Issues in permaculture…
Navigating permaculture’s Covid rift
This story was stimulated by permaculture co-inventor, David Holmgren’s public statement about why he chooses to avoid vaccination against the Covid19 virus. It raises questions about the role of scientific understanding in permaculture and concludes with a reposting of my comments to David’s blog story.
Permaculture prides itself on the diversity of ideas and opinion among its participants. Diversity is one of its design principles. Now, the pandemic has put this diversity under strain.
In Australia, this became apparent through postings and comments on permaculture social media where the majority of permaculture practitioners, those motivated to post and comment, appear to support medical and most government initiatives to stem the spread of the virus even while retaining their distrust of government. Only a very tiny number have posted anti-vaxx, right-libertarian, News Ltd and other material. Most practitioners see vaccination as a signifier of social solidarity, of permaculture’s care-of-people ethic, of doing something for the common good as a civic duty.
What happened?
When in September permaculture co-developer, David Holmgren, posted on his blog a story explaining his decision not to be vaccinated and lending validation to the ideas around the US’ FLCCC Alliance, which promotes the use of ivermectin as a Covid19 treatment, comments for and against his stance were posted below. Ivermectin is used to treat animal and human disease but its value in treating Covid19 is discounted by medical scientists. Were a more-dangerous variant of the Covid virus to emerge, it is to the FLCCC Alliance that David would look for treatment, he writes.
Comments to a blog piece do not constitute a statictically valid sample, so we can’t say whether the support for David in the comments to his story represents a significant strand of thought within the social movement around permaculture. What they do suggest is that vaccine hesitancy and vaccine resistance might not be uncommon among permacuture practitioners.
Most commentators support him, quite a few saying they were thinking about vaccination in the same way. At least one is from an American who comes across as of the right-libertarian bent. A lesser number are critical. This might seem a contradiction to permaculture’s origin as the product of a social democracy and to the traditional high regard of science within it, however there is that diversity principle again. If the comments do represent a significant number, what does that say about the regard for science among permaculture practitioners?
The vast majority of Australian people have had the vaccination. David’s attitude and those of anti-vaxxers are probably a small minority. David recognises this and in his blog and an accompanying piece he writes of drawing “…on past experience, or inspiration, from the frontlines of anti-war, environmental defence and free communication resistance.”
Alleging that there are links between people choosing not to be vaccinated with those protesting against the war in Vietnam 50 years ago is a spurious analogy. Those opponents of the war were trying to save lives. Those opposing vaccination, the lockdowns and associated moves to stem the virus put the personal above the social and risk their own lives and those of others.
Why it matters
When influence becomes a risk
The risk in David’s attitude comes through his substantial influence as the most prominent voice in the movement. What he says carries weight. He writes from a position of power as permaculture’s only ‘charismatic authority’, as sociology educator Terry Leahy described him in his 2021 book, The Politics of Permaculture. David is a figure of influence granted great credibility within the movement, credibility which frequently goes unquestioned. If David writes something it will be taken as fact by many. His position on vaccination validates the attitude of those deciding to avoid it and could be taken as support for the anti-vaxx movement irrespective of whether that is his intention.
The often-unquestioning acceptance of David’s ideas (many of which I agree with) is something which raises the question of how much skepticism is valued in permaculture. Skepticism infers considering the evidence and going by that. It is inherently pro-science because science is our civilisation’s means of making sense of and understanding the universe and the world we live in. Scientific findings are verifiable through further research.
David acknowledges the reality that most who identify with permaculture will freely choose vaccination to protect self, family, friends and the people. He appeals to their tolerance of those choosing not to be vaccinated: “the majority should at least tolerate and not seek to further punish the minority for their resistance. To advocate for this within the permaculture movement, I appeal to our pluralism in celebrating the diversity of action.”
What makes the present split over vaccination different to other controversies is the existential consequences of what could soon become a disease, according to the ABC’s Dr Norman Swan, of the unvaccinated and of children.
I have always valued David’s thinking although I don’t always agree with it. When it comes to the pandemic, however, I find a gulf between he and I, and I choose to abide by the scientific consensus around the pandemic. I posted a reply to David in his comment following publication of his blog, which appears at the end of this story.
Driving the issue
Different permaculture voices
David’s might be the most powerful and influential voice in permaculture, however there are contrary voices. One of those is Rosemary Morrow. A permaculture veteran, Rosemary extolled the value of vaccination on her blog, republished on The Big Fix. She bases her attitude on her experience in working with people in lesser-developed countries and with refugees, and with witnessing the impacts of curable diseases. Within the permaculture milieu, Rosemary’s fieldwork is considered exemplary.
