diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'subnature.otx')
| -rw-r--r-- | subnature.otx | 816 |
1 files changed, 816 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/subnature.otx b/subnature.otx new file mode 100644 index 0000000..04c0c5d --- /dev/null +++ b/subnature.otx @@ -0,0 +1,816 @@ +\chap A Critique of the Domination of Nature + +{\leftskip=0.25in plus1fill\rightskip=0.25in\it\noindent +by Trent Schroyer\par} + +\Q{I wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolute freedom and wildness, as contrasted with a freedom and culture merely civil---to regard man as an inhabitant, or a part or parcel of Nature, rather than a member of society. I wish to make an extreme statement, if so I may make an emphatic onc, for there are enough champions of civilization\ld} +\Qs{Henry David Thoreau} + +\rulebreak + +\Q{Late Cretaceous to Pleistocene Cocoliths from the +North Atlantic.\par + +\booktitle{Initial Report of the Deep Sea Drilling Project} (volume Xl supplement to volumes XXXIX, XL, XLI). A project planned by and carried out with advice of +the \e{Joint Oceanographic Institutions For Deep Earth +Sampling. Prepared for the National Science Foundation by the University of California (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). US.\ Govt.\ Printing Office.} + +Since the 17\textsuperscript{th} century, modern science has seemed confident that the human species is independent from organic nature.\fnote{1} Universal knowledge of inorganic structures provides an ever refined system of techniques that (supposedly) separates us from nature in an irreversible manner. Socio-technical evolution step by step transforms all in-built human capabilities in a cycle of technical learning that creates tools that are reinforced till they become machines and are finally replaced by automatic systems. This behavioral cycle of feedback-guided learning is an artificial world construction process that is unconsciously determined by the human need for security and safety.\fnote{2} The irony is that more control over nature does,not seem to decrease anxiety about the terror of nature. + +While a sense of the inevitability of socio-technical progress pervades modern culture, so too does a sense of a \dq{broken connection} with biological and cultural continuity. The nuclear image of possible human annihilation, and the permanent \dq{crisis} ethos of contemporary societies, meld together to require what Robert Lifton has so aptly called \dq{psychic numb- ing.} Hence, the fear of survival returns and the search for symbolic immortality (began perhaps with the fall from the ignorance of death) renews the quest for a technical transcendence of nature. + +But a \dq{dialectic of enlightenment} has plagued this quest +since the beginning in that each renewed level of technical +learning requires greater sacrifice and renunciation in the +development of self-hood at the cost of greater losses of the +capacity for spontaneity, participatory solidarity, and imaginative + participation in nature. The technically determined +separation from nature has ironically undermined the stability + and coherence of the human world; technical progress and +loss of cultural form are simultaneous processes. At stake are +the dreams of the modern enlightenment; reaffirmation of +religious orthodoxy as the only cultural cement is the neo-conservative sedative. + +Into this matrix of despair is slowly surfacing a potential +power that recalls the slumbering memory of the behemoth. +Awakening from a sleep induced by the modern epistemological + principle that \dq{nature-in-itself} is constituted only as an +object of technical control, \e{Gaia}, or the organic unity of the +earth, appears to some observers who have an interest in +human technical \e{hubris}. Rather than dead matter in motion +according to universal laws, recent scientific discoveries +(renewing old beliefs) suggest an internal self-organizing formative +activity within natural events. In so far as this is true, +Western rationality, which begins with the total transcendence +of nature, may be encountering its decisive trial. Efforts to +drain all immanent formative activity from nature, to smash +all pantheisms, were justified in the West as essential for +sustaining the ego-autonomy essential for civilization. Today +ecologists everywhere begin to suggest that the \e{good-for-nature} + should inform our ethical mediations of technical +progress. Ethical norms are then emergent from both the +interdicts of culture (\e{nomos}) and from the limits of nature +(\e{physis}). Maintaining a balance of these two sources of normative + integration requires a type of critical insight which the +ideologies of progress today seem to lack. + +But the problem may not be \dq{progress} as a socio-cultural +ideal. Indeed there is one learned argument that \dq{progress} +was central to classical antiquity in the West from the very +beginning.\fnote{3} But \dq{progress} here meant growth of an organic +whole that exhibits persistence and change, identity and difference. + The model of nature was cited as exemplary; Seneca +could thus say: \dq{Nothing is completed at its very beginning.} +Harmony seems o require an ongoing insight into the unity of +nature and culture, \e{physis} and \e{nomos}, Hence, recent scientific +theorizing points a way out of modern mechanical materialism +and suggests new possibilities for \dq{man}-nature interaction. + +The word \dq{nature} (\e{physis}) in its Greek origin comes from +\e{phyein} meaning to grow out of, to appear by itself. Nature is +that which is somehow identical with the process through +which it appears and comes into being. Nature's movement is +self-moving flow. A new discovery of this appearance is +suggested by David Bohm who claims that we need to look on +the world as an undivided whole. The new form of insight +into nature's being can best be called undivided wholeness in +flowing movement. The view implies that \dq{flow} is in some +sense prior to that of the things that can be seen to form and +dissolve in the flow. According to Bohm's interpretation, a +new order of nature is coming into focus. Bohm argues that +the evolution of physics has moved beyond the order of Galileo +and Newton (the separability of the world into distinct but +interacting parts) to a new scheme of the continuity of fields +(in relativity) and the inseparability of the observing instrument +from what is observed (in quantum mechanics). The +new order implied is that of a \e{hologramic enfolding of the +information about the whole into each part.}\fnote{4} Instead of the +classical Cartesian-Newtonian explicate order (where each +part has its own place outside of others), the new implicate +order has enfolded information about the whole in each part +The difference is that between an image of nature as a composite +unity and a \e{hologramic order.} + +While it would be possible to recall that archaic worldviews + also held to a hologramic presence of the whole in each +part,\fnote{5} the more relevant point here is that awareness of +co-present elements returns as a center of physical inquiry and +supplements the present analytic abstraction of a composite +or explicate order. A new scientific theory implies a new +practice interaction with nature. The \e{search for patterns that +connect us} with natural ecosystems constitutes a re-orientation +of scientific-technical learning. As Gregory Bateson has argued, +a communicational science is concerned with the meta-relationships + of events in contexts, while a strict causalistic +science focuses upon the reality of \dq{objects} while excluding +contexts.\fnote(6) This defines an epistemology change from Galilean +\dq{resolutive compositive method} to an organismic approach.}\fnote{7} +It also forces us to re-evaluate the modern belief that we are +separate from nature. + +Something like a forgetfulness of our immanent participation +in nature has accompanied the celebration of technical +transcendence since the 17\textsuperscript{th} century. Belatedly I see that Hannah +Arendt's distinction of work and labor has an implicit philosophy +ophy of nature that is compatible with this changing image of +nature.\fnote{8} The notion of \e{labor} reminds us that the life process +imposed on us by our bodies, also ties us into the recurrent +cycle of all biological life. In the human metabolism with +nature labor mediates by an endless incorporation of matter +and energy into the body (consumption) and the endless +housekeeping which redirects the processes of growth and +decay and maintains the human world against the intrusions +of nature (e.g., pollution, excessive growth, etc.). + +In this sense the constitutive idea of modern ideologies +(capitalist and socialist) that freedom begins beyond the limits +of necessity abstracts from our immanence in organic nature. +Both Marxist socialism and economic liberalism share the +utopian presupposition that freedom is possible only as a +function of emancipation from necessity. While the ideology +of free enterprise rests its case upon an ongoing revolution of +progress (i.e., economic growth stimulated by ever new levels +of technical control over nature), Marxist socialism views +class struggle as a dialectical self-positing that releases the +suppressed technical powers of production. Both are variations + within a common perspective. That perspective is the +belief that all future human possibilities depend upon an +extension of the domination of nature. + +Whereas progress as permanent revolution runs up against +the finitude of resources and socio-cultural deterioration in a +society where stability can be achieved only through expansion, + socialism runs into the authoritarian contradiction of +separating the administration of things from the democratization +of need interpretations. Both ideologies are latent theologies +of technical transcendence of nature and both promise a +delusory form of human emancipation. Remembering the +residual moment of the human condition in which we remain +embedded in nature also forces us to question the tenability of +those elements of progress ideologies that promise emancipation +from labor---namely, consumerism and the superiority +of \dq{socialized} production. The question of what is more +rationally produced by individual households, communities, +and regions is evaded by techno-economic elites responsible +for centralized decision-making. But more basically the +hyperstimulated expectation that new controls over nature +provide new freedoms from nature is the cultural mechanism +that transfigures needs, and reinforces dependency upon centralized + authority. How to create and select those forms of +technical innovation which are compatible with organic nature +and with non-dependency is the project of defining an ecologically +rational form of social development. In the present +context of centralized production systems, the question not +systematically confronted is how to increase individual and +local participation in production in order to achieve greater +flexibility in our harmonization with the limits of organic +nature. Only a democratization of technical learning that +diversity within natural ecosystems (reversing the +disastrous current trends toward simplification) can promote +a concretely universalizable increase in the flexibility of the +societal-natural interface. Until we can begin to develop new +problem-oriented scientific inquiries into the carrying capacities +of eco-systems, optimal design integrations of \dq{man}-natural +habitats and a systematic return to a \dq{communicative} +orientation to nature (cybernetically the substitution of +information for hardware), we will not have the democratization +of technical learning essential for sustainable forms of +human survival. + +\sec II + +Hannah Arendt has noted the sense in which modern science + began by viewing nature from a perspective outside the +earth. At the beginning of modern science: + +\Q{\ld the old dichotomy between earth and sky was abolished +and a unification of the universe effected, so that from then on +nothing occurring in earthly nature was viewed as a mere +earthly happening. All events were considered to be subject to +a universally valid law\ld\ (which) was valid beyond the reach +of human sense experience\ld, valid beyond the reach of human +memory and the appearance of mankind on earth, valid even +beyond the coming into existence of organic life and the earth +itself.