A. Thesis of Helena Norberg-Hodge’s study Ancient Futures
§1. The root of all key social and environmental problems: the global economy
climate change, loss of biodiversity and cultural diversity, shift from self-sufficient rural living to energy-intensive urbanism, communal belonging to consumerist image-making; monoculture commercialization of life promoting competition over cooperation, universalizable skills over local knowledge, individualism over community and consumerism over spirituality.
§2. Localism: A strategy for resistance and renewal, a “solution multiplier” which “reduces our ecological footprint, increases biodiversity, provides fuller employment, strengthens democracy and rebuilds community.” (xxi); not total communal self-reliance but rather “shortening the distance between producers and consumers whenever possible, and striking a healthier balance between local markets and a monopoly-dominated global market.” (xxi)
B. Themes from the study of indigenous societies (Helena Norbert Hodge, Ecologist)
§3. Health – holistic (restoring balance) vs reductive (controlling symptoms)
Almost everyone is fit and trim; The old are active until the day they die (37); very low stress, toxin-free, optimal diet lifestyle (39); Holistic energy medicine treats disease as imbalance; mental health issues are non-existent (41)
No sense of pride (rooted in insecurity) in the Ladakhis, e.g. the example of the man ordered around by the kids in the truck (84-85); the mindfulness of the Ladakhis (86).
§4. Justice – restorative & DIY (focus on relationships) vs retributive, job of the state, focused on damages to individuals
Cultural focus on peace and non-violence, not expressing anger; “no fighting in the village in living memory” (46); the phenomenon of the “spontaneous intermediary” (47-48); Human scale villages (less than 100 houses), everyone knows everyone and is dedicated to “living together” (51)
§5. Social structures – egalitarian & heterarchical (matricentric) vs stratified & hierarchical (patriarchal)
Minimal disparities in wealth, 95% of population in the middle class; destroyed by monetary economy (103); Democratic/consensus politics for collective decision-making, the representative for each village council (goba) appointed by rotation. (49)
Flexible marriage relationships to fit into land constraints (from monogamy to polyandry to polygyny) (55)
No word in Ladakhi for romantic love.
Child- rearing: unlimited and unconditional affection (66) but it does not lead to children being spoiled, just the opposite; kids with great responsibilities (66)
Parity of gender: women have lots of power (68); flexible gender roles in work and parenting
§6. Trade/Economy – gift-based, focused on group cohesion (principle of socialism) vs money-based, focused on individual consumption (capitalism)
Self-sufficient farms owned by individual families, a steady-state local economy designed to fit within the ecological limits to population growth.
Agriculture as resilient, nature-based, self-sufficient vs “efficient”, hydrocarbon-based, and specialized for export
Private property (incl. land, houses, tools and animals) and labor which are shared. (53). But ownership in usufruct (stewardship) (58)
§7. The word "community" is derived from the Old French communité which is derived from the Latin communitas (com, "with/together" + munus, "gift"), a broad term for fellowship or organized society.
“Community is woven from gifts. Unlike today's market system, whose built-in scarcity compels competition in which more for me is less for you, in a gift economy the opposite holds. Because people in gift culture pass on their surplus rather than accumulating it, your good fortune is my good fortune: more for you is more for me. Wealth circulates, gravitating toward the greatest need. In a gift community, people know that their gifts will eventually come back to them, albeit often in a new form. Such a community might be called a "circle of the gift.””
Money creates separateness, can be hoarded and controlled, is quantified, promotes individualism and independence and selfish behavior. Gifting creates relationship, promotes cycling, is democratic, promotes community cohesion and self-full (vs. self-ish behavior (i.e. a more expansive experience of self.
§8. Worldview – spiritual with a basis in shared identity vs materialistic with a basis in separate identity
Buddhism woven into the fabric of life - the philosophy of interdependency versus individualism (75); reverence for nature, praying to the spirits of water and earth before sowing seeds. (19) Thanking animals for their lives (31)
Time: not commodified but based on natural cycles (35)
Nature as a living, conscious, sacred and intelligent being (Pachamana) vs. a non-living, non-intelligent mechanism which can be understood objectively.
