Re: all theory thread (long)[longer still]

[Mikal Jakubal <mjakubal@asis.com>]

Hi y'all,
I really enjoyed the discussions on the subject thread. It clarified many
things for me, and I was hoping there would be more follow-up discussion. I
guess that means it's my turn to try and stimulate some, eh? What I found
most useful was the distinction between "principles"--or "ethical
principles" in this case--and design "guidelines"  and  how these are
distinct from techniques/tools of Permaculture (e.g., keyhole beds or
swales). In another life I'm studying and writing a book on strategy theory
for nonviolent activists. Strategy, being a theoretical discipline, is
organized in a similar way, and presents similar problems to understanding
and use. One of the main reasons activist groups aren't much more effective
(in my opinion) is due to their lack of strategy. The biggest barrier to
understanding and implementation of strategy is the lack of understanding
of the theoretical structure of the discipline. Few activists can properly
define "tactics," "strategy," or state any of the basic principles or
guidelines, yet such words are thrown around constantly. It's possible to
read a book or attend a workshop or training camp (such as the Ruckus
camps) and then go out and pull off a rally or sit-in reasonably
competently. Whether or not a rally or sit-in was appropriate for the
situation and whether or not it was "effective" are rarely asked questions. 

I imagine the Permaculture milieu faces comparable problems. It's easy to
open up the Designers Manual, pick a drawing, imitate it and call it
"successful" or "Permaculture" because it looks like the picture in the
book. But is it appropriate for the area and your needs and goals? Does it
fulfill basic requirements of the principles and meet guidelines? Does it
move you forward, or does it require constant non-renewable inputs? Is it
"Permaculture" or just a swale? I've been to countless activist meetings
where people talked about the technical or logistical questions (what kind
of lock-box?; how wide are keyhole beds?) and called it strategy, or
debated choice of tools of action (to break windows or not?; till or
no-till or double-dug?) and called it tactics. Is it strategic, or just a
sit-in?  All of this reveals a limiting short-sightedness and failure to
grasp not just the theory, but the basic structure of the ideas--both
strategy and Pc--*as theory*. I know activists who routinely tack on the
word "strategic" to whatever they're doing so as to make it sound more
important; I bet there are countless people who do the same with
"Permaculture."


I believe--from my more extensive study of strategy and my brief exposure
to Pc--that to really "get" both requires of us multi-dimensional thinking,
the ability to see and act a couple layers of consciousness above the
ground. Once you learn how to shape and size a swale, anyone can dig one.
But it will be more likely to be effective if it is, as Myk said, a result
of "Permaculture's application" to a specific site and need. Likewise, a
sit-in will be more effective if it is planned as the result of first
applying a strategic analysis to the issue at hand. In both cases, you
later have a yardstick by which to measure the effectiveness of your
technique. And that is the basis of learning and greater effectiveness next
time.

That said, I want to apply Pc to my situation and see what shakes out; I
don't want to simply cookie-cutter copy the pictures in the book and call
it "Pc." Part of the challenge of being a newby is learning to apply the
theory at the same time as learning to properly implement the techniques.
My particular dilemma right now is how to deal with several areas on my
place that I had planned (based on pictures in the book...) to plant as
vertically integrated, edible forest garden polyculture
something-or-others. Thinking more of the earthworking would have been done
by last spring, I went and bought a bunch of fruit and nut trees when they
were on clearance sale. Poor things are suffering in pots and really want
to be let loose in the ground. I've also got three dozen blueberries
fruiting happily despite being in pots. Add to that mix another dozen cane
berries, an equal amount of brambling berries, strawberries that have to be
moved from where they are, kiwis and a few other odds and ends and I've got
enough to fill lots of space right away. 

The problem is that I'm not so sure how to go about it. What are the
questions I should be asking? How does Pc look at the issue of fruit and
nut and berry production in this temperate climate? Maybe it's my
upbringing in the orchards of North Central Washington that has got me
convinced of the efficacy (easy to pick all fruit, easy to use a ladder...)
of typical orchard format. It seems that the gooseberries and currants
would get stepped on every time I tried to pick apples. The brambles would
make it impossible to find the walnuts and filberts. How do you pick kiwis
twenty feet up a tree when you can't get a ladder in because of the bramble
berries and gooseberries? How do you protect the blueberries from birds? My
present inclination is to plant the blueberries in rows so I can cage the
birds out if necessary (a neighbor does this and makes a handsome living
off his berries). Strawberries could be grown beneath the blueberries. The
kiwis and bramble berries can be grown on trellises designed to have
currants and gooseberries and other shade lovers below them. The fruit and
nut trees can be grown with living mulch--comfrey or some cover crop or
edible--beneath them so as to be easy to harvest. And so on. Except that I
like the pictures in the book, and it *seems* like a good idea, I can't
think of any reason to do the food forest thing.

What I'm looking for is not so much technical answers to the technical
questions of how-to this or how-to that, but what theoretical filters to
apply, what questions to ask--in other words, how to apply Permaculture
without an a priori outcome in mind. Anyone got any thoughts on the subject?

Mikal