\fnote{9}} + +With modern science a cultural conviction emerged that the +human species had established itself as \dq{universal} beings +who could reason beyond the limitations of terrestrial existence +and use cosmic laws for the guidance of terrestrial actions. +Arendt calls this belief in technical transcendence of the earth, +which is so fundamental to modern science, \dq{earth alienation} +and sees it as the most fundamental revolution of modernity. + With the transition to universal science, terrestrial and +celestial phenomena were unified mathematically as physics +and astronomy. Newton's synthesis was made possible by the +algebraic treatment of geometric relations without regard to +the age-old distinction of earth and sky. With this mathematical + formalization, the last vestige of terrestrial qualitative +difference was abstracted away. + +Yet the \dq{universalism} of Cartesian-Newtonian mechanics +may be an abstractive fallacy for bio-social forms of organization + to the extent that a contextless infinite framework is +presupposed. Bio-social events have context specific causalities +that differ fundamentally from the linear irreversible causalities + of classical mechanics which holds that action and +reaction are equal and opposite or that like causes create like +effects. Classical mechanics provides predictive knowledge +where a system can be considered closed and energy transformations + viewed as irreversibly tending toward dynamic +disorder (e.g., heat processes under the entropy principle) but +such analysis abstracts from any contextual constraints (organizational + information that reacts back or amplifies causal +impacts). + +Although the emergence and evolution of cybernetics since +the Second World War has developed a critique of mechanical +causation, a more generalized theory has recently added an +alternative to classical mechanics and equilibrium thermodynamics. +Contemporary non-equilibrium thermodynamics (e.g. +Ilya Prigogine's theory of dissipative structures)\fnote{10} adds another +dimension to our understanding of emergent evolution in that +biological processes exhibit deviation counteracting causalities +that maintain non-equilibrium structures that are highly +improbable. Biological organisms can maintain fluctuating +structures within \e{limits} of contextual information patterns +(e.g., homeostatic regulations). Such structures subsist against +entropic decay, actually increase their complexity, and generate + new self-organizing heterogeneity.\fnote{11} This new perspective +shows that instead of random disorganizations, the outcome +of bio-social events depends upon the stability of dissipative +structures within the limits of contextual organizational +information. Similar conditions do not necessarily produce +similar results. Systems that are open to their environment for +matter-energy exchanges may tend toward an equilibrium---but +they may also, due to more comprehensive integrations, +jump to a higher energy flow-through. For example, successional +change in eco-systems demonstrates how interacting life forms +can create more integration of the system and more (non-hierarchical) + differentiation of the food chains. The mature +eco-system has greater diversity with greater capacities to +accumulate and re-use resources. This movement, from fragile +simplicity to complex and more stable diversity, exhibits a +successional transformation from quantity as growth principle +to quality as principle of structural stability.\fnote{12} Such +successional transformation brings into the organization of +the eco-system more organized inter-connectedness---that is, +more contextually operative patterns of reciprocal causation +that enable energy-matter transformations to realize optimal +spatial organization. In this sense the eco-system. due to its +own \e{informational structure} creates its own morphic genesis +within that context. The patterns of this morphogenetic structure +are presented within terrestrial \e{appearances}---representation + of this order within universal physio-chemical formalized + language is possible but the \e{genesis} would be lost.\fnote{13} A +complementarity of natural science approaches to, at least, +terrestrial organic systems is suggested.\fnote{14} + +A complementarity of analysis is, of course, what Gregory +Bateson suggested by his distinction between entropic ecology +(bio-energetics) and \dq{communicational,} or negentropic +ecology.\fnote{15} Awareness of relations, patterns, interactive forms, +symmetries, etc. is essential for recognition of how natural +processes are transformed in \e{time.