(C) Native Ethics & Principles (Clare Brant, Mohawk Philosopher)
§10. The Ethic of Non-Interference • That is the principle that one Indian will never tell another Indian what to do. It is considered rude behaviour to give instructions or orders to another Native person. That’s quite different from the white society. Two white men at a cocktail party – say they’re standing there side by side – and if one of them announces he wishes to buy a pear tree another white man will immediately suggest that he buy a peach tree instead. In the white society the one who can out-advise the other is one up, and the loser is expected to take his defeat with good grace. Now in the Indian society, this is not permitted. Advising or instructing, or ordering or persuading, is always considered bad form or behaviour.
§11. The Anger Must Not Be Shown Principle • This also is a very widespead and very widely practised behaviour. It seems to have had its origin again in the Aboriginal society, in which there were shamans and witches about all over the place. And one dared not show one’s temper because these shamans and witches could cast a spell on you, put the bothers on you if you insulted or offended them, or showed them your temper.
§12. The Indian Concept of Time • Time is, to an Indian, something which must be used and enjoyed. One does not move onto something else until one has finished what one is doing. It seems to have had its origin – again I have to say “seems to” because we don’t have precise information – in that activities of Indians used to be regulated by the seasons, by the sun, and by the migratory patterns of birds and animals; a changing food supply, absence of electricity and hydro power, so they had to be dependent upon the seasons and nature to supply them with food, with light and all kinds of things. And having learned to live in harmony with nature and relevance to these things, the concept of “doing things when the time is right” came into play – which is still in play today.
§13. Principle that Everything Is Shared • All the assets and resources of a community or of a family, or of the extended family, are shared and one is supposed to take no more than what one needs from the environment, than one needs to survive. To take more to waste is bad. To take more than one’s fair share or more than what one actually needs to survive is considered greedy and wasteful. This is one of the greatest of all the Native ethics and it’s universal. It could have had its origin in the need to show hospitality to wandering hunters even though there was not much food in the village. The hunters from another group, another family, or another clan, must be fed in order that they would take food back to their own people. That may have been the origin of it. But the principle is survival of the whole group over individual prosperity and individuality. This is the principle of Marxism, the principle of all socialism, and alleged to be the principle of Christianity as well. The Native people do not use it as a political ideology or as a religion; it is acted out as the way Native people live. The ethic of sharing has its corollaries, which are equality and democracy.
5. The Attitude to Gratitude • Gratitude among Native people is very rarely shown; it’s very rarely verbalized. One is not rewarded for being a good teacher, doctor, farmer, fisherman, hunter, because that is what you are supposed to be. If you are trained to be a nurse you should be a good one. To be less than perfect would be a bad thing for you to be. You would not be developing the best part. So that if you do a good job, that’s fine, you are not going to be thanked for it. To be thanked for it would be superfluous because doing a good job has its own intrinsic reward. Gratitude eventually is shown at the end of a long life. If one keeps one’s nose clean and does a good job, and one is perceived and regarded as a wise and venerable person, this is the greatest reward of all.
7. Now the Teaching; Shaping Vs. Modeling • This is a more technical kind of thing. The white people use this method of teaching their children – it’s called ‘shaping’. Whereas the Indians use ‘modelling’. Shaping is B.F. Skinner’s ‘Operant Conditioning”, if you want to look into that one. Say a white person is teaching a white kid how to dress – he uses the shaping method, one way being “rewarding successive approximations” of the behaviour he wants. When we asked Josh, a reknowned hunter, how his father taught him to hunt. He said, “He didn’t teach me.” Well, that’s ridiculous, everybody has to be taught everything. The people and father in the hunting modelled hunting behaviour, and then suddenly, “Okay, you’re ready to do it, and you can do it forever.”
9. The Dependence-Independence Ethic • It might seem that because the Indian people live on welfare that they are very dependent people. This is again the furthest thing from the truth. Native people are the most independent minded people I’ve ever seen. One is expected to look after oneself, take one’s own council and not be told what to do by other people; make up your own mind about everything, listen to advice but not follow it very precisely, incorporate it into what you know is right, and go on from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment