The Challenges of Creating Social Justice in Niches of the Environmental Movement

Intentional Unity: The Challenges of Creating Social Justice in Niches of the Environmental Movement

A Division III e-Booklet By Colin Eldridge Read original online version here Original logo designed by and property of Colin Eldridge

This project is dedicated to my late father John Charles Eldridge, and my amazing mother JoAnn Ellsworth, without whom I would not be where I am today.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Introduction Section 1: Environment What are Niches in the Environmental Movement? The Problem: Niches in the Environmental Movement are Socially Unjust Histories and Realities of Environmental Movement Niches Work Cited Section 2: Community Excerpts from Interviews Conducted in Intentional Communities A Critique of Diversity Initiatives My Idealist Model for an Anti-Oppressive Intentional Community Section 3: Economy Understanding the Permaculture Ethics The “Sweet Spot” of Fair Share, People Care, and Earth Care Regenerative Economics Section 4: Anti-Oppressive Education The Ladder of Inference Social Permaculture The Systems Thinking Approach The Iceberg Model The Iceberg of Oppression On Paralysis and White Guilt Section 5: Moving Forward More Resources for the Reader What now? Conclusion Glossary

Introduction

Objectives of this Booklet

1) To point out the inherent flaws within the environmental movement which perpetuate systems of oppression. 2) To reflect on diversity within the niche of intentional communities, and offer excerpts of interviews from an independent field study. 3) To provide a commentary on the “sweet spot” of social, environmental and economic justice. 4) To offer an anti-oppressive educational framework specifically for niches within the environmental movement.

About the Author This booklet touches on many subjects of power and privilege. Before I address these topics, I would like to address my own power and privilege. I am self-identified as a white male, first and foremost. Regardless of how I self-identify, this is how the government and institutions have labelled me from birth. With this socially-constructed categorization comes many privileges granted by institutions and by the invisible structures of oppression. I do not have to worry about being profiled by the police, nor do I get followed in stores because of the color of my skin. As a demographic, my people are not disproportionately imprisoned, murdered, displaced, or denied housing at rates that people of color are. This is relevant because in this booklet I will talk about issues of racial inequity as well as other forms of oppression, many of which do not impact me negatively, but rather that I benefit from because of my skin color. I also identify as a non-gender conforming, queer polysexual person. Although this is how I self-identify, I have the privilege of appearing as a cisgendered male to the system, and because of my appearance and mannerisms, it is often assumed that I am straight if I am not asked. Although I am a queer person, I still experience many of the privileges experienced by other cisgendered straight white males. I am able-bodied, which grants me access to many resources, including physical and invisible structures that are inaccessible to people with disabilities. Lastly, I come from an upper-middle class in America. This grants me immediate monetary access to resources such as food, water, shelter, medicine, and education, many of which are not accessible to those who have been intentionally marginalized by the U.S. government and institutionalized systems of oppression.

The Structure of this Booklet

This Division III Project, which is sort of a senior capstone project for Hampshire College, is in the form of an e-Booklet. Many of the ideas and concepts in this booklet are not my own but are a result of research, conversations, activism, and experiences. The project is part essay, part blog, part rant, part journal, part zine, part educational resource. Each section is drastically different from each other in structure and content. I call this project an e-Booklet because it is intended to be viewed on a computer or mobile device. Anyone viewing this booklet can comment, hence in theory it will never be complete. As a google doc it can always be updated. There are many clickable links that lead to other articles and websites. I have tried to provide links for most terms that I have learned in higher education and that may not be accessible to the general public. There a lot of complex concepts in the booklet, I encourage you as the reader to research new topics you find intriguing. Please feel free to share the link to this booklet (tinyurl.com/intentionalunity) with your friends, colleagues, on social media, literally anywhere. If you have any questions feel free to email the author at [email protected]. Full e-Booklet link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mn-azQIexctoWS8uWP26aC_dbrHPjq-j75lv6Xr tPJc/edit?usp=sharing Div III tumblr link: www.intentionalunity.tumblr.com

Section 1: Environment

Addressing Oppression in Niches of the Environmental Movement

What are Niches in the Environmental Movement? In order to understand tackle this question, we must first understand what a niche is. In ecology, a niche is both the habitat where an organism occupies and the [1] role that organism takes within the ecosystem . For example, a fungi species not only inhabits the niche of the soil, but also fulfills the niche role of nutrient exchange, [2][3][4] decomposition of organic matter, and communication between plants . As such, there are also niches within the environmental movement; there are both sub-movements or “habitat niches,” and individuals’ roles in those sub-movements or “individual niches”. Of the habitat niches, there are many facets of the environmental movement, which consist of academic fields, subcultures, business ventures, activist groups, non-profit organizations... all of which are manifold in their size, location, and agenda. Individual niches consist of our own personal roles within these subcategories and how we affect the movement as a whole. For example, one niche I participate in within the environmental movement is permaculture. The role I take within that movement is teaching permaculture through an anti-oppressive framework. There are many environmental movement niches that I have participated in. Among them are activist student groups, academic classes, permaculture, herbalism, ecospirituality, earthships, intentional communities, appropriate technology, and social entrepreneurship. Some may not consider all of these things to be niches of the environmental movement. However for all intents and purposes, I label them as such because behind all of them lies an environmental ethic which in one way or another shapes their agendas.

The Problem: Niches in the Environmental Movement are Socially Unjust Before diving into the problems within niches of the environmental movement, I want to acknowledge the inherent good intentions within the movement and the power that we all hold to affect change. I recognize that all of these niches I’m going to deconstruct were created to address systemic problems in our society. They were built to create solutions, not more problems. However these movements are still part of a larger system that is broken, and whether people know it or not, they still participate in that broken system. I offer a critique of these movements not because I think they should be stopped, or that they are inherently bad, but because I want the movement as a whole to grow and evolve. I encourage the reader to not take any of

my writing personally. My intention is not to attack any individual or group, but to point out larger systemic problems. My hopes are that we can always move towards regenerating the planet and its people, which have been devastated by degenerative systems of oppression and environmental exploitation. Within all of the niches I have participated, I have noticed a certain color-blindness that needs be addressed. People within the movement (or at least within the niches I have observed) tend to put up the big fight for the environment but when it comes to fighting against oppression, they fall short. Within the white, liberal, progressive circles I have become a part of, I have consistently noticed a lack of effort to address power, privilege, systems of oppression, and identity politics. Much of the white liberal environmental movement was built on the very same systems which perpetuate oppression: colonialism, capitalism, white supremacy, and the like. It is time for folks within the environmental movement to re-evaluate their niche within it. It is time that we call out injustices that we see within the movement. It is time that we push the movement to be more inclusive and anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-ableist, and anti-oppressive. If we don’t make efforts to create an anti-oppressive environmental movement, we are taking the side of the oppressor and allowing these systems to exist. I am not writing about oppression in the environmental movement only based on my own experiences or observations. Racism and other forms of oppression have existed in the environmental movement for a long time and have been written on extensively.

Histories and Realities of Environmental Movement Niches Some of the forerunners in the late 19th and early 20th century of the environmental movement in the United States employed very racist ideologies in addition to their environmental ethics. Madison Grant and his circle of conservationists (including Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Gifford Pinchot, John Muir and Irving Fisher) were not only proponents of the National Park Service, but they also wrote extensively on eugenics, ethnic cleansing, and were [5] supporters of white supremacy . This group of aristocratic white elites were more concerned with preservation of nature solely for the benefit of white people; they supported managing and protecting forests for economic development via logging and hunting of native species (it is very intentional that the US Forest Service is part of the US Department of Agriculture) . Furthermore, in their writing, the group of early conservationists put the lives of wild species above the lives and rights of Native [5] American, Black, and Brown bodies .

The 1960s and 1970s brought a resurgence of the environmental movement, which was in some ways a radical departure from Grant, Muir, and Roosevelt’s [5][6] conservationism . However, this emergence of a more radical anti-corporation environmental movement was very much dominated by white liberals. Sierra Club, an environmental organization that protects wildlife and wild places, “polled its members, in 1972, on whether the club should ‘concern itself with the conservation problems of such special groups as the urban poor and ethnic minorities,’ forty per cent of respondents were strongly opposed, and only fifteen per cent were [5] supportive” . The Clean Air Act of 1963 and The Clean Water Act of 1972 “were [5] written with no attention to the unequal vulnerability of poor and minority groups” . These instances are not necessarily indicative that the movement as a whole was only constrained to white liberals; 60’s and 70’s environmentalism did happen around the same time as the Civil Rights Movement, and there were environmental activists who [6] pushed for laws to protect oppressed individuals . However, it was not until the 1980’s that the niche in the environmental movement emerged known as “The Environmental Justice Movement,” which addressed environmental racism:

The environmental-justice movement emerged in the 1980s as a way to revitalize the grassroots activism started by the civil-rights movement. It also offered a home for activists who weren’t comfortable separating their concern over the state of the planet from their concerns about social justice … Many environmentalists of color admire the mainstream movement’s goals, but they also know firsthand that social justice is routinely ignored in the mainstream movement’s decision [6] making .