} Understanding the \e{genesis} +of context-specific organizational forms is necessary if the +static world of mechanics, or the random decay of structures, +is not the sole basis for a universal physics. Indeed if we take +these physics of a static world seriously, time is only a +parameter of the four-dimensional geometry called physical dynamics. + Although the second law of thermodynamics (the entropy +law) can be taken as defining a general trend in collections of +atoms, molecules, etc., there are some implications that point +beyond such an order of nature. For example, it differs from +the \dq{composite unity} notion of natural order (the microscopic + building block image) by referring its cognitive claims +to the patterns of collectivities of objects. But more interesting +in a world of spatial events, it refers to a temporal \e{irreversibility} + of processes—especially on the macroscopic scale, and +especially in the sphere of \dq{biological-space} where highly +improbable (in dynamic terms) non-equilibrium structures +are situated in wider contexts. Hence, the theory of dissipative +structures suggests that the physics of dynamic spatial events +is not complete and requires the complementarity of an analysis + of irreversible structures too.\fnote{16} + +The implications of this effort to extend theoretical physics +bas resulted in the Nobel Prize (1977) for Ilya Prigogine and its +technical import is to define a new scientific revolution that +the future will explore. But an implication that is relevant here +is that it has broken the epistemological frames of modern +science and suggests that Whitehead's insights were basically +on the right track. The study of nature itself has led to an +insight into the \dq{evolutionary} horizons of natural processes +in themselves; the pre-theoretical sense of future and past +turns out to be a more adequate model of \dq{time's arrow} than +the cognitive representations of the physics of classical mechanics. +\dq{Time} is not just a subjective illusion of an anthropomorphic + observer but a property of dissipative structures. The +scientific myth of the \dq{infinite} universe of matter in (determined) + motion is broken---suddenly a new nature appears +where self-organizing innovations are always possible. The +game of natural \dq{process} is not completely representable in +the abstractions of physical dynamics---bifurcations and +instabilities within macroscopic nature forces an end to the +imposition of geometrical spatialization of events, and concentrates + our attention upon the \e{genesis} of organized, functionally + integrated, organic forms. Recognition of pattern +formation cannot be constructed from instrumental measurements + alone but requires also a time dimension---a \e{morpho-genetic} reconstruction. + +The human encounter with nature is no longer representable +by an instrumental interest in nature. A more complex dialogue + with \dq{nature} is essential in that both pattern formation + and limits of dissipative structures fluctuations must be +known to understand development. + +Theoretical physics now suggests that the organic cannot +be reduced to the fundamental \dq{primary} laws of the inorganic; +\dq{secondary} laws (i.e., non-equilibrium thermodynamics) + seem equally basic. It is no longer possible to postulate +that the rate-processes of trajectories (for macroscopic) and +wave functions (for microscopic) are sufficient in themselves +and they must be studied in conjunction with the developing +world of dissipative and morpho-genetic structures. Such a +complementarity will go into the very foundation of theoretical +physics itself---as well as be duplicated at every \dq{level of +organization} within a self-organizing universe.\fnote{17} + +For example, the genesis of morphic patterns (or the generation + of spatial forms) is accessible to description by the +methods of holistic biology or ethology and yet these descriptions + may use data created by formalized measurements of +energy-flow, etc. Thus, descriptive reconstruction of contextual + patterns of homeostasis or other more complex forms of +self-organizing orders, \dq{morpho-genesis,} is possible. But such +contextual patterns can be viewed as created by the interaction + of forms of life striving to maintain themselves in context. +Such morphic forms of organization display a patterned order +that has been called \dq{authentic phenomena} (Portmann) within +the perceptible surfaces of the things that surround us.\fnote{18} The +origins of these perceptually discoverable forms are unintelligible + in the formalizations of a Galilean science and yet are +significant for the interaction of life forms. Life shows itself in +surface patterns that display an active posturing of life's identity, + form, and innerness. Life forms have a centricity, an +inwardness that cannot be reductively explained or anthropomorphically + interpreted. Insofar as we are ourselves participating + within the natural energies that impinge upon us, we +are related to a morpho-genesis of nature that is not universal. + +Hence, a morphogenetic epistemology is an alternative to +the earth-alienation of a constructivistic mathematization of +the sensual manifold. Its place in the contemporary system of +knowledge is more important than the current division of +knowledge would imply---for two reasons. First, as a Gaia +hypothesis below claims, we may be living in the midst of an +organic unit whose living operations must be recognized to +avoid ecological destruction. Secondly, the current division of +knowledge has created a \dq{blind spot} in our knowledge which +requires the rethinking of how modern science relates to +socio-economic development on a global scale.\fnote{19} The second +becomes even more crucial in the context of the presence of \e{Gaia.} + +\sec III + +The Gaia hypothesis was formulated by a space scientist +trying to define how to identify the presence of life on Mars or +Venus. By modeling the earth's atmosphere along the principles + of an analytical chemistry equilibrium, James Lovelock +discovered significant differences in the atmospheric composition + of the earth in comparison to Venus and Mars.