce enough to feed a still-growing human ? Could systems designed on permaculture principles be viable in a time of rapidly changing climate and ecosystems? While little research has been formally done on permaculture system yields per se, permaculture uses agroecological techniques such as polycultures, crop rotations, and mulching that are widely used in many other agroecological systems. Altieri,80 for example, notes that polyculture systems generally produce 20 to 60% more that single crop systems under similar levels of management. Furthermore, an extensive review of 300 studies concluded that the yields of agroecological systems is generally equal or better to those of industrial ( or “conventional”) farming systems while the energy efficiency of agroecological systems is significantly better.81 Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, concluded that in the global South crop yields increased an average of 80% when farmers changed to agroecological methods and that “scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live – especially in unfavorable environments.”82 The polyculture systems used in permaculture are significantly more resilient in the face of droughts, insect infestations, and severe weather events than the monocrop systems employed by industrial agriculture. Permaculture also uses multiple water storage systems simultaneously to ensure a ready supply: water is first stored in the soil itself, then in surface impoundments, and finally in tank storage83. Permaculture methods also increase the percentage of organic matter in soil, greatly increasing its ability to retain water while the use of cover crops and agroforestry can further reduce water evaporation. Together, these techniques make it possible to greatly reduce – and in many cases eliminate – the need for irrigation. Given that agriculture currently uses 85% of all the planet’s fresh water,84 the potential for agroecological methods like those used permaculture to reduce water usage is immense. All these factors make permaculture systems more resilient and adaptable in the face of climate change and ecosystem transitions. Furthermore, the emphasis on community (care of people and fair share) found

80 Miguel A. Altieri, “Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty,” Monthly Review 61 (2009): 102-13. 81 Ivette Perfecto, John Vandermeer and Richard Levins, “The Agroecological Matrix as Alternative to the Land-Sparing/Agriculture Intensification Model,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the of America 107 (2010): 5786-91. 82 OHCHR, “Eco-Farming Can Double Food Production in 10 Years, Says New UN Report,” (Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Human , 2011). Retrieved 1 August 2014 at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/ DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10819&LangID=E. 83 Ferguson & Lovell, “Permaculture for Agroecology.” 84 Jonathan A Foley, Ruth DeFries, Gregory P Asner, Carol Barford, Gordon Bonan, Stephen R Carpenter, F. Stuart Chapin, Michael T Coe, Gretchen C Daily and Holly K Gibbs, “Global Consequences of ,” Science 309 (2005): 570-4. 18 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS (prepublication) Vol. 37 in permaculture may serve to strengthen bonds of solidarity to facilitate effective human action in the face of the . Moreover, permaculture and similar agroecological practices can actually draw carbon out of the atmosphere over time. Soil is the largest land-based carbon sink containing more carbon than the atmosphere and all terrestrial vegetation combined85 – yet industrial agriculture can turn soil into a net carbon emitter. Research carried out at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania over more than thirty years has demonstrated that, while the soil of current industrial farms has a carbon content of 2% or less today (vs. about 20% in the US in the 1950’s), agroecological methods like those used in permaculture that rebuild organic components in soil can increase carbon content by 1% per , reaching 30% after thirty years. Not only does this provide a valuable carbon sink, but the sequestration of carbon in soil (largely via mycorrhizal fungi) tends to make agriculture more resistant to drought, pests, and diseases. In terms of carbon sequestration, the Rodale research indicates that soil managed with these agroecological techniques can capture 8,233 Kg of CO2 per hectare per year. In the US, 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 could be captured each year, equivalent to about one quarter of US emissions.86 Given all these factors, permaculture would appear to be a practical wisdom well- suited to times of rapid climate change and may, over time, actually help to slow or reverse climate change by both greatly reducing gas emissions and sequestering carbon in soil. Overall, permaculture seems to encompass many of the characteristics of the kind of anthropoharmonic phronesis that might guide humanity from a more “Technozoic” to “Ecozoic” modality of living in the Anthropocene – or, alternatively, into an ecological epoch, the Ecocene. That being said, a greater emphasis on inter-subjectivity as well as a more contemplative and affective way of relating to the land that goes beyond “protracted and profound observation” might lead to a more deeply harmonious engagement and dialogue with the biotic community based on awe, respect, and love. As well, the element of developing a functional cosmology and of opening to a “revelatory vision…” while employing “intuitive, nonrational” processes that enable us to “awaken to the numinous powers ever present in the phenomenal world about us, powers that possess us in our high creative moments,”87 might lead to a deeper practice of harmonious action infused with the kind of spontaneity and immediacy that Varela suggests should characterize genuine ethical know-how. That being said, some teachers of permaculture – for example Starhawk88 – do integrate a component of spiritual practice that seeks to incorporate more intuitive and inter-subjective forms of knowing. Holgrem also notes that permaculture is being influenced by holistic science, deep ecology, , and ecological spiritualties as it evolves as a

85 Roger S. Swift, “Sequestration of Carbon by Soil,” Soil Science 166 (2001): 858-71. 86 Rhodes, “Feeding and Healing the World.” 87 Berry, The Dream of the Earth, p. 211. 88 Starhawk, The Earth Path: Grounding Your Spirit in the Rhythms of Nature (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004). Winter 2015 THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF PERMACULTURE (prepub.) 19

“knowledge system.”89 He also attempts to envision the relationship between an “inclusive and ecological spirituality” and an “emerging holistic science” as these relate to permaculture.90 While all of the above is promising, in may only be possible to truly appreciate and understand the of permaculture as an ecological phronesis by looking more deeply at its concrete practices in different contexts. Certainly, phronesis involves ethical frameworks and principles, but it is only when these become truly embodied in a manner that enables them to become manifest as a practical wisdom uniting heart, mind, and soul that it can truly be understood. One way to more fully understand both the value and possible limitations of permaculture as an anthropoharmonic phronesis would be to study the people who are practicing it as well as the kinds of ecological systems they have co-created. In particular, insight could be gained by investigating the extent to which the praxis of permaculture has transformed the way they relate to others, including both the human and non-human members of their local communities. It is my hope to undertake such a study in the future in order to be able to describe more accurately the actual experience of living the kinds of phronesis that emerge from practicing permaculture ethics and design principles over time.

89 Holmgren, Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustanability, p. vi. 90 Ibid., p. 4.