The appearance of the environmental justice movement offers us a way to look at how race was introduced into the debate over environmental policies and goals[a]. Many goals of the environmental justice movement were meant to fight pre-existing economic and social injustices based on race. Environmental consequences of industrialization disproportionately affect communities of color[a]. Needless to say, the presence of carcinogenic environmental toxins in communities of color across the nation caused grassroot organizers of color to become environmentalists in their own right[a]. However, despite the environmental ethic behind these Environmental Justice activists, many of them disclaimed any connection to the traditional American environmental movement, often describing the traditional movement “as white, often male, middle- and upper-class, primarily concerned with wilderness preservation and conservation, and insensitive to - or at least ill-equipped to deal with - the interests of

minorties”[a]. On top of the the traditional environmental movement’s failure to deal with issues of race and oppression, there was the long-held racist assumption that people of color lacked an interest in environmentalism, especially when economic survival was at stake[a]. Today in the United States, there is still a stereotype that white people are more environmentally oriented than ethnic minorities[b]. The environmental justice movement not only proved this wrong, but it has been successful in “integrating ‘environmental’ concerns into a broader agenda that emphasizes social, racial and economic justice”[a]. Many white liberal niches within the environmental movement today, sadly, do not take an interconnected approach that unites the environmental with the social and economic. Adopting a broader social and economic agenda within the environmental movement is vital. In the book Clean and White: A History of Environmental Racism in the United States, the author Carl Zimrig explores the long history of racism in the U.S.A. that has “assume[d] ‘white people’ are clean, and ‘non white people’ are less than clean” and that upholds a system of “white supremacy, a rehetoric that involves concepts of ‘race [7] pollution,’ [and] ‘white purity,’” . Zimrig touches on cases of environmental racism in the United States that have led to very intentional “residential patterns … shaped by a cultural understanding of suburbs as cleaner than cities, as refuges of nature available to white people,” and not available to urban, low income, communities of [7] color . Although Zimrig focuses on cultural ideologies and American waste systems that have been organized to perpetuate the stereotype of clean, white [7] neighborhoods and dirty, black neighborhoods , I would argue that these cases of Environmental Racism in the book point to a presence of racism within the environmental movement itself. As mentioned, there is a stereotype that white folks are more invested in the environmental movement than people of color; an ideology which aligns with Zimrig’s mention of a racist rhetoric of white cleanliness versus non-white pollution. The environmental movement often perpetuates these racist ideologies and therefore perpetuates systems of oppression. Zimrig writes on how these systems intentionally equate whiteness with stewardship of the land, and [7] non-whiteness with uncleanliness and a polluted landscape . Such ideas are often portrayed through environmentalist organizations and ideologies which govern what populations have access to the movement. I find these cases of environmental racism, which equate non-whiteness with environmental uncleanliness, to be ironic. Seeing as much of the degradation of the environment in the age of globalism and neo-liberal economic policy has been progressed by (mostly white) elite international financial institutions (namely the IMF, [8] WTO, and World Bank) . The International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), and World Bank, are all built on colonial racial hierarchies that [9] have dominated global economic systems for centuries . Before colonialism, black 8

and brown indigenous groups were stewards of the land; now the global majority of non-white populations are forced to live in the waste of a post-industrial society. If we are to fight for the environment and for stewardship of nature, we must first look at the oppressed peoples who suffer the most from environmental toxins, pollution, and devastated land. If we are to dismantle systems of environmental destruction, we must also dismantle systems of oppression, because the two are inseparable. In the article Cultivating Race: How the Science and Technology of Agriculture Preserves Race in the Global Economy, the author Bekah Mandell writes about how neoliberal economic policies and food systems uphold racial hierarchies which date back to slavery. She writes on how The World Bank, IMF, and WTO are not only major players in the forces of globalism, environmental destruction and capitalist imperial expansion, but are also major controllers of global food production and distribution. These three organizations “perpetuate and reinforce ... colonial racial hierarchies” and uphold a “racialized feeder/fed dichotomy [that] was rooted in the dependency of [9] slavery” . The feeder/fed dichotomy is a method of control over the system of food distribution and production. It is a system of control in which white populations in the global north benefit from the exploitation of “the world's people of color who make [9] up the majority of the population of the global south” . The feeder becomes the global north, the mainly white institutions who exert control over the global south’s food supplies. While the fed become the working poor and racialized populations who, because of neoliberal economic policy, are forced to depend on the global north’s food distribution system. This feeder/fed dichotomy is the same model that was used during colonial expansion with the use of black slaves and white masters. The racialized feeder/fed dichotomy, paired with neo-liberal economic policy and foreign aid, have formed a new global colonialism, or neo-colonialism. Racialized and unequal food distribution manifest in several ways: as starvation and food shortages in developing nations, as food deserts and malnutrition within the communities of color in developed nations, and as third-world working poor who struggle to maintain sustenance. One clear and straight-forward way to divest from the global industrial food system is to grow one’s own food. For environmental, economic, and social reasons, the alternative food movement has arisen. Within the alternative food movement, I identify three distinct niches (although there are probably many more) - permaculture, food justice, and urban farming. Ideally, the food justice movement works so that marginalized communities can empower themselves to have food sovereignty in an age of inner-city food deserts and malnutrition. Urban farming is any effort to farm in densely populated, non-rural areas that were not traditionally used for food production. Unfortunately within the urban farming movement of the United

States, there are sometimes harmful racial hierarchies upheld that maintain white [13] control over communities of color . When I attended the Urban Farming Conference in Boston in 2016, there were several black activists who voiced their concerns about imperialist racial hierarchies in marginalized communities, perpetuated by white urban farmers. In the closing panel entitled “Community Organizing and Supporting Urban Farming; Discussion on Social Justice, Economics, Food Sovereignty and Race,” there were numerous black womyn (including one of the panelists, Karen Washington) who voiced their concerns about white urban farmers coming into black and brown communities, thinking that they are the heroes and creating problematic power dynamics. It was good that the conference held space for these discussions, and it is telling of a larger problem in the Urban Farming movement. Although well-intentioned, Urban Farming (and other alternative food movements) can do more harm than good for people if neo-colonial feeder/fed relationships are upheld. This happens when (usually well-intentioned) privileged folks hold too much power over the communities that they serve. Additionally, one of the main sponsors of the event was Whole Foods. I think that a Whole Foods sponsorship says a lot about the conference, considering that Whole Foods sells food produced using prison labor. We don’t need to go into the ways that Whole Foods is a green-capitalist, “USDA organic,” faux-environmentalist organization, or into the ways that the racist Prison-Industrial-Complex is basically modern day slavery. All points aside about the Urban Farming Conference and Whole Foods, racial inequity in alternative food movements is something that is real and has been written on extensively, such as in Black, White, and Green by Alison Hope Alkon. Permaculture is a niche of the alternative food (and environmental) movement that has been used extensively as a system of design to reach food security. Permaculture can be defined as regenerative design to meet human and ecological needs while increasing biodiversity, resilience, production, and efficiency. Like Urban Farming, unfortunately, Permaculture can and has been used (usually unintentionally) to perpetuate the feeder/fed dichotomy and racial hierarchies mentioned in Mandell’s work Cultivating Race. For one, permaculture is a movement that is largely dominated by cis-hetero white males: “White, cis-gendered, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied men are some of the most visible and vocal leaders in the [permaculture] food movement because [they’re] socialized to be competitive, individualistic, assertive, and authoritative … [they] tend to talk first, loudest, and longest, and [10] [they’re] often rewarded and encouraged when [they] do” . Permaculture also has been built from colonialism, in that it is implemented on stolen indigenous land and it takes from indigenous knowledge. Permaculture has appropriated indigenous [11] knowledge to benefit and generate profit for mostly white individuals . Furthermore, when white permaculturists start projects in food deserts and

marginalized communities, they often uphold harmful power relationships that place privileged white folks as leaders rather than the people in the communities they [12] serve . These harmful power structures of racial hierarchy are legitimized by a White Savior Complex that believes that communities of color cannot empower themselves and that they need help from educated, privileged, and affluent white folks. I want to acknowledge that there is a rising discussion and organization going on about decolonizing food justice movements, and efforts around centering blackness and racial justice within them (see: this article). Some examples of organizations working towards food justice include the Black Permaculture Network, Be Black and Green, and the #BlackLandMatters project, to name only a few of the hundreds or thousands of organizations that exist across the United States. Many of these organizations are led by people of color, for communities of color. However, alternative food movements have been dominated and infiltrated by white patriarchal [10][13] systems (or at least white voices are heard the loudest and spread the farthest) . To decolonize alternative food movements, food sovereignty and racial justice must be a top priority. Dismantling the colonial state, and returning land to indigenous and displaced people is necessary. It must be understood that even communities of color that do not identify themselves as indigenous, but who have lack of access to nutritious food, are internal colonies set up by the state. In order to reach true food sovereignty, power must be redistributed; it must be taken out of the hands of white social entrepreneurs, permaculture practitioners, and urban farmers, and put back into the hands of community leaders of color. I am not saying that social entrepreneurship, service work and philanthropy should be dismissed altogether; they are very important for many of food justice projects to get off the ground. Rather, I am suggesting that for food sovereignty to be reached, privileged folks in the movement have to learn when to take a step back after sharing their resources and their projects are self-sufficient. As stated, without the ethical redistribution of power and resources, the same colonial, feeder/fed dichotomy and racial hierarchies are perpetuated. Yet another niche of the environmental movement which has perpetuated oppression is within the world of alternative medicine. Herbalism, as a spiritual, environmental, and medicinal practice, is another niche in the environmental movement that can perpetuate oppression. Among the herbalist circles that I have participated in, a vast majority of them are made up of white progressives and white liberals. I’m sure this is a trend that exists across the country, as you can see from the thousands of herbal practitioners’ websites and bios. The reason that this is a problem is that much of the herbal knowledge has been appropriated from sacred ancestral knowledge from indigenous and/or historically colonized peoples. It is an unjust practice when Herbalists can charge hundreds of dollars for consultations and

remedies, which then are not accessible to those same colonized populations that now live in poverty. As Toi Scott points out in their article We are the Sum of Our Ancestors: Decolonizing Herbalism, it took “centuries upon centuries and generations upon generations for the colonizers to try to eliminate, assimilate or destroy” indigenous herbal medicine, and now it is a trendy healing practice that is accessible to mostly white folks. This is not to say that white folks should stop practicing chinese herbal medicine, ayurveda, or other alternative medicinal practices all together; I am not suggesting that we return to the colonial pharmaceutical regimen which destroys our bodies and the planet. What I am suggesting, however, is that we decolonize our herbal practices. I am suggesting that white people return to their own cultural roots in herbal medicine; that they stop appropriating cultures that are not their own; stop taking ceremonies and practices without permission; stop practicing alternative medicine in a way that is classist and uninclusive; and to understand the erased histories of genocide, colonization, and displacement of the people that these practices come from. As Toi Scott suggests, if we do not apply an anti-oppressive framework to herbalism, it can be used to as a means to perpetuate oppression. The last niche I would like to touch on is intentional communities, a focus case niche of this study. An intentional community is a group of people who have chosen to [15] live or work together in pursuit of a common ideal or vision . There are intentional communities of all kinds, and many probably do not consider themselves as part of the environmental movement. However, all of the communities I visited on my field study had some sort of environmental ethic worked into their common goals, whether explicitly stated or not. Having participated in intentional living spaces, as well as done a field study on intentional communities, I have some insight to offer about their role within the environmental movement as well as ways that they can be more anti-oppressive. In the next section, I will reflect on the interviews I conducted with folks from five different intentional communities across the country, and also address issues of diversity, racial justice, environmentalism, and resilience within intentional communities in general.

