Ecology in Mind

Preface

It had been the perception of the majority of the Alternative Orange editorial collective that these “Ecology in Mind” columns suffered greatly from a lack of coherency, and worse still, tainted the quality of our journal. According to this majority, the material world as it exists in our modes of production of “capital” and social relationships must be critiqued systematically, preferably through a framework laid out by Karl Marx. Viewed through his materialist lens the outrageousness I often reproduced was an extension of a liberal ideology which mystifies the apparatuses of ruling in this “late capitalist” society.

It has been my habit to take exception to these positive linkages between incoherency and the exploitative natures of a bourgeois regime. My frequent (somewhat outrageous) attempts to highlight exploitative tendencies often ignored by a (Marxist) materialist representation of “reality” should be recognized in my past critiques of grammar (Vol I #5, April ‘92), theory (Vol I #2, Nov. ‘91), and the somewhat egotistical romance of “consciousness raising” (Vol I #4, Feb. ‘92). The piece to follow, though stylized to be consistent with the rest of the journal’s texts, is completely consistent (dare say coherent?) with last year’s efforts to display the absurdities of viewing life through the tinted goggles worn by (us) privileged intellectuals.

♦ ♦ ♦

The piece to follow has been submitted to a national green journal in which a debate over “electoral politics” has been conducted. I have found these debates to be based on assumptions that would inevitably generate reforms, rather than revolutions which comprehensively reconstruct the distribution of power(s). It is my fear that these (green?) reforms will further mystify the power relationships that exist in the current liberal apparatuses of ruling. Many greens engaged in this debate are, for the sake of “strategy,” convoluting green politics with the standard liberal forms of policy in which a layer of elites mandate decisions from above. These top down mandates would be hidden under “grassroots” ideals that would hardly well up “from the bottom.”

Introduction

Whether we call for, or take action toward, the radical reformation of the state system, or some otherwise decentralized green municipalism, we must continually demystify the relationships that exist between power, knowledge, experience, decision-making, and the practices of liberal persuasion.

Double Binds

Those who bring to our common tables an extensive theoretical understanding and/or years as cultural, social and/or political activists do command respect. There are good reasons to hold theoretical awareness and years of experience in high regard, especially when the contributions made by master theoreticians or seasoned activists prove so valuable to a community’s common education. Yet, we must recognize the (social) fact that theories and experiences tend to influence decision-making process, particularly when power relationships are left to develop unchecked. Ignored, these power relationships silence voices and cause people to hold their opinions back against their better judgments; conversations get carried on within “informed” circles, marginalizing the misinformed or “ignorant.” We must deal openly and rigorously with this double bind: by (mis)using the practices of liberal persuasion, a sharing of theory or extensive experiences will silence voices; and yet, to have any hope of achieving some sense of communal sophistication will require input from the those recognizably “knowledgeable” and/or “experienced.”

Electoral Politics

The power binds evident in our local communities must be recognized in the national, textual discussions over electoral politics, particularly when the issues of accountable representation and mandatory recall mechanisms are debated. If we are to assume (rightly or wrongly) that the representatives we sanction will participate in current local green decision-making process, must we also assume that as “leaders,” by current standards, possess the skills of persuasion which invariably shape the policy decisions of the community. And so the potential green representative has accessed power which we have come to associate with power-as-usual politics: policies mandated by the knowledgeable, experienced or charismatic. Can greens afford to buy into such elitist notions? Aren’t most of the discussions unfolding within our national newsletters, magazines and gatherings perpetuating this dichotomy between the governors and the governed?

Conversations about electoral politics without an ongoing critique of decision making process in our local communities will result in replacing those currently in office with somewhat greener, but nonetheless power-as-usual, politicians. Misuses and abuses of power via the power (liberally) inherent within theoretical awareness and/or activist experience will simply continue. Questions fundamental to social justice thus become deferred to yet another generation. We need only look to the German Greens for a modern example.

“Learning Through”

Learning through the double binds that power and knowledge bring to our common tables will not come easily. Relying on the mechanisms of “consensus” as cure-all for our power binds is questionable and somewhat naive. We face a threat to our sovereignty as a political community by placing faith in methods of decision-making. Those who utilize theories, experiences or charisma will inevitably shape the decisions made under the consensus method. The cycle of honoring those who have acquired the skills of (liberal) persuasion will continue, unbroken. We must place our faith in the communal activity of a people who are practicing decision-making method(s).

One saving grace of green movement is the emphasis we allow ourselves to place on localized decision-making. Remaining focused on decentralized decision-making communities will require us to create “spaces,” spaces in which all people are considered “policy experts” simply by accessing the (demystified) experiences accumulated during a lifetime. Those previously oppressed under a gender- biased, race conscious, heterosexist societal lens and those who have been perceived (wrongly) as politically illiterate are legitimate experts in policy making and implementation. This must be the (social) fact of our times.

Spaces and Accidents

If space is intentionally constructed by a (illiberally) legitimate generation of policy experts we will find ourselves to have policies that appear, from the liberal point of view, to have been formed accidentally. The practices of liberal persuasion we have been associating with power-as-usual decision-making will tear apart…ironically…(perhaps) inexplicably. Initially, some of us will want to assign accidental policy formation to the realms of chaos and anarchy.

Who, then, will breach this apparent crisis in leadership? Pondering the significance of “policy by accident,” we find ourselves constrained by rational prejudices; the same prejudices which prop up the very power relationships we have been critiquing. The question will haunt us: must there be a conscious effort to (rationally) construct spaces which encourage the formation of accidental policies? This is a local question that warrants local answers.

However, for the sake of conjecture let us speculate. What if “creating spaces” becomes an administrative ethos of green movement? Planning and coordinating activities of green leaders (read: power-ful people) would focus on the creation of structures or spaces within which peoples, green ones or not, could legitimately exercise their (liberally) non-persuasive voices as experts in accidental policy. We would work locally to perfect the process of “creating spaces”— architectural, intellectual and emotional spaces. Central to unleashing such creativity would be the rational and accidental roles of the “facilitator” in the construction of discussions and decision-making scenarios. Green facilitators would recognize the power distributions which silence voices, and mediate the gaps between (liberally) persuasive voices and those the (liberal) tradition had previously demanded silence form.

Public Facilitators

Dare we envision sanctioning representatives who break from business-as-usual power politics and take on the roles of “public facilitators?” What would be the role of our public facilitators? How would a community’s cultural heritage and natural environment help to define these roles? These are questions which necessitate local answers.

Conclusions

As we work to create spaces which cultivate our community’s facilitation skills our somewhat small, definitely localized, debates over issues of power and process take on an added significance. Without a continuing critique of (our own) leadership, and the roles (our) leaders play in shaping policy decisions, green movement will have failed to seize the opportunity to facilitate (r)evolution, and instead become yet another political movement historically co-opted into the prevailing power structures.

Until next time, sustainable peace, and stuff like that…

♦ ♦ ♦