Another pro-science voice came from Tasmanian permaculture designer and educator, Hannah Moloney from Good Life Permaculture. On being vaccinated, she wrote on her Instagram site “… grateful to science and the super star front line health workers for rolling out the vaccines… looking forward to us all being able to move freely again and for us to collectively get back to the important business of stopping runaway climate chaos. First point of business in Australia is to vote this current government out in the next federal election.”
After receiving nearly 4000 likes, Hannah closed comments to her post, saying that it is not a space to judge and condemn people.
Rosemary and Hannah are two women brave enough to post their pro-science, pro-vaxx attitudes when they know they will become targets of anti-vaxxers within the social movement around permaculture.
Towards a solution
Do we have a way out of what David thinks could be an attitudinal fracture among permaculture practitioners? It is too late to stop the fracture because it preexisted David’s writing. His attitude to vaccination further widened it by validating contrary attitudes in a divisive social issue.
What interests me are the implications of what David writes to the relationship between permaculture and science. What makes me wonder is his apparent attitude to science (the only means we have to validate or disprove our understandings about the universe) apparent in his naming science practitioners as “the priests of arcane specialised knowledge maintained by an empire of extraction and exploitation.”
David writes of “…a widening gulf of frustration and distrust within our movement, reflecting society.” I can’t see his attitude to scientific practioners doing anything more than reinforcing it.
There have been points of disagreement in permaculture before, that during the 1990s alleging permaculture to be a source of environmental weeds being a prime example. Others are minor in comparison to that around the Covid virus and the various means taken to stem it. They are ongoing and are around the genetic engineering of crops, biodynamic agriculture and the so-called natural medicines and medical practices which appear to have a substantial support base within permaculture.
How serious will the division over the pandemic become? David acknowledges it has fractured the movement. I doubt it will lead to a lasting fracture. As we move beyond the pandemic I think the rift will be glossed over and permaculture regain its seeming unity-with-diversity. But there’s this nagging feeling that we, as a social movement, could witness a resurfacing of the fracture in future outbreaks and in other developments. Will memory of it lie there below the surface and influence our trust of others in the movement?
Perhaps the cliche/truism that ‘time heals all’ will come into effect. I agree with David that we shouldn’t ostracise those whose views we differ from. We can just let it go or, more constructively, we can engage in a conversation about it.
Activist skepticism—a role for permaculture
My own attitude is that of the activist-skeptic. That says we go by the evidence while remaining open to new evidence which would either reinforce our position or lead us to change what we believe. Skeptical activism relies on scientific investigation and understanding because it is more likely to identify what is true than assumption, faith or belief.
Sleptical activism leans its support to medical science. It does not necessarily support actions by government or their use of the science. Activist-skeptics base their beliefs about government on the evidence of their interventions, their willingness to change those interventions when evidence so-indicates and their placing social and human values above the economic.
I suggest that skeptical activism is the appropriate path for permaculture to take in navigating ths pandemic, the disinformation and the divisive social fracture that has opened within it.
My comment
Here is my statement posted following David’s post story as it appeared in the comments following his post:
RUSS GRAYSON OCTOBER 2, 2021 AT 3:27 PM
Hi David…
I was directed to your statement about your choice to avoid the Covid vaccine by a long-time permaculture practitioner. He alerted me because he found your position on vaccination to be depressing. He asked to remain anonymous.I, too, was surprised by it. You are of course free to make your own decisions about being vaccinated, however there are consequences in making your decision public. I am not arguing against going public. You, like me, are a blogger and we make public statements in the course of our work which, sometimes, people take exception to. That comes with the territory, as the saying goes. As a public intellectual you would anticipate discussion about what you say, and sometimes disagreement and argument. That, too, comes with the territory of being a public intellectual.
Here’s are my thoughts on what you say about vaccination and associated topics expressed in your article.
The risks of influence
Your position as what Terry Leahy in his recent book, The Politics of Permaculture, calls the “charismatic authority” in the social movement and practice around permaculture provides an authoritative speaking position from which to influence people. It allows you to wield a lot of intellectual power over the way people in the social movement around permaculture think. Your voice is dominant within permaculture, as would be expected by being one of its creators, and your ideas usually go unchallenged and frequently unquestioned.This makes whatever you say very influential. It opens the potential for permaculture people to take your personal position on vaccination as a model for themselves. It could validate the decision of those who are undecided about being vaccinated to decide against it, with the potential impact of doing that not only on their own health but that of those, especially others who are unvaccinated, with whom they come in contact.