Work Cited

[1] "Ecological Niche." - Biology-Online Dictionary. CASPION, 7 Feb. 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2016. .

[2] Tomkins, Jeffrey P., Ph.D. "Plants Use Underground 'Fungal Internet' to Communicate." Institute for Creation Research. ICR, 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2016. .

[3] Hahn, Matthias, and Kurt Mendgen. "Signal and Nutrient Exchange at Biotrophic Plant–fungus Interfaces." Current Opinion in Plant Biology 4 (2001): 322-27. Print.

[4] Rayner, A.D.M, and Lynne Boddy. Fungal Decomposition of Wood: Its Biology and Ecology. Chichester: Wiley, 1997. Print.

[5] Purdy, Jedediah. "Environmentalism's Racist History - The New Yorker." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2016. .

[6] Gelobter, Michael. "Why Race and Class Matter to the Environmental Movement." Grist. Grist, 28 May 2005. Web. 26 Mar. 2016. .

[a] http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/1504/pdfs/melosi_EHR_95.pdf

[b] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/being-green/201203/race-and-environmentalism

[7] Zimring, Carl A. "Conclusion: A Dirty History." Clean and White: A History of Environmental Racism in the United States. New York and London: New York UP, 2015. 217-22. Print.

[8] Downey, Liam. "Inequality, Democracy, and Macro-Structural Environmental Sociology." Inequality, Democracy, and The Environment. New York and London: New York UP, 2015. 41-51. Print.

[9] Mandell, Bekah. "CULTIVATING RACE: HOW THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF AGRICULTURE PRESERVES RACE IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY." Albany Law Review 72.4 (2009): 939-51. Web.

[10] Moyles, Trina. "Permaculture or Spermaculture? Confronting Patriarchy in Permaculture and Alternative Food Movements." Briarpatch Magazine. Briarpatch Magazine, 27 Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2016. .

[11] Watson, Jesse. "Decolonizing Permaculture." Resilience.org. Post Carbon Institute, 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 24 Mar. 2016. .

[12] Scott, Toi. "Frankly Not About Food Forests." Black Girl Dangerous. BGD, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2016. .

[13] Alkon, Alison Hope. "Epilogue." Black, White, and Green: Farmers Markets, Race, and the Green Economy. Athens: U of Georgia, 2012. 155-71. Print.

[14] http://www.decolonizingyoga.com/we-are-the-sum-of-our-ancestors-decolonizing-herbalism/

[15] http://www.ic.org/wiki/cultural-diversity-intentional-communities/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/23/2230511/environmental-movement-diversity/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/26/the-climate-change-fight-cannot-be-won-with-w hite-liberal-america-alone

Section 2: Community

Excerpts from Interviews Conducted in Intentional Communities

These excerpts are from a self-designed field study I did in the Fall of 2015. In this independent field study, I travelled across the U.S. to multiple intentional communities to conduct interviews. In these interviews, I asked questions such as "What challenges does your community face?,” "What do you see as the community's relationship to nature?,” "What does sustainability mean to you?," “What does diversity look like in your community?,” “How is conflict handled? Is there protocol for dealing with conflict?,” “How is the community sustained economically?,” and many other questions. I visited these communities to explore a theory I had about resilience. My hypothesis was as follows: The more culturally and racially diverse a community, the more resilient it will be. The more a community works on having communication agreements and conflict resolution, the more resilient it will be. During my field study, I found the latter statement to be true, but the first statement not so much. For one, each community I visited was hardly what you would call “diverse”. Secondly, I found that people tended to think that resilience did not come from diversity alone, but from the interpersonal relationships between people regardless of their race. I think that this led me to realize that my original hypothesis was flawed, and that diversity was not really the issue at all. The issue was inequity and racial injustice that already exist in society (and that in some cases was unintentionally replicated in these communities). Resilience comes from a community’s ability overcome adversity and reach harmony despite the systemic challenges of society. I found that a sense of resilience came from strong interpersonal relationships, healthy communication/conflict resolution, and strong community norms which could prevent conflict from arising. Full interviews can be listened to on my field study blog. There are also critiques of some interviews and reflections written from experiences I had on field study. Here’s the link: intentionalunity.tumblr.com Below are excerpts from five intentional communities: Twin Oaks, Living Energy Farm, Acorn Community, Arcosanti, and the Abominable Snow Mansion. The excerpts I chose are relevant to the topic of diversity and to how intentional communities navigate larger systemic problems from society.

Twin Oaks

Me: You mentioned you may have people from all different walks of life here, would you say that Twin Oaks is a diverse community?

Interviewee 1: Depends on what diversity you’re talking about. If you’re talking about diversity of experience, I would say yes. If you’re talking about diversity of culture, I would say no. I feel like things can kind of be self-selecting here over time. Even though we’re [about] egalitarianism, it’s not necessarily going to be welcoming to somebody who’s very patriarchal and gun-toting, you know what I mean? So I guess it just depends what kind of diversity you’re speaking to.

Me: What about racial and ethnic diversity?

Interviewee 1: No. It’s not. And that’s probably another one of my complaints. I mean we definitely have some people of color here in the community, and not nearly enough in my opinion. And I think there’s several different reasons why it’s like that.

Me: Would you like to elaborate on those reasons?

Interviewee 1: Well, for one I think our system is classist. Not that it’s intentionally classist, as these things go. I don’t necessarily have a solution for it. I’ve been pondering this for four and a half years. But for a visitor coming to do a membership interview, or a membership visitor period, they have to take of three weeks of work. What working class or working poor person could take 3 works off from work? They’d lose their job. They may not have a job when they go home if they took off 3 weeks of work consecutively. And for visiting family, it’s five weeks. So I feel like there’s a layer of selection right there. Not to say that all people of color in our country are in a place of being impoverished or anything, but I think that certainly perhaps, not in a position to take of 3 weeks of work. Whereas if you’re from an upper-middle class family, as a white person, you’ve got resources to access that other people don’t. So

it’s classist primarily is what I would say. And then it terms of racism, it’s really subtle. And I think as a white person, I don’t always see how it operates in the community, but I try. One of my chief criticisms is that... I don’t know just in terms of trying to answer the question, “Well, why is it racist?,” it hard in terms of our membership process except when, you know, if you don’t come here with a certain political ideology, or willing to kind of stay silent about the things that don’t work for you here, then you’re probably not going to get accepted. And I don’t know that that’s necessarily inherently racist, but it’s certainly self-selecting. So there’s just those kinds of subtle things that work over time to create a certain slice of cut of people that come here to live. I haven’t had this experience, I’ve heard people say that other people of color have to the community have been really put off by the messiness of the community here. I don’t know what the correlation is, but that’s one thing. I know that a good friend of mine is a black womydn who recently left, and she felt very othered often. She has large emotional expression. And, I think that middle-class white people tend to be really conditioned towards being emotionally repressive. So having big emotional displays was difficult for people to deal with. And that put her on the margins, and feeling on the outs. I mean that’s one’s person experience, though, I can’t say that that’s across the board.

Me: Just the fact that people of color who even would have access to the resource to be able to be in this community, seem to turned off by a lot of them.

Interviewee 1: Yeah. It’s my understanding that in the early 1900’s, I mean basically prior to desegregation, that a LOT of black communities especially in the south, did income sharing. There’s a group in mississippi of black farmers that basically, they’re a farmer coop. Where they share their farm equipment, share their resources that they have built up, I think they might even income share together. They have a program where if there’s a young black farmer who wants to get started they’ll supply them with five heifers. And then they have to pay that forward in three years to another farmer getting started. So it’s just something to look into because it might kind of fit into this piece if you want to

look at more diverse communities. But it’s my understanding that prior to desegregation, there was a lot of income sharing and resource sharing in black communities, especially in the south. Maybe post-segregation and with the rise of television in the homes... there’s a really good book called “In the Absence of the Sacred” by Jerry Mander. And he looks at the impact of various technologies being implemented into society. And had we known about them before their implementation, would we have chosen it? And he specifically looked at the implementation of television into indigenous cultures up in Canada and Alaska, and the devastating impacts that it had on community. And so I kind of wonder, was that a factor as well? In black communities? Did they end up absorbing of that disintegration of community and income sharing and resources sharing once they, you know, were less integrated with each other. More integrated into the society at large, and access to a television. ______

Me: What do you think of diversity within the community?

Interviewee 2: I think that the community is mostly white and middle class. We have a lot of different beliefs about things, I think that’s true. But, I don’t think that there’s a lot of diversity here. And most people are hetero as well.

