Thanks, Robert for your thoughts.  For those of you who haven't had the provilege of meeting him, Robert Greenway is one of the founders of the field of ecopsychology who has been a legendary wilderness therapy pioneer, so we're honored to have him contributing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi to all,
    these are a few responses to the quotes by Naomi Klein,  presented
as off-top-of-head casual,  from experience,  not meant to be scholarly
  --  which would take several months.

On Friday, March 25, 2011, at 09:20 AM, LBUZZELL@aol.com wrote:

> An interview by Transition movement founder/permaculture teacher Rob
> Hopkins with author Naomi Klein (Shock Doctrine) that's well worth
> reading...
>  
> Linda
>  
> http://transitionculture.org/2011/03/23/an-interview-with-naomi-klein-part-one-that-world-view-is-killing-us-and-that-that-world-view-needs-to-be-replaced-with-another-world-view-%E2%80%9D/
>  
> "... I know how important it is [inner transition].  I think that the
> failure to include the psychological, the spiritual, the mythological,
> and how we talk about traumatic political information, is a political
> failure and it’s something that I think the environmental movement
> really needs to learn...


I strongly and urgently agree   This is what is meant by "Deep- --
Deep Ecology,  Deep Economics,  and now,  the need for a Deep
Ecopsychology -- to shore up and knit together the move ahead
into "applied ecopsychology".   (Which ecopsychology is being
applied?  Which psychology  is at the base?   and where is the
ecology?  etc.   Facts and data are useful,  and worth respecting,
not necessarily an invitation to dominate.   But behind "science"
are assumptions,  philosophies,  myths,  even rituals.   One
realm shouldn't replace the other ...  in my opinion.

It should give us pause to realize that there is no ecopsychology
out there with any "real ecology".  Positive sentiment towareds
the earth,  yes;  but "eco" has become banalized and our work
shold cut through that culture-supporting banality.  etc.  I suggest
clarity as to the psychology chosen,  joined with "real ecology" --
see how they coalesce --  then apply that!

there is much "the environmental movement" needs to learn.
This is only the tip of the iceberg (or "the nose of the whale")

while,  the earth is destroyed --  or worse,
if we destroy the earth in the process.


>
> ...I think that’s really something that has been missing.  I think the
> movement has lost its feminine side.  I have a bit of a thing about how
> we have to stop looking at the Earth from space – like with the
> astronaut’s eye view.  I understand that theme of the planet being
> fragile as a breakthrough in environmental consciousness, but now I
> think we need to get over the idea that we’re hovering over the planet
> and can see it from space, and get back down in the dirt! ...

Yes,  well said.   Many forms of ecopsychology,  deep ecology,
and even the new, massive Integral Ecology,  at best pay
lip service to "the dirt of the Earth".   Transcendence is nothing
but illusion if,  mean

I take "the feminine side" to be (greatly oversimplified) the
relational aspect of all "parts" of reality.   I take the masculine
side as having divided things in order to dominate or master
that which has been separated  ("divide and conquer", etc.).
I take this male ("agentic") principle to have become dominant
in modern Western Culture.   though latent,  feminine wisdom
has never been lost,  and has been re-emerging for the lastt
five (or more) decades.   Because of the cultural dominance
of patriarchal thinking,  many empowerment programs --  for
both men and women,  but especially women, -- have been
skewed in that direction.

So,  it is not helpful,  in my opinion, to think of reclaiming
"the feminist side".   This is not only simplistic,  and inaccurate,
but also creating a dualism --  and dualism is at the very
heart of the human-nature-disjunct.   Rather,  what we
have left out is the relational aspect of the human-nature
relationship.  Ironically,  this is what "hard scientific ecology"
is all about (perhaps dominated by men,  historically,
attempting to find relationship as a dominant motif rather
than individualism and dominance.   We're all in the soup,
we all have to find "the inner-relational Feminine principle
  --  the "I-Thou" way of relating --  in order to get out of this
mess....

> ...we shouldn’t be surprised that there is a collapse in the belief in
> climate change on the right, because it is more of a challenge to that
> ideological world view.  One thing that the women’s movement did really
> well was to understand that if you’re going to critique patriarchy,
> you’re essentially critiquing the world we all grew up with, right? 
> But if you do that, you have to be around to pick up the pieces.  You
> can’t just explode someone’s world view and walk out – “go be an
> activist!”  I think it’s intensely political, that that component is so
> embedded here [in the Totnes, UK Transition movement] and that there’s
> so much collective wisdom around the psychology of change.

This "collective wisdom" as to the psychology of cultural
change is in short supply.   The dynamics of cultural
change are only partially  understood.   This problem
can be more or less avoided by plugging away at
individual change,  for after all,  individuals comoprise
"the culture".   But still,  Western culture is an aggressive,
exploitative,  imperialistic, colonizing culture, and presents
a huge and daunting "counter-culture" problem for any
individual,  or group,  attempting to achieve fundamental
earth-saving changes.   I believe that it is as important
to work on the dynamics of the human-culture relationship
as it is to work on the human-nature relationship.   My
observation is that much of what we do --  including all
the good eco-therapy stuff --  loops back around into
what is fundamentally a pathogenic culture.   The depth
required for widespread value change is,  therefore,
daunting,  to say the least.   How "deep" does our
ecopsychology need to go in order to support more
than superficial "eco-therapeutic" change?

Or,  rather,  is it done bit by bit,  and do we have
that kind of time?

> ...the place where I had seen a Transition process up close and
> dramatically was when I was in Argentina for a couple of years, with
> the economic crisis that started in 2001.  I was realising talking to
> this group of women today, all of whom are psychotherapists, that one
> of the things about Argentina that makes it really interesting is that
> it has the highest percentage of psychotherapists per capita!  I think
> it was part of the reason why there was such a sophisticated political
> consciousness and a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists in Argentina
> are activists, and they do diagnose the wider society beyond the
> patient!  That discussion of everyone understanding that they’re up
> against fear is quite unique.

Yes,  this is certainly interesting!   I think the key in this
is the diagnosis of the society as well as the diagnosis
of the individual --  as,  mentioned above,  these go
hand in hand.   (We can believe we're "above" or "separate"
from the natural world,  waiting for technology and the
merging of humans and machines to save us;   and it
is ridiculous to think we can recreate Eden by regressing
into some imaginary wilderness.   "Culture" both codifies
and restrains human potential,  but it also facilitates
growth as well --  ltheoretically,  because no culture,
historically, has been able to bring this off --  though
some coasted along for thousands of years.   We've
got a few hundred  years,  and it doesn't look too good!

Anyway,  I wonder what the Argentines will do with
their new-found awareness?   Can they change their
society's fundamental institutions?    ec.

            ******************************

What I like in all this is the stimulation to think more
deeply than I usually do about just what it takes for both
individuals and cultures to change direction --  especially
change direction in dramatic ways.   Both theory and
practice that slips over this may be "softening the
defenses"  (as the military and therapeutic worlds might
put it) --  and maybe that's a good start,  given the depth
and immediacy of the human-nature crisis --  but I
can't help wondering how "far down" we need to go
in order to get past the  delusions.

For if we  count "mind" as "nature" --  we're already
connected.   So what's up with that?   If we're a set of
mutations that are failing,  is that the level where a
reversal might take place?

Robert Greenway
Corona Farm
Port Townsend,  Washington



>