From Black and Green Review no 1. Out now!
To subscribe: click here
To order a single copy: click here
Andrew Badenoch is the instigator of the Feralculture
Land Liberation Project and ardent moderator and primary contributor of the
Intentional Paleo Community group. Having become disenchanted by the game of
capitalism, he struck with the allure of the hunter-gatherer life and started
taking steps in that direction laying groundwork for more to follow.
We’ll
certainly be keeping up with the land project, but the ideas around it and
questions that have arisen have brought forward some really promising
discussion, so we’re always happy to host it here.
- Kevin Tucker
Can you talk a
bit about the land project, what it’s called and where it’s coming from?
The working title is "The Feralculture Land
Liberation Project", which is an outgrowth from ideas discussed in the
"Intentional Paleo Community" Facebook group started around September
of 2012. The community or communities under that umbrella may evolve different
names over time. To the extent that it's currently possible, we're shifting
updates and ongoing discussion of the project to feralculture.com to reduce our
contributions of free labor to the Facebook empire.
In
short, we're working to build something like an immediate-return
hunter-gatherer community in the cracks of an insane delayed-return society. We
also recognize that biomes friendly to wild human cultures have been
obliterated in many ways. With that in mind, we consider a rewilded
permaculture to be a useful bridge for regenerating what
agricultural-industrial society has killed.
Our
vision is to create and expand a global network of community land which is a
living laboratory for the ethnogenesis of a renewed hunter-gatherer culture and
the regeneration of landscapes necessary to support it. The implementation
resembles an umbrella community distributed across clusters of nodes. We're not
thrilled with that jargon, but think of a bioregional cluster of 2-5 properties
that people could realistically travel between, without mechanized transport,
in 3 days or less. Each property (node) would be roughly 3-15 acres. So rather
than an insular land project of 100+ acres, our 100+ acres is spread out over a
wider area and not contiguous -- looking something like a series of camps
hunter-gatherers might travel to and from at various points in the year as
individuals or groups. Each cluster of nodes would be farther apart, and people
could travel between these wider biomes if desired, or devote time to deepening
their connection to the landscape in a single cluster.
Often
when explaining this, I get, "oh, like a hunter-gatherer time share?"
Perhaps we're missing out on a growth market by not offering free trips to
Florida for coming to a presentation. But I see what they're getting at. In a
sense, joining the community is like an all-access pass, but the soulless
condo/hotel is replaced by a living entity spread across the land, and there's
no blackout dates, scheduling, or required checkout times.
Before
getting too far into this, I'd like to throw out the disclaimer that we
recognize multiple problems with the ideas and language of land ownership
discussed here. We're sympathetic to critiques along various lines, including
those argued by Thomas Paine and Henry George; the various, nuanced, and
diverse historical problems of colonization and destruction of indigeneity, and
standard anarchist critiques of property. Unfortunately, our primary limitation
seems to be the system of state sanctioned property, and our discourse often gets
mired in that framework. Our hope is to liberate as much land as possible from
agriculture and its derivative systems of extraction and violence. The fine
print on every U.S. National Forest sign, "U.S. Department of
Agriculture", can be seen as a microcosm of the totalizing tendency
inherent in the agricultural orientation to the world -- the tendency we strive
to unwind.
So you're
involved with a land project that has its roots in understanding the role
movement played in nomadic hunter-gatherer communities where the purchasing is
looking at nodes rather than just massive plots. How did this idea come about
and how does it look and function differently than most land projects out
there?
The earliest impetus was the simple recognition that
the diets of hunter-gatherers (foragers) seem to yield healthier humans, and
the social life of hunter-gatherers seems to yield happier humans. Whether or
not that's true, a hyper-rational, scientific fundamentalist culture purporting
to deliver health and happiness would, by its own logic, have to consider the
merits and implications of this competing hypothesis. If it is true that
foragers are healthier and happier, said culture would, by its own rules, face
the paradox of dismantling itself or revealing its narrative as fraudulent.