Me: Oh, really. Interesting.

Interviewee 2: I think that there’s been a rise in people not being hetero. Like, we have three Transgender people living here now, and for a long time, I don’t think we had any. And then for like a long time we had one. And so maybe there’s like a slight rise recently, and one of the things we tend to say is that the more of a certain type of person is here, the more that that attracts like people, so someone has to be sort of the fore-runner. So, I think we’re trending towards more diversity in sexual orientation and gender identification, recently. But not in race or class.

Me: Do you think the that the selection process is justified? Do you know what criteria would not allow a person to come into the community?

Interviewee 2: Yeah, I guess it’s kinda consistent. People definitely have gripes for instance of the more physically attractive you are there’s sort of a halo effect and people are more likely to overlook your bad behaviors, and things like that. Because people are biased the same way they are everywhere. Those sort of things play into it, people who are soft-spoken are much more likely to get in. A minority of people think that our selection process is racist. Nobody is intentionally saying “Only white people can live here”. But, for instance, we really value quietness. And when people who come to visit aren’t white, they tend to be louder, come from a louder culture, and … we’re like, “oh, they’re just, really loud, I feel uncomfortable”. And so that has been brought up as one of the things, the characteristics we find most pleasing in people tend to be white. I think that that is an opinion that is not held by the majority of people, but a strong minority of people that studied race and gender in college feel like there’s a lot of racial implications for our process.

Acorn Community

Me: How would you describe diversity within Acorn community?

Interviewee 1: I think Acorn, along with many communities around the United States, is very diverse as far as gender and as far as sexual orientation, but lacks diversity as far as race and class. Which is something that I’ve found to be true across a lot of the FEC communities, the Federation of Egalitarian Communities, and communities around the country.

Me: Have you ever thought about it or have any insight as to why that might be?

Interviewee 1: I think the biggest thing is that people who are already in a place of privilege are able to declare that they are not going to play into society and the expectations of society, and can issue the mainstream world and move out to the country and join a commune. I think that people in such a place of privilege like white people, and people of higher economic standing, are more

able to just up and leave their job. And have some amount of faith that they could re-enter their life in a way that would work for them.

______

Me: What do you think of Twin Oaks’ relationship with nature?

Interviewee 2: The thing that got me down here and interested in these communities was a presentation that this guy, Paxis, who is a dual member between Twin Oaks and Acorn, created. He came to Brooklyn and he outlined that through sharing, Twin Oaks was able to reduce its overall resource consumption by 80%. Which is what the UN says the entire world needs to do for us to revert the worst of climate change. That’s really compelling, because the conversations around climate change often revolve around what new technology we’re going to have to make to combat it. There are people actually living in a way that could be. If we modeled the entire country off of Twin Oaks, we wouldn’t be in crisis with resources and pollution. I think that, in that way, it has a very positive relationship with nature even though it’s not like a typical eco-village. People aren’t living in earth ships. They have plumbing, they have grid power and all that stuff, but it’s through the process of collectivizing resources. For example, Twin Oaks has about one hundred members and they own about thirteen to fifteen vehicles, whereas one hundred normal Americans own seventy-seven vehicles between them. Just the parts, maintenance, oil, gasoline, and resources that go into maintaining those fifty extra vehicles are not present at Twin Oaks. Just by sharing, they’re reducing, by a huge margin, the cost and impact of those one hundred people. On top of that, they’re living in a modality that allows them to use even fewer resources. They’re not living in the suburbs and commuting out into the city and they’re not driving out to go shopping. They have one person who goes to town, buys whatever you want to get, and delivers it to you. By sharing the burden of that, they are reducing the amount of time that is spent and the amount of energy that is spent. It’s a huge reduction in energy consumption. It’s fascinating to me because it isn’t their first, second, or even third priority to be green, but the way that they live

makes them like that. It’s like a side effect of wanting to live an easier life, where you’re not rushing to work and on this time schedule that doesn’t work for you, driving in traffic, consuming all this stuff and buying things in this small single-serving packaging rather than in bulk. The packaging that they don’t use by buying things collectively, by buying large bulk shipments of beans, has to be hundreds of thousands of plastic and wrapping and packaging. These are not being used because they buy their lentils in large, five gallon buckets rather than twelve ounce packages. ______

Me: Would you describe Acorn as a diverse community?

Interviewee 3: No. I mean, I think that we have the potential to include different types of people. But even just once you get here we form a culture. Like, we have a certain way that we talk to people around conflict. You have to use reflective listening, and you kind of have to use nonviolent communication. And it’s not that we have collectively agreed upon these methods but we’ve all collectively absorbed them. So, if somebody comes in here and are in some kind of conflict with somebody and they’re shouting a lot, like if they shout a lot, then it’s like totally not communally acceptable. And that’s not really fair, or I guess it just is what it is. But it’s not a good way to get diversity. Because we culturally have our set ways, it’s hard to include people who are from all class backgrounds, or people from different countries. I don’t know, I would say that mostly class and racial divides are the one’s you come across in America. And we don’t necessarily have those barriers broken down. ______

Me: Would you describe Acorn as a diverse community?

Interviewee 4: In some ways. I don’t think that’s the first word I would use, or the fifth word I would use to describe Acorn but I think that there are ways in which Acorn is diverse. I think that it’s an interesting community and it is a multi-generational community and so that provides a lot more diversity in terms of the ages across which you might have friendships, which is unusual compared to the mainstream I think.

Me: What about racial and ethnic diversity?

Interviewe 4: I think that there’s something else to be desired.

Me: Do you want to elaborate?

Interviewee 4: I mean I think that there could be more diversity. But you know, I don’t know what recruitment would look like in order to make that happen. But I’m sure that there are ways to change the way that Acorn is messaging, maybe it’s messaging to the outside that doesn’t necessarily get as much of the diverse crowd in terms of background. Or it’s something to do with access, because it’s like kind of far away from everything and you know if you want to come here to some extent it can be a hardship in terms of taking time off of work and things like that. So, I don’t know how one would make that better.

Arcosanti

Interviewee 1: Overall, Arcosanti does not feel all that racially diverse to me, but our population is only 70 people, and is relatively reflective of the racial diversity of Arizona as a whole (60% Caucasian, 5% African-American, 3% Asian, 30% Hispanic/Latino). We have 7 people from Italy, one Filipino guy, a Native American woman, a lovely couple from Guatemala, 2 people from Japan, and 2 Latina womyn who currently live on site. The vast majority of people who live on site currently make minimum wage and over half have a college degree. I can't comment on the class backgrounds of most people here, as folks tend not to talk much about that. Within the structure of Arcosanti's management, there is a class divide between the general workforce/population and the administration. Our population is always changing, as we get a new workshop every 5 weeks. The socioeconomic background of workshoppers varies widely, and we offer a scholarship program to help people pay for the workshops. We also offer subsidized food to people who do volunteer work on site, and offer work-exchange to cover meals. In terms of our visitors, we have a huge range of racial and socioeconomic diversity in the people that stop through for a day visit to Arcosanti. People from all over the country and the world come to visit Arcosanti. I don't think that the administration does as much as they could to actively broaden the racial diversity of the workshop program.

A Critique of Diversity Initiatives

What are intentional communities? What are they intending to do? What problem are they trying to solve for people?

An intentional community can be defined as: A group of people who have chosen to live or work together in pursuit of a common ideal or vision. Most intentional communities share land, income, and/or housing. They can vary widely in their common goals, visions, ethics and values; which may be social, economic, spiritual, political, and/or ecological. Most intentional communities have commitments to living cooperatively, solving problems without violence, and growing deeper interpersonal bonds. I believe that most intentional communities are trying to solve the problems of and the overwhelming competition, interpersonal isolation, and ecological destruction of of a capitalist society. The fellowship for intentional community is an organization that fosters connections between intentional communities. Some of the communities I visited on field study were actually involved with this organization. Their website has a whole page dedicated to “Cultural Diversity in Intentional Communities”. I will offer critique on their breakdown of why intentional communities are not “culturally diverse” (which really means racially diverse), and also offer some insight into ways that they can re-evaluate their goals to worry less about diversity and more about racial justice.

For all the diversity in structure that exists among intentional communities, however, there is very little diversity (especially cultural diversity) within intentional communities individually. The well-educated white middle class is represented in a greater proportion in intentional communities than in mainstream society (“In Community, Intentionally” 18). This paper will attempt to explain the reasons for and the implications of the lack of cultural diversity within the intentional community movement.

This is good: they address that the communities have a diversity problem. But why is diversity such a concern?

In the Communities Directory database, 103 communities (nearly one in four) mention “diversity” in their listing- and these are only those groups that emphasize it. According to Geoph Kozeny, a seasoned and well-traveled

communitarian who has spent 30 years living and traveling to different communities, an upwards of 80 percent of today’s groups would agree that diversity is an important and desirable goal (“‘Diversity’ Intentions” 10). Since so many communities value diversity and so little of them have it, where does the problem lie? Does it lie within the communities who have not done enough to eliminate structural racism within their community? Do culturally diverse people desire the life on an intentional community in the first place? The explanations for the lack of cultural diversity in intentional communities can be divided into those regarding structural barriers within intentional communities that limit access to people of color and those regarding the individual needs of white people and people of color.

Diversity is not enough; it can often be a ploy by communities, organizations, and institutions for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the diverse people they bring from marginalized communities. People of color and other oppressed individuals are often tokenized to be the poster child for diversity. One thing I’ve discovered from talking to radical folks at Hampshire College and elsewhere, is that diversity doesn’t indicate racial justice. As stated, racial or cultural diversity does not indicate racial justice. You can have a room full of every type of person from every corner of the world and every skin color, but white supremacist racial hierarchies can still be in place. This is why diversity shouldn’t be the primary goal, because we need to fight for equity first.