What comes foirst—personal or social?
John Donne wrote that “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” That suggests that personal practices and attitudes exist within the wider society in which permaculture is embedded and participates, and influences and is influenced by it.
As an exemplar for permaculture practice and thinking, I wonder if your choice to avoid the vaccine sends the most socially responsible message? It appears to place the personal above social wellbeing and carries hints of a right-libertarian attitude. A fair number of permaculture people have commented in the socials that vaccination demonstrates social solidarity in dealing with a threat. They say it is a model for dealing with a worsening impact of global heating.
A false division
My reading of your article leaves me with the notion that you classify those accepting vaccination as being part of the social mainstream while those avoiding or opposed to vaccination as being a dissident edge.If I read this right, I think it profoundly wrong. Many who choose vaccination are the same people who are critical of elements in mainstream society like governmental overreach and corporate misdoing. They are the people working on everyday solutions to global heating and pressuring government and business to act on ameliorating its advance. They are the people searching for a better political economy. They are fellow-permaculture practitioners.
As such, they take cognisance of climate science and are intelligent enough to make the distinction between the corporate thrust of the pharmaceutical and other industries and the science they make use of. So it is natural that they listen to epidemiologists and others who study disease and to the scientific consensus around the pandemic. What they do not do is cherry-pick the science they want to believe. If they follow the science of climate change it is only logical to follow the understandings of medical science.
The people I talk about also include many who identify with the Left, which places them in the paradoxical position of supporting governments they do not otherwise support in their push to immunise the public while remaining critical of elements of the government programs.
The risk of co-option
In the ideological battle all-too-evident around the virus and government and personal responses to it, there is the risk of your personal attitude to vaccination being co-opted by anti-vaxxers within permaculture and within the wider society to strengthen their arguments. That would further widen existing divisions.As a politically-astute observer with knowledge of radical politics, you too will have seen evidence of the presence of the extreme right in fermenting conflict on the streets and in online space. It is a tactic within their strategy of ‘accelerationism’, which is intended to create social conflict and political instability to hasten the collapse of our liberal democratic system and enable the imposition of their authoritarian polity. A few in permaculture have reposted their propaganda during the pandemic and there remains the risk that they will co-opt what you write.
Care of people?
The peoplecare ethic remains strong in permaculture although it is probably the most-disregarded of the three ethics.Reading social media comments about vaccination as well as your blog post, the attitude that vaccination demonstrates the care of people ethic in action appears to be strong as well as a personal act of social responsibility and social solidarity.
Feeding science denial?
As you well-know, for a long time there has been a tussle within the permaculture movement between between scientific credibility and pseudo-science. Is there a risk that in personally declining vaccination and publicly saying so, it can be taken as science-denialism or supportive of that attitude?Is this permaculture’s first big split?
You express the thought that psychosocial issues around the pandemic, government action and personal attitude could fracture permaculture as a social movement and practice.I remember the divergence of opinion and mini-controversy over the weeds issue in the 1990s that you mention. That, however, is small cheese compared to the ideological spilt evident over the pandemic, vaccination and lockdowns. The difference, I think, is because weeds are not an existential threat. The Delta variant is, especially for those in vulnerable age groups (me too), those with preexisting medical conditions which the virus could worsen, and those unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Social movements fracture because intellectual, tactical and political trends within them create stresses greater than the existing movement can withstand. Factionalism is often a result, or people vote with their feet and leave the movements. The global pandemic and local responses to it, mixed with ideological, political and social attitudes has produced stresses within permaculture of a severity and of a potential polarising nature that it has not experienced before.
Will we see a spilt in the movement? There is certainly polarisation over issues around the pandemic and, probably, a loss of trust among practitioners, but I don’t think permaculture will fracture. It has cracked, however. The question is whether we can pave over those cracks over time or whether the issue has exacerbated existing as well as new social, political and ideological attitudes and beliefs within the movement that are now on opposite sides of an unbridgeable gap.
Read David’s blog post here
Read Rosemary Morrow’s post on her facebook
Good Life Permaculture’s post in Instagram
Related
George Monbiot on how leftists succumb to the anti-vaxx messages of the far-right
Disinformation in a historic context: New but old: the disinformation pandemic resurrected
How anti-vaxxers co-opt the language of zoology and reformist social movements
More on false cures.
More brain food from Permaculture 3.0
Permaculture on facebook
Permaculture has politics too
Terry Leahy looks at permaculture’s inner political dynamics.
medium.com