\fnote{20} + Computer simulations indicated that the final equilibrium, or +steady state, atmosphere for earth would resemble that of +Mars and Venus with approximately 98\% carbon dioxide, +about 2\% nitrogen, and traces of oxygen. The actual earth's +atmosphere composition is, however, maintained at a highly +improbable composition of 0.03\% carbon dioxide, 79\% nitrogen, + and 21\% oxygen. Furthermore, this unlikely atmospheric +composition seems to have been maintained for more than +three billion years despite the fact that the sun's early intensity +was 30\% lower. From these and other improbable conditions +(e.g., the constancy of the salinity of the oceans despite continuous + salt input into the seas) that make life possible, Lovelock + and others have proposed that the only possible +explanation for these statistically impossible coincidences is +to see the atmosphere as an organic construction: that is, as an +adaptation by the biosphere-and oceans that secures the conditions + necessary for life. Although all of the adaptive mechanisms + that create the optimal global parameters necessary for +life maintenance are not yet understood, many have been +described. These are the reciprocally causal compensatory +processes that return life parameters to acceptable levels. + +For example, atmospheric oxygen levels, which are constantly +increased by the products of photosynthesis, are kept +in the 21\% range by a self-regulating methane production cycle +which absorbs oxygen within the atmosphere and releases it +in the stratosphere. In the absence of methane production by +bacterial fermentation of the anaerobic muds and sediments +of the sea beds, marshes, and estuaries, the oxygen concentration + of the atmosphere would rise as much as 1\% every 12,000 +years. (The probability of forest fires starting increases 70\% +for every 1\% rise in oxygen concentration; at 25\%, all vegetation + on earth will burn.) Increases in atmospheric oxygen lead +to overgrowth of aerobic micro-organisms which in death +decay and increase the methane production potentials of the +anaerobic microflora at the bottoms of seas, marshes, wet- +lands, etc. This organic self-regulating control of the amount +of oxygen in the atmosphere is also tied into other complex +signaling mechanisms that involve complementarities of nitrous +oxide and methyl chloride (both of organic origin) with methane + in the atmosphere, and constitute an organic cycle that +extends throughout the global processes of biosphere and +oceans. Reconstructing these patterns, the contemporary science + of aeronomy increasingly documents the fact that without + life's interference. oxygen \e{and} carbon dioxide levels could +not be regulated. Thus, self-organizing global patterns reveal +the self-reproducing goal-adaptations by \e{Gaia}---an identity +that becomes more and more inescapable. + +These invisible global patterns that make visible the constants + essential for life are themselves modifications of the +environment by the totality of life forms themselves. Only this +hypothesis can account for the highly improbable homeostasis + of the earth for over three billion years. While the Gaia +hypothesis itself has not yet been scientifically established, its +current plausibility provides several highly significant implications. + First, if Gaia exists, then our actions in relation to the +natural environment must become more informed about these +self-regulating regulations (for example, modern increases in +fossil fuel produced carbon dioxide and its \dq{impact} on the +Gaian regulation mechanisms). Secondly, the extent to which +we currently do understand Gaian reproduction cycles, helps +us suddenly to see that the vital \dq{organs} of Gaia are the +continental shelves and wetlands where planetary controls +are centered in the ecology of aerobic micro-organisms and +an\ae robic microflora that are so important for atmospheric +regulations. These ecosystems are of crucial importance for +Gaia and their protection from human destruction therefore +become a primary end for human survival. + +The Gaia hypothesis challenges contemporary fears that +pollution is the major problem of environmental destruction +and that the dynamic of technology is its cause. Instead, what +has to be understood are the morphogenetic symbiotisms +within the global patterns of Gaia. \e{Where} we bring about +socio-technical innovations may be more important than \e{what} +we do. Given the global dynamic of an international economic + system (see below), the ecological hazards of the modernization + of global agriculture seem more dangerous than +industrial pollutions (at this tme). As world populations +increase, the crisis potentials of agricultural modernization +will also increase. Increasing human control over the earth's +biomass will force higher energy interventions in just those +areas where global diversity and symbiotism are essential for +optimizing conditions for terrestrial life. Specific agricultural +projects---such as deforestation of the tropics and sea \dq{farming}---may +have global consequences unrecognized ar present. +Much more understanding of the \dq{wisdom of Gaia} is needed +for the human species to avoid altering some of the time cycles +and in-built deviation-counteracting regulations of a global +organism whose homeostasis is only now being recognized. + +The Gaia hypothesis remains fruitful as long as the global +patterns of goal-maintenance cannot be explained in terms of +the laws of their components. No doubt the charge of \dq{teleology} +will appear.