Margo Adair and Sharon Howell explain that “those of us who were socialized with privilege tend to take our own ideas more seriously: we are the first to speak; we interrupt others; we are comfortable talking for long periods of time; we confuse technical skills with leadership abilities” (50). As it is typically privileged white liberals who begin and lead intentional communities, those with a different experience or different point of view (such as people of color) often feel intimidated from participating too much. Womyn, men of color, working-class, and poor people “know that if they are to be taken seriously, they too must be cool, calm, and collected, and confine their concerns to what those with privilege think is important. Their full experience and contributions are never brought out” (Adair and Howell 50). At the Los Angeles Eco-Village, for example, about one-half of the members are people of color (an unusually high amount), but the leadership in the community is made up of mostly whites (personal interview). As one member of the community describes their community dinners: “We can’t bring meat or we will be criticized. It’s as if we first have to have the right view, and then we can participate” (qtd. in Cooney 35).

This is a good start; it is true that folks with privilege tend to think their voices are more important, and are also treated as such in society.

What keeps communities together is a certain ideology that separates them in some way from mainstream culture. In order to believe in a certain ideology, one must be educated about it and have the motivation to act that ideology out. Not surprisingly, many sociological reports show that education is very related to formal group participation. In a 1956 study of 749 people in the Detroit area, for example, 3/4 of all people with some college experience have some formal group membership, while only 1/2 with grade school education do (Axelrod 40). In 1997, with the exception of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (who exceed the college attainment of whites by at least 10 points), an average of only 33.9% of all blacks and Hispanics of at least 25 years of age have some college education or more, while 49.1% of whites do (“Difference in Educational Attainment”). Consequently, those with more education, which tend to be whites, are more numerous in intentional communities.

Blaming difference in ideology is not a fair assessment for a lack of diversity. Ideology is not specific to race in my opinion. The fact of the matter is that we’ve all been conditioned by capitalism, and some races face the detriment white others benefit from it. I think that’s while it’s true that intentional communities bring together people of similar values and goals in life, my experience is that people within intentional communities may have varying ideologies from one to another. I feel that a huge limiting factor in intentional communities is class. Many of the participants are from an upper-middle class, which tends to be mostly white. I don’t think that education has much to do with it, it’s just something that comes with a certain socio-economic class.

Though the ideologies vary tremendously among intentional communities, a great number of them espouse ecological values that encourage people to minimize the destruction of the environment. Members of the white middle class thus far have been the leaders of the environmental movement. Only recently, with the advent of the environmental justice movement, have people of color become more involved with the environmental movement, especially where it affects their home communities. Thus, ecological values have tended to be more important to white people than people of color, and act as another filter that reduces the number of culturally diverse people in intentional communities.

The inherent culture within many intentional communities today repels many people, and a disproportionate number of these people are people of color. The stereotype of intentional communities that many people have (that is very often true for some communities) is that of a “hippie” commune where people frolic naked and filthy in the country with tofu in one hand and a peace sign in the other. For the most part, white people dominate the “hippie” culture because very few people of color share many radical “hippie” values. First of all, people of color tend to be more conservative in their values than white liberals.

I think that these are assumptions. As stated in the introduction, it’s a racist stereotype that people of color don’t care about the environment. It’s just that the Environmental Movement is not an inclusive movement, and has its own problems with perpetuating oppression and not including the voices of minority groups. Let’s dissect why very few people of color have “hippie” values. What about “hippie values” may not be pleasing to a person of color? Could it be anti-blackness? Could it be cultural appropriation? Could it be that white liberal hippies so often appropriate from black culture and take from sacred indigenous ceremony without permission? During my time spent in intentional communities, I’ve noticed a number of white people with dreadlocks, and overheard a number of people talking about taking part in some sort of indigenous tradition that is not from their heritage. These are things that I know many radical people of color (and radical/critical people in general) would take issue with, and may avert them from partaking in these communities. Hippy culture can also claim to be a culture of radicalism, and has fought in the past for civil rights movement and other equality efforts. So why is it that “hippie” culture (which also tends to be environmentalist) often goes hand-in-hand with cultural appropriation, which is disrespectful and racist? I think it’s the fact that many hippies tend to be color-blind (they pretend not to see race), and this leads them to make decisions that are offensive, disrespectful, racist, and uninclusive. This is a part of the culture that needs to change in order for intentional communities to be more culturally inclusive.

The other part of this environmental ideology is the value of living lightly on the earth with presumably fewer resources through sharing and cooperation. Most of the people who favor this voluntary simplicity are white and at least middle class people who have already tasted life with material comforts and have found it harmful and unfulfilling. People of color, on the other hand, who have poverty rates of an average of 21.4 % as compared to 8.2% for whites in 1998 (“Poverty

and Race”), have generally enjoyed far less material comfort than whites and are less inclined to give up their pursuit of the “American Dream”. (Paiss 142)

It’s true that people of color are disproportionately affected by poverty in society. However, what about the other 79.6% of people of color who are not in poverty (according to the statistics stated above)? Why do we not see these folks in the intentional communities? My only explanation is the intentional communities’ culture which marginalizes people of color and that is in some ways oppressive.

Intentional communities are not appropriate for everybody, nor are they necessary for everybody. People who join them usually feel marginalized in some way and seek a community in which they can feel supported. Those that tend to feel very alienated from their society, culture, and families are educated white liberals- who subsequently are the most likely to join an intentional community. People of color, on the other hand, who have been institutionally marginalized by society have been forced to create a support network among each other. People of color, therefore, may not feel the same longing for community as many white people do. Why might educated white liberals feel so alienated when it appears like they have it all? First, the values of many educated white liberals do not line up with those of mainstream society. Mainstream culture encourages people to make a lot of money, spend it in a way to impress others, and wreck the earth in the process. Many educated white liberals have come to the realization that there is more to life than just making money and have devoted some part of themselves to repairing society and the planet. Many educated white liberals who join intentional communities have already participated in the “rat race” and have given it up for a more supportive and nurturing community. People of color, for the most part, have a much greater sense of community with their culture, family, and place than white people. Since society has marginalized them socially and economically, people of color tend to have a greater connection with their culture. Elements of their culture have given many people of color support and familiarity in a society where white values dominate. Unlike white pride, ethnic pride has become much more accepted and desirable in communities of color since the Civil Rights movement in the pursuit for self-empowerment.

I think that this is in some ways valid. While white liberals should not feel marginalized by society (U.S. society was literally built for them), it is true that more leftist and radical white liberals tend to be more anti-capitalist less conforming to the status quo. I also think it is true that many upper-middle class white folks lack a sense of community, because that’s the culture we grew up in. I also think it is true that

institutionally marginalized communities can have very strong senses of community (and family), even if the institutions that oppress them try to destroy those communities.

Nowadays, racism in America is not so much individual (though there certainly is that still, too) as it is structurally racist in terms of where the dominant values, money, and power lie. As liberal as many intentional communities may try to be, the people within them are not immune to this kind of racism. It is usually not an “intentional” racism, like calling somebody a racially derogatory word, but the “unintentional” kind that generally gives more money and education to white people. For a community that wants to be culturally diverse and anti-racist, they must ask themselves three series of questions: (1) What can our community offer people of color that they may not have already? Is our community willing to change itself in order to attract more people of color if it is already serving its present membership well? (2) Is our community willing to let our value system be one that does not dominate the views of all community members? Which values are we willing to compromise on in order to be potentially more accessible to people of color? Can we look into ourselves for ways that we can be less judgmental of those who do not hold our views? (3) What can we change structurally to be more accessible to people of color? How can we change our structure in order to ensure that everyone feels safe enough to have his or her voice heard? How can we expand our recruitment strategies to reach more diverse groups of people? As was mentioned earlier, there is nothing wrong with a culturally homogenous community that finds that it is working fine the way it is and believes that a common ideology is keeping the community together and serving the population well. Such a community just needs to stop worrying about why their community is not culturally diverse and kicking themselves over it. If a community is willing to change in order to allow for more diversity, the community needs to decide what its limits are. If a community is not willing to compromise many of its values in the pursuit of cultural diversity, the community should not be too surprised if they are only attracting like-minded people with similar backgrounds. If the members of a community have decided what values they are willing to compromise in order to be more tolerant of others, they must examine the structure of their community in order to find where they can be more accessible. This may take a lot of self-reflection for a community, but may help to define and refine themselves in the process.

The pursuit for cultural diversity is not an easy one. It requires an intentional community as a whole, as well as its individual members, to more clearly define their goals and values. Intentional communities are not for everyone - and neither are culturally diverse ones. An intentional community that has decided to have fewer formal values in order to have a culturally diverse community may not sound as impressive or as worthy as an intentional community with many lofty ideals because the maintenance of healthy relationships among diverse groups is not as quantifiable. Yet it is often our mundane interactions with people that really serve to transform the world. Those communities who truly desire cultural diversity and are willing to change themselves in order to have it will be rewarded with endless learning opportunities about themselves and others. Culturally diverse intentional communities can provide a small model for the world of how people with differences can learn to live together to make a difference.

I think that these last paragraphs sum it up really well. I have a few points: 1) Diversity for diversity’s sake should not necessarily be the goal of a community, but social justice should. That would mean creating goals like: anti-oppression, decolonization, divesting from whiteness, and recognizing our own privilege. 2) The goal should be to make more harmonious relationships between all members of the community, while still upholding these anti-oppressive values. If you have a very diverse community but everyone hates each other, or if it replicates the same racial hierarchies that exist in mainstream society, what have you really accomplished? 3) Recruitment processes are challenging and would have to be treated really carefully. Equity means giving more opportunity to those who don’t have it, and less to those who already have it. It would take a lot of careful thought and guidelines to create a recruitment process that is anti-oppressive.