That's where the philosophical gambit began, and since civilization will
regurgitate fraudulent narratives as long as it can, the question of everyday
life quickly moved up in priority.
The
next element of the quandary was trying to square the widespread failures of
intentional communities -- over the past century -- with the strong and
resilient community tradition that seemingly existed among hunting and
gathering Hominin for upwards of 2 million years. On one hand, there's this
tradition of apparently sincere and well meaning individuals trying their
hardest and sacrificing greatly to foster a deeply felt impulse to live in
community within an agricultural context, and failing at high rates.
On the
other hand, there's the ethnographic record rife with peoples living in
wildness with intimate communities persisting almost incidentally. In practice,
fostering community is something "intentional" even among the
undomesticated, but it doesn't look quite the same as the various flavors of
modern intentional communities. Something's going on here, and apparently
something consistent. The question inevitably becomes, what is that something?
The
only way I've yet found to bridge that chasm is through pursuing the idea of
forager norms (and perhaps values, but that rapidly gets complex) versus
agriculturalist norms (with pastoralists and horticulturalists imprecisely, but
not arbitrarily, tossed in with the latter). This arrives at the fundamental
divergence in mobility orientations between hunter-gatherer cultures (nomadic,
non-sedentary, immediate-return, etc.) and agricultural cultures (sedentary,
delayed-return, etc.). Foragers must move regularly for subsistence reasons,
and farmers can't move regularly for subsistence reasons. The implications of
this difference to cultural adaptations permeate life. Anthropologists and
archaeologists are quick to complete the story of the instantiation of private
property, division of labor, hierarchy, patriarchy, zoonotic disease, theism,
and the other unintended consequences of the civilizing process.
Permaculture
came later in the community's theory, but its ethical foundations provide one
way we might think about resolving the question of forager norms and
agricultural norms in the context of community. The three ethics of
permaculture are:
1. Care for the earth.
2. Care for people.
3. Consider limits to
consumption and production, and redistribute surplus to the benefit of 1
(earth) and 2 (people).
If permaculture's founders, Dave Holmgren and Bill Mollison,
hadn't realized the flaws in thinking about the concept as "permanent
agriculture", and scuttled that in favor of "permanent culture",
we would reject it. And though the movement can feel subsumed by farmers and
gardeners and capitalism, Holmgren, Mollison, and Mollison's protégé Geoff
Lawton all give nods to hunter-gatherer life as a model from which to learn.
Since they did drop the agriculture bias after seeing permaculture's broader
potential, and they do recognize forager life as a source of inspiration, and
hunter-gatherers have demonstrated the closest examples we have of permanent
cultures, interpreting the three ethics along those lines seems the most
reasonable place to start.
We also
take the rejection of agriculture further than most permaculturists, but feel
on firm footing with Toby Hemenway's article implying that sustainable
agriculture is an oxymoron. We diverge through our view that permaculture, when
taken to its logical conclusion, is, and can only be, fundamentally anti-agriculture.
Put
simply, we forward the hypothesis that intentional communities drawing from
agricultural principles in designing for any of the three ethics will
inevitably fail. The only question is when.
We find
a pervasive problem with modern intentional communities in their consistent
embedding of agricultural norms and values into their designs.
An
example of embedding agricultural norms into the first ethic of earth care is
in communities that purchase massive plots of land with the intent of bringing
it under annual cultivation. It doesn't matter if these communities attempt to
embed forager norms against private property and hierarchy into the second
ethic of people care, they cannot and will not be permanent.
Examples
of embedding agricultural norms into the second ethic of people care are in
communities that: (1) operate as proto-feudalist domains where owners of the
land arrange tenant farmer relationships and/or exert hierarchical control over
the decision making or governance of the community; (2) enforce the private
property fantasy of land ownership in which plots are subdivided and sold to
individuals or families to which differential access is more or less
permanently granted, and from which other community members are largely
excluded; (3) grant power to overt or quasi-religious leaders or tendencies.