\fnote{21} But if we understand that \dq{teleology} +refers to something that stands outside of a process and yet +directs it too, then homeostasis and morphogenetic processes +are not teleological. The patterns of reciprocal causality are +\dq{teleonomic,}\fnote{22} in the sense of goal-directedness according to +the operations of informational structures inherent in the +forms of organization. Hence, no claim is made that a final +end stands outside of the mechanisms of change and directs it +by \dq{causing} it to change---rather, emergence of stable non-equilibrium +integrations are constitutive of organic organization +(e.g., homeostasis of body temperature), ecosystem +succession through differentiation and non-equilibrium +integrations. + +How a *program” for goal-directedness is acquired is sepa- +rate from the telconomic manifestations of its operations, The +fundamental question that emerges whether if the “program” +—the intormational structure—is an unplanned result of +telconomic operations of self-maintenance or an indication of +a “program of purpose” in nature? The assumption of Gaian +theorists, il L understand them, is that the homeostasis of Gaia +can be understood only in the reconstruction of history of its +formation on the one hand, and in increased global monitoring +of the atmosphere, oceans, and natural enyironmental regula- +tions (made possible by contemporary satellites and informa- +tion technologies) on the other. The “program of purpose” +inherentin Gaia is teleonomic operations and the program of +homeostasis is an unplanned result defined only by the limits +of the structure itself. In this sense, Gaian “purpose” is +teleonomic in that the self-maintaining forms do not necessar- +ily have a program of self-maintenance—stabiliry and insta- +bility are both possible as perturbations of dissipative structures. +Of course we do not know enough about the Gaia “program” +—but the possibility that there is a morphogenetic logic to +nature’s development cannot be avoided. More complex pat- +ternsof heterogeneity, differentiation, and symbiotization may +evolve and the human species may become more and more +central to Gaian development. + +1f the Gaia hypothesis is correct, the earth is not a “space +ship” to be maintained by human planetary engineers. This +technological metaphor continues the unconscious forms of +technical control that must be transcended in order to partici +pate co-operatively in Gaian ecology. “Nature” is not, as the +modern myth of progress suggests, amenable to endless inter- +ventions that secure socio-economic development. + +v + +The logics of commodification and technical control force a +shorter and shorter time frame upon socio-cconomic deci- +sions. “Time is money”: the scarce resource of investment +cycles determine a global dynamic of environmental simplifi- +cation which amplifies the technical interventions and domi- +nation of nature on a worldscale. International differences in + +109 +t0 urban-slum plant relocation centers, these newly “liberat- +ed” workers provide an inexhaustible source of the cheapest +and most exploitable labor. + +However, the plant relocations arc part of the forces of +under-development in thar this industrialization is oriented +only to production for export. Local purchasing power s too +lowto ticinto thismodernized sector and thus a dual cconomy +is maintained. Dependency begins however when such coun- +tries atempt to provide the infrastructure needed for plant +relocations (i.e., water, cnergy, roads, airports, ctc.) because +they hope they can realize benefits from it. But use of capital +surplus generated from the modernized agricultural sector to +try to finance industrial development puts additional strains +upon rapid agricultural growth (with all the associated envi- +ronmental problems mentioned above) while actually deplet- +ing and stagnating the rural social community and cconomy. + +What Western cconomists arc only now beginning to rec- +ognize is thac development of natural resources is mainly an +ccological problem that requires the recognition of bio- +cconomic limits. This, of coursc, docs not include the recent +brands of cconomics that have emerged to renew late capital- +ist cxpansion (e.g., monctarists, “supply-side™ cconomics). +The problem with these new instruments of cconomic guid- +ance is that they have no awarcness of the bio-cconomic +contexts of cconomic processes and scem to assume that the +price mechanism can create matter and energy, prevent eco- +logical crises, and stop social conflicts that derive from the +incqual distribution of natural resources and the knowledge +and tools nceded to develop them. e + +Not least of all in these cycles of cconomic and wehni +pressures upon the carth is the growing desperation of newly +prolctarianized workers everywhere. Increasingintensification +of social conflict and wars has led o increased militarizauon +and police violence. The dis-cconomies of this global cco- +nomic rationalization cxpand with cvery new phase of +“modernization” of the knowledge and tools used by “under- +developed™ peoples. + +“This global dynamic of enforced domination of nature and +international divisions of labor is a story that can be told from +the point of view of the expanding system’s “stability”—or +from the point of view of coercions upon the subsistence +forms of human survival which icuproots (de-territorializes).” +This global dynamicis created by theinterests of the metropoles +over the interests of villagers, peasants, rural communiics, +dependent unskilled workers, ctc. on an international scale. +Rather than assume that the developed world’s techniques are +essential for “human survival” (which means more than min- +imal biological needs, since it involves cultural belicfs about +the good life), the encounters of developed-nondeveloped +worlds can be narrated from the point of view of those who +are nor yer dislocated from subsistence forms. The relevance +of this perspective is not to advocate a “no-growth” and +“de-modernization” idcology but to begin from a situation +where human survival demands an active participation in +nature and thus where a new form of “devclopment™ can be +experimentally innovated. These contexts have the sense of +place (which mobile wage-laborers have usually lost) and +collective identity that s cssential for active resistance to new +phases of modernization in the interest of outside structures. +Advocacy research that can demonstrate where the hidden +social costs of “socializing” production imply increasing the +chances of de-terricorialization (i.e., greater dependency) and +irreversibleenvironmental destruction, and de-colonialization +movements can be indentified and supported. In these arcas + +m +12 + +experimental models of eco-development can and are being +created that discover multiple-use of local resources, identify +sustainable yields that meet the needs of local peoples, while +encouraging self-reliance and symbiosis between people and +nature.