Overall, this article about cultural diversity in intentional communities brings up many important questions. Why is diversity so valued by white liberals? Why is it a goal? Is it for the common good or is it for self-serving purposes? How do individual people in intentional communities think about race? How are communities anti-capitalist and environmental values related to values of diversity?

Intentional communities are a solution for a very specific set of people … and that’s OK. We don’t have to completely restructure our communities “to be more inclusive”. It’s OK that our communities don’t have representation from every single ethnic and cultural demographic. They weren’t built to be that way. The communities are set up for very specific people with very specific intentions. That being said,

anti-oppressive education can always benefit the pursuit towards greater humanitarian equality and justice.

Section 3: The Sweet Spot

Understanding the Permaculture Ethics

Within permaculture there is a set of three ethics that are known as People Care, Earth Care, and Fair Share. Within the framework of Permaculture design, each ethic should always be considered when trying to apply a design. Ideally, having these ethics as a core to any design should bring about greater resilience, livelihood, (bio)diversity, while also repairing damage done by systems such as exploitative economic models, devastated ecosystems, and systems of oppression. Earth Care is a great ethic that looks beyond traditional sustainability and works towards radical regeneration. My critique of the permaculture ethics are that People Care and Fair Share are incomplete and lacking a radical lens. The permaculture community needs to address People Care under an anti-oppressive lens. Without addressing systems of oppression as a key element that leads to exploitation of people, it is an incomplete ethic. People Care should not solely aim towards raising standard of living, fostering livelihood and community, and improving health of the individual; it should also aim towards radical deconstruction of oppression. When learning about People Care, there should be discussion to help us understand systems of oppression - and how these systems degenerate those three things (standard of living, fostering livelihood, and health) within communities of color at a greater rate than white communities. Permaculture is a great tool to create well-designed invisible structures; these invisible and social structures should also be designed in an anti-oppressive way which actively work towards dismantling systems of oppression and creating a new paradigm for greater equity. Anti-oppressive People Care involves divesting from white centered politics, recentering blackness, fighting for indigenous and migrant worker rights, and implementing anti-oppressive education and activism. It involves fighting for equity, which is not the same as equality. Equity means redistributing power and privilege to the disadvantaged. Equity is also related to Fair Share, and this includes a design of economic systems that are anti-exploitative, and that foster healthy growth, fair treatment of workers, fair trade, and so on. This often manifests through village economies,

business coops, barter economies and other alternative economic systems. Through an anti-oppressive lens, Fair Share would mean not only entail creating new alternative economies, but also divesting from and eventually dismantling capitalism (and the feeder/fed dichotomy mentioned in Section 1). Under the traditional capitalist model, Fair Share has no place; hyper-competition is emphasized, maximum profit of the elite corporation CEOs and administrations are favored, and the bottom of the pyramid workers and consumers are exploited in a way that perpetuates poverty and oppression. Capitalism is a system that is built from oppression and feeds on the commodification of black and brown bodies/culture. Capitalism is allowed to exist, and continues to function, because of cis-white-hetero patriarchy, white supremacy, neo-colonialism, neo-liberal economic policy, police brutality and the prison industrial complex. Under the current paradigm, we do not live under capitalism in a bubble. We live in a world of “Imperialist White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy,” an extremely exploitative and oppressive economic system that benefits the elite and privilege by utilizing a framework of racial hierarchy that has existed since the trans-atlantic slave trade. Because of these realities, we must break away from the capitalist mindset if we truly want to foster Fair Share and People Care. For most it is impossible to not participate in capitalism, it is a matter of survival. People in the U.S.A. must participate in it everyday, because we have no choice. Although it is possible to make capitalism less harmful, and use it to benefit oppressed people and degenerated environments, it will never exist without exploitation. As Audrey Lorde says, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” that is to say that we can not use capitalism to permanently dismantle the systems of oppression that capitalism is fueled by. The use of capitalist enterprise for social/environmental change is a band-aid solution; it does not get the root of deeper issues of systems of oppression and environmental exploitation. However, by investing in alternative economic systems, we can foster true equity, Earth Care, Fair Share, and People Care. In order for regeneration of the planet and its people to be reached, a new paradigm must be created that is anti-capitalist and therefore anti-oppressive.

The “Sweet Spot” of Fair Share, People Care, and Earth Care

The three permaculture ethics are often displayed as a triple venn diagram shown below:

The sweet spot can be seen in the middle of the diagram, where all three principles intersect.

Whether it is a design for a invisible structure such as a business plan or food distribution system, or a physical design design such as a forest garden or a building, all three ethics should be considered. Sometimes it makes more sense to focus more on one ethic than another. However, the “sweet spot” of Permaculture ethics are right in between the three, where the three intersect and where the maximum economic, social, and environmental benefit can be created. The sweet spot is an ideal situation that redefines economic systems, regenerates devastated ecosystems, and dismantles unfair and oppressive treatment of people. All permaculture practitioners, as well as anybody who uses permaculture as a solution for anything, should be aiming for this sweet spot.

Examples of “Sweet Spot” Organizations

Black Permaculture Network

“BPN is a network of Afro-indigenous people who have come together through the practices of permaculture, agroecology, natural living and care of the earth. We recognize and honor the ancestral and historical knowledge that each of these land care practices embrace and strive to broaden inter-cultural dialogue around natural earth care; the love of people, plants and animals. We honor the ancestral principles of MA’AT that include: Thou shalt not disrespect sacred places, nor do any harm to human or to animals, nor take more than thy fair share of food, nor pollute the water or the land. We salute the Black Panther Party’s “10-point program” that asserts, we want freedom and power to determine the destiny of our Black Community. We invite people to find healing through our connections with the earth and her energies, as well as each other. We aim to: ● Promote cross-cultural dialogue and education around permaculture design within diverse communities. ● Provide culturally relevant and hands-on learning opportunities for diverse communities around permaculture design. ● Serve as an informational hub to access best practices, training resources and current events in the field of permaculture design. ● Provide educational and leadership opportunities for educators, activists, students, and community members currently underrepresented in the field of sustainability.”

Nuestras Raíces

“Nuestras Raíces is a grassroots urban agriculture organization based in Holyoke MA. Our mission is to create healthy environments, celebrate “agri-culture,” harness our collective energy, and to advance our vision of a just and sustainable future. Nuestras Raíces today has a network of 12 community gardens with over 100 member families, an environmental program that addresses issues affecting the Holyoke community, a Youth Program for inner city youth that gives them the opportunity to organize about food and environmental related topics, and a 30 acre inner city farm that focuses on food systems, economic development and agriculture. Nuestras Raíces has also been a founding member of the Holyoke Food and Fitness Policy Council, whose goal is to promote community empowerment through social change, and ENERGIA LLC, a socially responsible energy efficiency company that provides energy efficiency upgrades for residential and commercial properties.”

Yanapuma Foundation

“Yanapuma Foundation is an Ecuadorian and UK registered non-governmental organization working together with local and international partners to bring about lasting change for the marginalized and indigenous people of Ecuador. By clicking on each section below you can learn more about what we stand for and what we do.

Our Principles: We are guided by 6 principles - Sustainability, Social Justice, Respect (for the actors), Freedom, Transparency, and Professionalism. We are partly self-funding through our own Spanish School and volunteer activities.

Our History: Yanapuma Foundation was created in August of 2006 to be an independent, and partly self-funding NGO, motivated by a collective sense of social and environmental responsibility. The foundation is dedicated to improving the social and ecological conditions of marginalized sectors of the Ecuadorian population.

Our Methodology: We take an integrated and participatory approach to sustainable community development that relies on collaboration over the long-term, encouraging members to be the drivers of their own development.

Our Strategies: As a relatively small organization we recognize that we must collaborate with other Non-Governmental Organizations, community groups, Universities, volunteer groups and government agencies. Our strategy is to work in a participatory manner together with these groups to realize integrated sustainable projects

Our 4 axes: We identify 4 principal areas of involvement: Agriculture and the Environment, Health, Education and Sustainable Economies.”

You may read this and think “but wait, all of these organizations exist using capitalism, didn’t you say capitalism is bad?” Yes, capitalism is bad, but the reality is that in order for these organizations to exist, they must interact with capitalist economies otherwise they would not be able to sustain themselves. I encourage you as the reader to think about how alternative economies could be developed, and how we can reframe our minds to unlearn our capitalist ways. How can we survive in the age of globalism without capitalism? How can we foster community and resilience without the use of capitalist principles? How can anti-exploitation and anti-oppression be beneficial to well-being and survival?

The Alternative: Regenerative Economics There are many alternatives to the traditional (colonial) economic system known as modern day capitalism. Some examples include Buddhist economics, Indigenous economics, participatory economics, are just a few examples of alternatives to capitalism that have been applied in very specific real world situations. Regenerative economics calls for an economy which meets the needs for survival of all non-human organisms and human beings, while healing the damage that has been done by capitalism and corporate greed. Much of the current theory of regenerative economics is still stuck under the model of capital gain, but I suggest that a true regenerative economy would abandon capitalism (and any system that allows for inequality and greed). In Regenerative Enterprise by Ethan Roland and Gregory Landua, the authors explore how a regenerative economy would function. They offer a model for the 8 forms of capital, which expand beyond even the sweet spots of economy, environment, and society (triple bottom line).