The oft
maligned third ethic is more difficult to discuss due to political orientations
bending the ambiguity to their will, but from an anarcho-permaculturalist
perspective, a capitalist orientation toward the work and lives of plants and
animals would be one example of embedding agricultural norms into the third
ethic of returning surplus to earth and people.
Do you have a
vision for how hunter-gatherer life impacts the way this community ideally
would be built and expand?
Indeed. Our proposed solution to the problems of
modern intentional communities is to design new iterations with the three
ethics aligned along forager norms. One of the primary ways of achieving this
is to draw from the mobility norm found among hunter-gatherers. This is the
direct inspiration for the rejection of community as a single insular tract of
land. Rather, we attempt to carve out a non-sedentary community distributed
across a network of smaller properties. These individual enclaves would not
function as healthy communities on their own, and would not support band size
populations in isolation. However, when modeling forager movement patterns in
the context of the private property framework of the nation-state, a network of
small properties begins to resemble a pattern of mobile camps, particularly
when mapped over time. We don't claim to perfectly echo the movement patterns
of wild humans, merely that this appears to be a best practice within the
current reality.
Unlike
the agricultural norms inherently installed in a single property community
compound, the distributed node-cluster framework embeds hunter-gatherer norms
into the first ethic of earth care. This choice extends benefits into the
second ethic of people care as well by aiding forager social norms associated
with mobility. Band societies frequently use a network of fission-fusion camps
as a release valve for conflict. Rather than the dim notion that individuals
expelled from one hunter-gatherer band faced impending death, asking someone to
leave often resulted in the exiled joining a band in the larger regional
network (or cluster, in our case) of friends and relatives comprising multiple
options. Of course, egregious offenders could be urged to leave the entire
regional group considering communication between them tends to be regular, and
social pressure is regularly used to curtail dominant or violent behavior. The
fluid membership of each band in concert with the fluid movement of each band
is a norm we attempt to draw from with a focus on purchasing multiple small
properties rather than a single large one. Further, this approach can often be
leveraged by favoring the purchase of nodes that border state or federal land
open to hunting, fishing, and gathering. Unlike most intentional communities,
we disabuse the notion that all land from which we draw sustenance must be
legally owned by the community.
Does a nodal
project offer unique limitations?
Definitely. One limitation is that small parcels of
land can be more expensive per acre. This is not always the case as some areas
command higher prices for large contiguous tracts.
There's
also the problem of interacting with multiple bureaucratic jurisdictions.
Community decision-making and self-governance (again, language we don't like
but end up using due to our context in spectacular capitalism) becomes more
complicated as interests and personalities are multiplied by multiple
properties with multiple features and multiple needs.
Can you tell us
about where the project is at now and where you'd like to see it grow?
We've provisionally purchased the community's first
node in the abundant hunting and fishing region of interior Alaska. It's
riverfront property on a river with large salmon runs and a variety of large
and small game, waterfowl, and other fish species in the watershed. This
particular piece also has the benefit of being mostly surrounded by state land,
which is the least restricted classification in the jurisdiction of Alaska.
At the
time of this writing, we have not begun accepting members or contributions. The
timeline for officially opening the project is measured in months from now,
which may be minutes from when you are reading this.
In
terms of growth, the goal is to establish something like 3 nodes that form the
seeds of 3 clusters through which we can establish a presence. We see potential
for clusters of nodes in Canada, Cascadia, Maine, North Carolina, New Zealand,
Central America, South America, Eastern Europe, Scotland, Asia, and well... all
over really. We don't see this as exclusive to any particular region, and
actively seek to expand the concept globally.
In
addition to growth driven by members who wish to join us on the land, we see
opportunities for the donation of land to the project by variously motivated
individuals who may be unimpressed by the idea of conservation as pockets of
contrived wilderness from which humans are excluded from living. We don't view
humans as separate from the wild, and we know there are many who own land and
are looking for something deeper and more regenerative than wilderness as
spectacle.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.