** This means participation in the natural forces that +make life possible in ways which are compatible with their +permanent sustainability (e.g., renewal energy sources) both +locally and globally. Participation in nature does not mean +delusions of “self-sufficiency,” or ascetic “voluntary simplici- +ty,” or reactionary ideologies of “survivalism,” but active +appropriation of technical knowledge of renewable energy, +food production, health care, full use of indigenous co-operative +forms as well as political networking with other groups. +Collectively these efforts form an alternative of eco-development +and “reinhabitation.”® + +Thus, a sphere of emancipation not generally recognized is +latent in the “ecology movement’s” rejection of the existing +hicrarchies of international and internal colonization of sub- +sistence forms of production and socialization. A democratiza- +tion of technical learning would unify at the level of everyday +practice a problem-solving approach that is compatible with +houschold and local survival and the eco-system’s carrying +capacity. This approach is already implied by efforts to create +counter-movements in science (such as the “appropriate” +technology movement) and can be recognized in the Ameri- +can population shifts of the 1970’ which signaled a significant +return to rural living. What is less visible is the growth of +subsistence exchange networks (the “underground barter econ- +omy”) which increases the flexibility and availability of +resources to the many categories of subsistence life-styles. + +To realize, as Ivan lllich’s insights document, that the unre- +cognized pre-condition for the possibility of wage-labor is +“shadow-work”—or the enforced forms of labor that com- +plement wage-labor such as “house-work,” the forced con- +sumption of schooling, accreditation, or other activities required +for “job-holding.” These forms of unpaid servitude emerged +simultancously with the enclosures of commercial capitalism +which had created a major conflict of domestic and “public” +spheres of existence. The result was a new economic interest +in the sex-coupling of female shadow-workers and male wage- +workers that replaced more equitable forms of subsistence +work for both sexes.30 + +Illich’s thesis is that the bifurcation of work in the modern +era into wage-labor and shadow-work, which has been +unnoticed by Marxists and Liberals, constitutes an intensi- +fication of modern society’s “war against subsistence.” Marx’s +notion of international capitalism forming an irreversible +contextof world-history receives asignificant contextualization +by lllich’s naming of the form of domination that falls through +the Marxist categories. Marx effectively accepts Ricardo's +theory of the comparative advantage of an international spe- +cialization of production, and in doing so, affirms the civiliz- +ing impact of capital despite the exploitation of poor nations +by the national economics of the “developed™ world. That +unequal economic exchange creates dependencies interna- +tionally (and within national economies) indicates that the +actual advantages of the higher productivity of capitalist +production and wage-labor must now be balanced by system- +atic analysis of the real increase in use-values given the hidden +costs of shadow-work and ecological destruction, The costs +of shadow-work can be recognized as a major burden placed +upon the majorities within the “developed world™ too—in +the form of endless schooling for job-holding and long peri- +ods of private accumulation for a capital-intensive houschold. + +In so far as this can be documented, it will show that the real +dominations of modernity are the destructions of subsistence +activity and the enforced dependencies of wage-labor and +consumer lifestyles. + +Subsistence activity begins with a self-reliance and self- +determination in the meeting of human needs that is also +aware of the co-evolutionary need for nature’s patterns to +“subsist™ t0o. Adoption of subsistence strategies of adapta- +tion to the environment maximize social flexibility and eco- +logical diversity, while also eluding the endless desire for new +commodities that seems to be the motivational glue of mod- +ern commodity-intensive worlds. What has been called the +“counter-cultures” by both apologists and critics fails o grasp +their unique basis in subsistence production of use-values. +While sociological essayists condemn these practices as com- +munal ideologies that seek “pseudo-gemeinschaft” or are +“parasites” on the prevailing social systems, they fail to reflect +upon the split between wage-labor and shadow-work that their +own academic careers presuppose. + +Eco-development and re-inhabitation movements are the +theory and practice that could make a difference for parts of +the “third world™ and for enclaves of the fourth world. Within +modern political states, the very same movements are often +viewed as “de-centralization strategies.” But the more effec- +tive language is no longer socio-political but ecological con- +cepts of bioregions, watersheds, and eco-systems. These units +represent real “unmovable capital® which can be defended +against the forces that would commodify