[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Ecology of Social Change

[Bill Totten]

by John Michael Greer

The Archdruid Report (January 28 2009)

Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society

Last week's Archdruid Report post was a bit of a departure from this
blog's normal fare, but it was a departure with a purpose. By turning a
spotlight on the way that so many Americans have projected what amounts
to a paranoid mythology of incarnate evil onto whichever side of the
political spectrum they don't inhabit, I hoped to begin a conversation
about the immense gap between expectation and reality that hamstrings
most attempts at constructive social change, in America as elsewhere.

I have to say that the true believers in the mythology responded to
their cue with a great deal of enthusiasm. I received a bumper crop of
angry screeds assailing me, in lively and in some cases unprintable
language, for suggesting that people should be judged by their actions
rather than the intentions imputed to them by their most bitter enemies.
My favorite among these comments rounded off a thumping denunciation by
demanding that I resign at once from my position as archdruid. The
author never quite got around to explaining why acceptance of his
extremist ideology should be so vital a part of my job description, so I
didn't take his advice.

Now it so happens that I spent much of the weekend reading Carl Jung's
memorably weird autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections (1963), and
so it was hard to miss the relevance of Jung's concept of shadow
projection to all this. The shadow is Jung's name for the mental
dumpster into which individuals and societies stuff the aspects of
themselves they dare not face; when the dumpster gets too full, one
refuge from self-knowledge lies in tipping its contents onto someone
else, and claiming that the objectionable qualities belong to the
scapegoat rather than oneself.

It needs to be recognized in this context that it's only in modern
morality plays that scapegoats are invariably virtuous and innocent. In
the real world, it often happens that the person targeted has his own
faults, sometimes grievous ones, and that these are routinely used to
justify whatever other accusations are heaped on him. This process seems
universal among human beings - I very much doubt any of us are entirely
free of the habit of seeing our own worst qualities in the people we
dislike - but its intensity varies between individuals, cultures, and
historical periods, and Jung is surely right to point out that it
reaches peaks when an individual or a society get caught in the gap
between what the world is assumed to be and what it actually is.

Survey any of the major historic outbreaks of mass scapegoating and
violence and you'll find it in a context where socially acceptable
belief systems failed to keep up with a changing world. Behind the
European witch hunts, for example, lay the collapse of late medieval
worldviews that hardened into dogma as they were cracking apart at the
seams, just as the fatal mismatch between German fantasies of global
dominion and Germany's actual status as a little country without oil
reserves or defensible borders in an age of sprawling petroleum-fueled
empires played a major role in setting the stage for its catastrophic
20th-century history.

What makes the situation in contemporary America interesting, from this
perspective, is the way that its mainstream culture and its
self-described alternative countercultures have fallen into versions of
the same double-bind. Many posts here, and of course quite a bit of
excellent analysis by other authors, have outlined the way that the
narratives of the cultural mainstream in contemporary America built a
worldview of perpetual progress and limitless abundance on the temporary
foundation of cheap fossil fuels, and have been made hopelessly
irrelevant by the end of the petroleum age. Less often discussed and, I
believe, less often noticed is the way that most current proposals meant
to replace the current order of society with a better one also rest on
beliefs about the world that hold up very poorly in the face of experience.

The mismatch here can best be traced along a specific fault line
dividing future visions from present realities. Page through any recent
proposal for substantive social change and odds are that the better
world it envisions is usually, at least in theory, better in terms of
every variable its authors consider relevant. There are rarely any
tradeoffs, or any sense of the bitter choices that so often constrain
the decisions of real societies in the real world; the inhabitants of
the better future do not have to choose between peace and freedom,
between feeding the hungry and protecting the environment, or indeed
between any two values; given the right social system, the implication
seems to be, you can have it all.

Consider the ways in which these same proposals hope to bring about the
change they envision and the same fracture opens up. Whether they put
their faith in organization, political action and the like, or expect
some deus ex machina, whether cataclysmic or mystical, to sweep away the
old order of things and leave the field clear for the future to be born,
nearly all of them assume that the only obstacles to a Utopian society,
the only factors that force hard choices on people, are the
institutions, individuals, or attitudes governing today's world.

These curious habits of thought unfold from a single assumption: that
human choices and only human choices place limits on the perfection of
human society. Back of this assumption lies the prestige of the
Enlightenment cult of reason, with its conviction that building a better
social mousetrap will cause the world to beat a path to your Utopian
door. Yet it's hard to think of an assumption that has been more
thoroughly disproved by experience. Consistently, the more Utopian a new
society has appeared on paper, the more disastrous it has turned out to
be in practice. Proponents of social change tend to insist that their
new society will be different, but at this point in history, that
insistence is starting to wear very thin.

The crucial flaw in most of today's ideas about social change, then, may
just be that - even when they wrap themselves in environmental slogans -
they are rooted in a fundamental denial of ecology. Imagine for a moment
that instead of a human society, we are talking about some other
ecosystem composed of living things. That ecosystem has evolved over
many generations in relationship to other systems, animate and
inanimate, and it maintains itself by complex balances that challenge
any attempt at analysis. What happens when human beings set out to
reengineer the ecosystem to suit their own preferences, especially if
they assume as a matter of course that their new ecosystem will
necessarily be stable, balanced, and healthy if it is pleasing to them?

Of course we don't have to speculate about the answer; the catastrophic
results of human mismanagement of natural ecosystems are far too well
documented. Our species has learned the hard way, over and over again,
that tinkering with an ecosystem needs to be done with exquisite care.
It can be done - traditional societies all over the world have evolved
ways of shaping their environments for human benefit that still maintain
the overall integrity of the ecosystem, and today's permaculturists and
students of appropriate technology are moving in the same direction -
but it can only be done in small steps, with a great deal of knowledge
and an even greater supply of patience.

I am coming to suspect that exactly the same thing is true of human
societies. The discipline of human ecology has shown that the same
principles that shape the environmental relationships of other species
and other communities also apply to our species and our communities.
Like these other living things, human beings depend for their survival
on natural cycles, and are subject to natural limits. Like the
communities of other living things, human communities - from villages to
nations - are shaped by their history, adapt to their environments, face
hard choices between competing goods, and respond homeostatically in
order to counter movements toward disruptive change.

Thus social change is possible, just as environmental change is
possible, but it may need to be pursued in a very different spirit from
the one that motivates the Utopian ideologies of the present and the
recent past. If we are to take human ecology seriously, it seems to me,
it's time to start trying to understand the ecological conditions - the
relationships linking human beings to each other, to other living
things, and to inanimate nature - that foster desirable social changes.
Then, in the manner of tribal gardeners carefully replacing noxious
plants with edible ones, those who desire those changes might work to
bring about those conditions, keeping an eye on the results and letting
experience rather than ideology guide their efforts.

As far as I know, the art of applied human ecology or social ecotechnics
suggested here exists only in the most embryonic form, and no little
effort will be needed even to begin the process of evolving it. Still,
the attempt to better society by remaking it according to some
ideological model or other has failed so consistently that it's high
time to try something else.
_____

John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality
movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books,
including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He
lives in Ashland, Oregon.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/01/ecology-of-social-change.html


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/