[Scpg] Naomi Klein talks to Rob Hopkins about "Inner Transition"

[LBUZZELL at aol.com]

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.
 
Robert wrote: "This "collective wisdom" as to the psychology  of cultural 
change is in short supply.   The dynamics of cultural  change are only 
partially  understood."
 
I agree that this is a critical issue, Robert.  If we  don't understand how 
individual and collective change happens, how can we  facilitate that 
change?
 
Linda
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/25/2011 11:32:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
greenway-r at olympus.net writes:

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 at 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-rep
laced-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



>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.permaculture-guilds.org/pipermail/southern-california-permaculture/attachments/20110328/e3b8de9a/attachment.html>