The idea behind the eight forms of capital is that all forms should be cultivated, not extracted. Each form should be made so that it can regenerate and increase the wellbeing of the humans that use it. The authors also suggest that rather than increasing only quantity of each form of capital, it is important to increase the quality, complexity, and connectivity of each. Regenerative economics calls for harvesting the surplus of cultivated resources rather than extracting the core, which leaves resources for future generations. Regenerative Enterprise is an excellent look into the ways that alternative economies can exist and how they would function. However, my critique of the book is that it is still stuck in a capitalist mindset. The authors write, “working within the current system of capitalism over the last decade, we have witnessed and developed enterprises that

demonstrate the power of business for creating good in the world… enterprises are the most effective tool for creating positive change” (p. 8). As stated, the current capitalist system operates to reify a white supremacist, patriarchal framework which benefits white males. You can not deconstruct such systems solely by trying to use capitalism to regenerate. Even if regenerative enterprises create positive change under capitalism, they could still have potential to perpetuate systems of oppression simply by operating under the same harmful power structures as any other enterprise. If a white male is the one who is responsible for cultivating the eight forms of capital, he holds harmful power over the communities he means to serve. For these reasons, I believe the model for enterprise and private ownership must be abandoned, and the economy must be shifted to communal ownership and equal distribution of power. Regenerative Enterprise offers several ways in which the economy can be restricted to regenerate rather than regenerate the planet and its people. However, it addresses the topic of oppression in a color-blind manner. On page 44, the authors write “the other common factor among people is oppression. The current global society consciously and unconsciously mistreats all people based on who they are. Whether a person is female or male, white or black, young or old, Asian or South American, financially rich or financially poor, indigenous or industrial - no one experiences life without oppression”. Such statements miss the whole point; not all people are mistreated by global society. Privileged people actually benefit from the oppression of others. There are absolutely those who experience life without oppression - cisgendered, straight, white, able-bodied, upper-class males. To say that everyone is oppressed is to ignore white supremacy and patriarchy. Unless such systems are called out and dismantled, regenerative enterprises have the capability to perpetuate systems of oppression. The authors go on to write, “From a young age, the mistreatment has specific manifestations in every individual: hurts, wounds and traumas that express themselves through life as preferences, habits, fears, opinions, addictions, and rigid patterns of behavior and decision-making. Unless these hurts are consciously explored and healed, it is likely that they will be passed on: the same oppression visited on a person will be visited on the social and ecological systems around them”. Trauma caused by oppression must be healed in order for it not to be passed on. Such logic is commendable, repair and regrowth should take priority. However, the authors go on to say that “Oppression of people and ecosystems by the society as a whole can not be ended until individuals find, face, and end the oppression inside themselves and in their own lives”. This logic is flawed, because oppression must be ended in the external world before internal wounds can fully be healed; otherwise the same scars will reappear through continued oppression.

Section 4: Anti-Oppressive Education

Now that we’ve addressed the problems, let’s think about how we can work towards solutions. Anti-oppressive education is a great way for us to not only understand systems of power and oppression, but also to actively shift the paradigm and deconstruct these systems. It is only one of the many ways to work towards regenerating the planet and its people. The first step is understanding that these structural problems exist. Anti-oppressive education is not an end-all be-all. People with privilege can not expect the oppressed to teach them about systems of oppression. It is the ethical and moral duty of the privilege to learn about why they are privileged, and about the exploitation and bloodshed that gives them that privilege. Anti-oppressive education does not simply mean you attend a workshop and you are “enlightened”. It is a continual way of life and a process that never ends. As humans we must always be learning every day, always improving and striving for the ideal. Part of anti-oppression means abandoning our oppressive behaviors and harmful power relationships. It means understanding and working through discomfort, white guilt, and white fragility. Anti-oppressive education gets us nowhere if direct action is not taken in response to injustice. Once we understand that structural inequality, exploitation, and oppression exist, only then can we be critical of how they exist in our everyday lives. Indeed, ignorance is bliss. Part of anti-oppressive education is deconstructing our viewpoints that have been ingrained in us by society. I offer a few models to that can be taught to help people understand the underlying causes of oppression and that work towards deprogramming our minds that have been conditioned by the cis-white-hetero capitalist patriarchy.

The Ladder of Inference

The ladder of inference is a framework that helps people understand how we perceive reality based on observations. Whenever our brains take in data through our five senses, we select the data and leave out the rest. If we were to take in 100% of the data all the time, we would be overwhelmed and overstimulated. As human beings, we naturally select data that is important to us. For example, when we walk into a candy store, our eyes take in all of the different colors, shapes, and candy wrapper logos. However, our brain selects what we observe based on our conditioning and our preferences. This is a survival tactic that dates back evolutionarily, and that even non-human organisms have. If animals took in all of the observable data all the time, they wouldn’t be able to select the observation of a predator hunting them down, or be able to find food quickly and efficiently. After we select data, we add meaning to that data, whether it is cultural or personal. This is where stereotypes and bias come into play - as humans we are always adding meaning to our observations without actually knowing if they are true. Adding

meaning leads us to make assumptions, draw conclusions, and adopt belief systems over time. Based on our belief system, we take actions. Climbing up the ladder of inference too fast can lead to oppressive stereotypes. By learning that humans are always using the ladder of inference to navigate their realities, we can teach each other to climb down the ladder of inference. Being anti-oppressive means always going back to observable data and not being too quick to jump up the ladder and make assumptions. Actions that are based oppressive belief systems, stereotypes, etc, are degenerative. In order to halt these oppressive actions and thoughts in their tracks, one must climb down their ladder of inference.

Social Permaculture Permaculture teaches us to observe the world around us like a child, and to temporarily abandon the assumptions, conclusions and beliefs we always carry around with us. On “other” side of permaculture from the physical lies the invisible side, the social side. Using an anti-oppressive lens, it is possible to apply permaculture principles into action for social justice. The social side of permaculture is just as important (if not more important) as the design of physical structures and landscapes. Without a well-functioning, equitable social design of invisible structures, the physical structures which they support will lose resilience. In permaculture, invisible structures are defined as: the intangible elements necessary for the healthy functioning of a system. It is a concept of people+patterns that underlie how society functions in all of its aspects. Using a permaculture design mindset, systems can be broken down into a degenerative to regenerative scale. For example, the prison-industrial-complex is a degenerative system. It leaves communities devastated, drains money from taxpayers, and disenfranchises and criminalizes poor people of color. A restorative justice system, however, is regenerative, and works towards creating reconciliation and healing for all parties involved in a crime. Something in the middle of the scale may be thought of as “sustainable” because it neither degenerates nor regenerates, but just continues to function indefinitely. We should always be aiming for a regenerative design, that not only sustains itself but that heals and supports people and the planet. Behind all invisible structures are mental models, which are the mindsets that allow a system to continue. For example, the mental model that fuels racism is that white people are superior to all other races. The mental model behind environmental destruction is that humans are superior to nature. These mindsets are interrelated. Whether knowing it or not, they are ideologies pervasive in all of U.S. society. Unless

we work towards deconstructing and dismantling oppressive mental models by which we are all conditioned, it continues to exist and we move towards it like a treadmill.

The Systems Thinking Approach The colonial paradigm creates a mindset that prefers to break everything down into categories and think on an individualistic level. Systems thinking allows for understanding the interconnected nature of the universe. This approach can be applied to help folks understand intersectionality and how different systems of oppression are all connected, as well as how the same mental models govern actions which lead to oppression and environmental exploitation. Thinking about how ecological destruction and racial hierarchy are linked within the same mindset can create connections in our brain which deepen our ethics and values. Systems thinking can be applied to literally anything, but in general is a great alternative approach to understanding different systems. The systemic leadership institute describes systems thinking as: ● Systems thinking is a management discipline that concerns an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the components that comprise the entirety of that defined system. ● A systems thinking view of the complete organisation in relation to its environment. It provides a means of understanding, analysing and talking about the design and construction of the organisation as an integrated, complex composition of many interconnected systems (human and non-human) that need to work together for the whole to function successfully.

The Iceberg Model

The iceberg model offers a way to understand the underlying and sometimes hidden causes to observable events. From looking at the iceberg model, we learn that events are caused by patterns of human behavior, which are caused by systems structures (systems that influence these patterns), which are fundamentally backed by mental models, or belief systems that allow such systems to exist. The iceberg model can be applied to literally any event involving humans, but for this purpose it will be applied to cis white hetero patriarchy. The observable events can be seen on an individual basis; a black man gets shot by a police officer; a womyn makes less for the same job than a man; a trans person of color is sexually abused in a prison. These are all observable events that, when zoomed out, exist as part of a pattern of behavior. Police brutality, mass incarceration, and food deserts are all observable patterns that exist over time as multiple recurring events. These patterns of behavior are manifested through institutional systems of oppression such as racism, sexism, transmisogyny, homophobia, ableism, and more. The mental models behind these systems are based on a colonial belief system, which places a deeply ingrained belief that the white, cisgendered, straight male is superior to all other

beings, and that anybody else is to be dominated, subjugated, and controlled. By seeing this colonial mental model, we can begin to deconstruct the colonial paradigm and work towards unravelling the ugly realities that have brainwashed each and every individual in America since birth.

The Iceberg of Oppression

The iceberg of oppression is an iceberg model that is specifically made to help people understand that systems of oppression are more than just individual experiences but are supported by institutions and ideologies. This model shows that individual experiences that may seem like oppression, are not actually oppression if they are happening to a dominant group. Because people normally see the experiences that happen on an individual level, it can be hard to see the underlying institutions and ideologies that perpetuate oppression against “minority” groups. This article shows how privilege and power are important when understanding whether an individual experience is actually oppression or just bias/bigotry: “Using this iceberg it is possible to see how statements like “reverse racism” or “that’s sexist against men!” are not actually examples of oppression. This does not mean that people cannot be biased against men, heterosexual people, white people, or other groups of people with systemic power and it is not saying that these things aren’t hurtful, but these individual experiences are not rooted in oppression as they are not founded in systems of power.”