them as “natural +resources” and abandon them to centralized management +decision-making processes. The point of indigenous, or +re-inhabitation settlement, is to claim the rights of inhabited +placeagainst corporatenatural resource planningasjustifiable +resistance to colonially occupied territories. Here is where +“mediating structures” are really needed that would provide +state resources for local employment to define multiple use +and sustained yield potentials of a bioregion as well as to +provide access to legal due process. Because “property rights™ +are basically the norms of use agreed upon by law, the strategy +of eco-development will require systematic transformation of +the norms of property use as part of the rights to liberty of +citizens. An ecologically rational society cannot emerge with- +outa politically concrete understanding of the need for extend- +ing the normative regulations that protect the democratiza- +tion of social practice. Here is another area where a +counter-movement in the (social) sciences is a necessary pre- +condition for a realizable alternative future. + +Critical social scientists beginning from the existing pra +tice of, say, the feminist or ecology movements, may make it +more possible to radicalize and guide experimental practice +by constructing models of democratization that anticipate +more universal and reflexive forms of learning. The existing +strategies for “self-management™ of productive organizations +could be recast in terms of the “communicative rationaliza- +tion™"! of decision-making processes, and how these may be +more discursively open to participation. Societally the notion +of communicative democratization is also helpful for the +modeling of more open policy formation processes in which a +discursively formed debate could challenge the technocratic +suppression of publics, Inmanent critiques of societal processes +of compromise and consensus formation could radicalize +existing political struggles for democratization in America +such as: + +(a) the forming of parallel structures that can provide advocacy + +services for depoliticized policy spheres; + +13 +(b) the forming of resource networks that can act collectively on +local or wider issucs; + +(©) the use of advocacy and network forms to support the crea- +tion of voluntary associations of all kinds that can empower +people to solve their own problems. + +In these cases, analysis of the blocks to democratization can +be measured against the openness of consensus achieved with- +out force. A social ecological limit to the democratic forming +of the goals of society rests upon the legitimacy of the non- +coerced processes by which they are formed. + +An overall consequence of this communicative notion of +democratization is to resolve the 19th century antinomy of +socialist and anarchist principles of the political versus the +social revolutions. It makes possible a reconciliation of a +de-centralizing practice that increases local and/or regional +autonomy—while also providing a notion of rational consen- +sus formation which can be extended by the operations of +both scientific communities and socio-political processes. The +rationalization of communicative learning, like anarcho- +communist libertarianism, sees the dissolution of social force +that prevents the conscious resolution of conflicts as the “mech- +anism” for the creation of more appropriate forms of free- +dom. What has been missing in anarchist libertarianism is the +capacity to move beyond the heroism of the deed and antici- +patemoreuniver. ble forms of democratization. Conversel +what has been missing in orthodox Marxist “productivism™ +is a criterion for emancipation that goes beyond the self- +validating ideology of “socialist authority.” While anarchists +cffectively view all past forms of “justice™ as corrupted and +destroyed and only the present authenticity of affinity-groups +as consistent with libertarian futures, they fail in their concep- +tion of how these “islands of liberation” relate to wider social +and political processes.2 + +A + +Thedynamic of global development and the counter-potential +of eco-development and re-inhabitation defines a conflict poten- +tial central to the current international economic develop- +ment as well as internal to core nation-states. For example in +the United States the energy crisis era has resulted in regions +that have been designated “zones of national sacrifice™ (by the +National Academy of Science). In these areas, such as +Appalachia and the American Indian reservations, from Mexico +to South Dakota, designation of such zones justifies energy +corporation colonization as a national necessity. The exten- +sivedomination exercised by corporations over thelife chances +of mountaincers and Indians has been hidden behind the +claims that these areas arc the major coal and uranium resources +of the country. In both cases, the images of “backward cul- +tures” and the need to integrate the regions into the national +economy are used to justify a colonial practice thar basically +leaves the area’s people more dependent and their land +irreversibly damaged. In both areas, resistance to ecological +destruction and re-affirmation of ethnic identity create move- +ments for protection of rural and/or tribal culture. These +areas (and others such as parts of the northwest) are the +internal third worlds of the United States and represent criti- +cal bioregions where central economic policy directly contra- +dicts the needs of human survival. Here, as in other colonialized +parts of the world, the possibility of human survival (and +eco-system sustainability) does not depend upon administra- +tive and cconomic rationalizations, but upon the democrati- +zation of knowledge and tools on the one hand and the +activation of rehabitation and de-colonization movements on +the other. + +114 + |