On Paralysis and White Guilt

Some common initial responses when privileged white folks learn about systems of oppression are feelings of defensiveness, followed by guilt, anger, and eventually a feeling of helplessness and paralysis. In order to overcome these feelings, people with privilege must understand that this isn’t about them; it’s about systems. Social Justice work is not an attack on any individual, but a call for the dismantling of oppressive colonial systems. NYTimes’ article on white debt explains: “The word ‘‘privilege,’’ composed of the Latin words for private and law, describes a legal system in which not everyone is equally bound, a system in which the law that makes graffiti a felony does not apply to a white college student … Whiteness is not a kinship or a culture. White people are no more closely related to one another, genetically, than we are to black people. American definitions of race allow for a white woman to give birth to black children, which should serve as a reminder that white people are not a family. What binds us is that we share a system of social advantages that can be traced back to the advent of slavery in the colonies that became the United States. ‘‘There is, in fact, no white community,’’ as Baldwin writes. Whiteness is not who you are. Which is why it is entirely possible to despise whiteness without disliking yourself.” It’s important not to get stuck in white guilt and paralysis, but to use this energy and anger to working towards justice. It’s important to understand that it’s not any individual’s fault that their white skin or that their gender assigned at birth grants them privilege. However, everyone participates in racism and sexism every day, without perhaps realizing it. Racism is just the reality that governs our existence. Once people with privilege understand that they (perhaps unwillingly) benefit from the oppression and exploitation of others, then a moral obligation should draw them to use their privilege for activism and the centering of the most oppressed voices (and most specifically Black Femme Voices).

Section 5: Moving Forward

More Resources for the Reader Here’s some educational resources that I found while researching for this project, or that people recommended to me. Educate yourself!

Anti-Oppression The Anti-Oppression Network Zines https://theantioppressionnetwork.wordpress.com/resources/zines/ Diversity is Not a Certificate http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/dismantling-oppression-at-work/ Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person http://occupywallstreet.net/story/explaining-white-privilege-broke-white-person Resources About Dismantling Oppression http://www.pcadv.org/Learn-More/Prevention/Resources/Dismantling-Oppression/ The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow What is Racial Justice? http://www.uprootingracism.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/What%20is%20Racial %20Justice_.pdf White Privilege and Police Brutality http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/white-privilege-and-police/

Decolonization Decolonization Journal http://decolonization.org/index.php/des Decolonizing Medicine http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/... Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=488 Indigenous People and Climate Change https://uoclimateconference.wordpress.com/ The Internal Colonial Concept http://users.clas.ufl.edu/... 21st Century Chains http://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:101434/datastream/PDF/view

Food Justice

Black Food Geographies and Racialized Food Spaces http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12131/full Black Land Matters http://www.duendenatural.com/blm/index.html The Garden Documentary http://www.thegardenmovie.com/ Setting an Anti-Racist Table http://anti-racist-table.weebly.com/racial-justice-in-the-food-system.html (^contains many links to organizations and other articles)

Social Permaculture Dancing With Systems http://donellameadows.org/archives/dancing-with-systems/ Konda Mason Speaks at Building Resilient Communities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZzDbDBybUc (short version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5k91EQ-Et0 (full version) Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system / People & Pattern Invisible Structures http://www.peoplepattern.org/about/invisible-structures/ People & Permaculture: Caring and Designing for Ourselves, Each Other and the Planet by Looby Macnamara http://www.amazon.com/People-Permaculture-Caring-Designing-Ourselves-ebook/dp /B007Q2LUQS Radical Mycology Zine https://radicalmycology.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/slf-final-1-1.pdf Responding to the Prison Industrial Complex with Permaculture http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-12-22/responding-to-the-prison-industrial-co mplex-with-permaculture-and-resilience Social Permaculture Principles in Action http://permaculturenews.org/2013/02/08/social-permaculture-principles-in-action/ Social System Design http://www.thepermaculturepodcast.com/2015/episode1519-social-system-design

What now? The purpose of this booklet is not a call for analysis, but a call for action. I acknowledge that the reader may feel enraged by the injustices not only within in niches of the environmental movement, but the injustices that pervade all of society. I encourage the reader to not only continue learning, but to turn their righteous anger into direct action. Plug into your local activist communities. Help educate your peers. Call for anti-oppressive education in your institution, school, business, or community. Acknowledge and understand your own privilege and power. Use your privilege and power for the greater good. Be vulnerable; it’s ok to make mistakes and to not know everything. Lift up the voices of the oppressed and the silenced. Open your heart and get your hands dirty. Invite discomfort into your life; expand your comfort zone. Comfort is the biggest inhibitor of direct action in capitalist society. If there’s one thing I want the reader to take away from this booklet, it’s that YOU ARE POWERFUL. Every action you take affects the planet and its people. You have the power to start taking actions which lead to regeneration. Your words are powerful. You can uplift others or bring them down. You have the power to heal or to destroy. Although you may be stuck in the system at times, you have the power to divest some amount of personal energy from degenerative systems; no matter how big or small.

Conclusion The way that people treat each other is directly related to how they treat the planet. Systems of environmental exploitation are directly linked to systems of oppression through colonial mental models. Industrialization, over-commodification, and exploitation of the earth’s resources started to happen around the same time as the racial hierarchies of colonization, indigenous & black genocide, and the trans-atlantic slave trade. White supremacy has lead to the commodification of black and brown bodies; the patriarchy has lead to the commodification of female-identified bodies. The same interrelated ideologies of dominance behind patriarchy and white supremacy govern the false human dominion over nature. Human domination and control over nature is designed to further benefit the privileged and elite, namely white males. Environmental degradation, climate change, and toxic pollution disproportionately torment people of color. Systems of oppression and environmental degradation are a self-feeding cycle of destruction and decay. Niches within the Environmental Movement are unjust when they fail to recognize how these systems interact. Thus, in order for the environmental movement to be effective in saving the planet (and to be ethical), it must fight against against all systems of oppression. 47

Glossary

Hopefully this glossary will help make this booklet accessible to all readers. Each word is a link to further readings on the term.

Ableism - discrimination in favor of able-bodied people which may include (lack of) access to infrastructure, education, and institutions. Capitalism - A relatively new economic system in which the means of production and distribution of goods are privately owned by a small minority of elite who benefit from the exploitation of people and the environment. Capitalism operates under an impossible model of unlimited growth which depletes human and natural resources. Cis-White-Hetero Patriarchy - Domination of straight cisgendered white males over all other social groups which manifests through institutional forms of oppression like racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, transmisogyny and others. Cisgender - A person who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth. Colonialism - the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country/territory, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting its people, land and economy. Often goes hand-in-hand with black and indigenous genocide. Commodification - the transformation of anything (people, labor, goods, services, ideas, cultures, religions, land, nature) into commodities or objects of trade for profit. Disenfranchise - to deprive someone of the right to vote or participate in politics, which is what often happens to people of color after being incarcerated Environmental Racism - the placement of low-income or minority communities in proximity of environmentally hazardous or degraded environments, such as toxic waste, pollution and urban decay. Green Capitalism - the view that capital exists in nature as "natural capital" (ecosystems that have ecological yield) on which all wealth depends, and therefore, market-based government policy instruments (such as cap and trade systems) should be used to resolve environmental problems. Green-Washing - disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Imperialism - a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. Intersectionality - the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. Marginalization - The process of being pushed to the margins; to relegate to an disadvantaged, unimportant or powerless position within a society or group. 48

Neo-Colonialism - the geopolitical practice of using capitalism, business globalization, and cultural imperialism to influence a country, in lieu of either direct military control (imperialism) or indirect political control (hegemony). Neo-liberal Economic Policy - forced privatized open-market and free-trade economies which perpetuate development and exploitation while making the poor become poorer and the rich become richer. Oppression - the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Patriarchy - a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Power - the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. Privilege - In the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to age, disability, ethnic or racial category, gender, sexual orientation, religion and/or social class - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. Racism - a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior. Racist ideology can become manifest in many aspects of social life. Associated social actions may include xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena. Sexism - prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender, particularly documented as affecting womyn and girls. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles, and may include the belief that males are intrinsically superior to females. E xtreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. Systems of Oppression - when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one's membership in targeted social identity groups. These systems of oppression manifest as institutional racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny, cissexism, colonialism, capitalism, and many more. White Savior Complex - Typically referring to film, but can be applied elsewhere, the White Savior Complex is when a white individual rescues people of color from their plight; The belief that non-white people and marginalized communities need saving

by good-hearted white people; A harmful societal norm that equates the concept of morality, generosity and common good to be equated with white people, and equates poverty, crime, and neediness with non-white people. White Supremacy - a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people, especially black people. White-Washing - to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data

Acknowledgements

This project could have never happened without these people.

My Div III committee: Donna Cohn for being here since my first day at Hampshire, being an incredible support, going along with my crazy ideas, and teaching/learning alongside me. And Daniel Ross for challenging, questioning, supporting, and providing resources and valuable connections.

My incredible partner Xavier Torres de Janon who has not only supported me but pushed me to do my best work and provided endless insight in the process.

Roxanne Matuszek for collaborating, providing resources and connections, and inspiring me.

Javiera Benavente and Teal Van Dyke from the Ethics and the Common Good Project for supporting me with grant money, connections, and encouragement.

Ned Jones and Felix Lufkin for collaborating with me, educating me, and involving me in the Permaculture community.

Camila Fleur O’Brien and Kate Coughlin for helping transcribe interviews.

My family for supporting me and without whom I would not be here.

The intentional communities I visited on field study, and the generous people within them who allowed me to conduct interviews and provided me with food and shelter.

All Hampshire and Five College community members, including students, faculty and staff who have supported my learning over the years by facilitating space, challenging my viewpoints, and/or collaborating with me.

All authors of linked articles and sources cited in this project. I cannot claim ownership over any ideas, rather they are a conglomeration of collective consciousness.

All other people, enemies and friends who have helped shape who I am along the way.