Ecological Regime

by
Carl M. Golden, III

Antioch New England Graduate School

Environmental Studies Department

Supervised Independent Study: Ecological Regime

Supervisor: Tom Wessels
Advisor: Ty Minton
August 28, 1997
 2

ECOLOGICAL REGIME
As we begin to comprehend that the earth itself is a kind of manned spaceship hurtling
through the infinity of space - it will seem increasingly absurd that we have not better
organized the life of the human family. Hubert H. Humphrey

Introduction:

Biospheric degradation has become the rule, so much so that outcries about ozone
holes, global decline in amphibian populations, greenhouse effects, human overpopulation,
habitat loss, species extinction, etc., have been reduced to environmental patter—clichés.
Nothing is easier to forget than that which everybody knows, especially in America where
fascination with what is new has taken on pathological dimensions. Recycling and
contributions to various environmental organizations have become general acts of contrition
in the industrialized world, granting us pardon from the need to know and get involved.
People everywhere are sick of hearing about the environment. News of various global crises
meets with indifference, incredulity, denial, or despair. Who can blame them? Life, after all,
must go on. There are mountains to climb, rivers to fish, and horses to ride. There are classes
to attend, career responsibilities, mortgages to pay, children to raise, dinners to cook, lovers
to love, weddings to plan, marriages to nurture (as well as marriages to save). There are
deadlines to meet and dead relations to bury. There are, in fact, ten thousand things to do—
things to which one can relate, understand, and reasonably expect to effect some desired
change within the lifetime of one's children if not within one's own life.
The irony, of course, is that as we endeavor to meet our respective agendas for
fulfilling the ten thousand things we invariably promote the "doom and gloom" that has
sickened our souls and stopped our ears. So, the litany goes on. We are caught in a positive
feedback loop that portends one certain end - system wide breakdown of the biosphere, as
well as human societies. This is an end that is evident already in many countries and areas
around the globe. Ethiopia, the nation/states of the former Soviet Republic, Brazil, the Four
Corners region of the American Southwest (as with most ghettoized tribal populations the
world over), and a host of others are suffering the ravages of ecosystem breakdown and the
concomitant disintegration of the social fabric. The fisheries of both the northern Pacific and
Atlantic oceans have been terribly depleted by the fishing industries' enormous disregard for
the recuperative capacities of fish populations; consequentially, the coastal fishing cultures
 3

are deteriorating. The rainforests of South and North America, Thailand, and the rest of the
world are close to coming to an irretrievable end as are the indigenous cultures nestled within
these rich arboreal havens. Even the remote Arctic and Antarctic have not escaped the effects
of our activities as they are flooded with dangerously high levels of ultra-violate radiation
passing through the massive ozone holes located over these regions–holes caused by Chloro
Flouro Carbon (CFC) production and use. The threat is ubiquitous. Those of us fortunate
enough not to have suffered the rampant poverty of the Sudan surely have not escaped the
insidious threats, presently or potentially, of climbing cancer rates, AIDS, or various other
wasting illnesses, such as Systemic Candidiasis, which is a fungal based disease giving rise
to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Environmental Illness. There is no place that has not been
touched by the crippling effect of our pursuits for the ten thousand things.
These pursuits are trivial compared to the enormity of the crisis of Biospheric
degradation; nevertheless, we are engaged in them, because the rewards of security, family,
love, community, as well as wealth, power, vainglory and pleasure play out on a human scale
according to millennia of human design.1 The ten thousand things are meaningful, even the
most vulgar and vain; whereas, global warming is a monstrous conundrum in the minds of
the majority of humankind. The problem is too big for most of us to appreciate and
effectively address. So, we choose to ignore it.
Of course, biospheric degradation is not the problem; rather, it is the consequence of
human imagination, desires, and endeavors grown beyond both human and ecological scale
and design. Unbridled and ignorant humanity is the problem. To save the whales, we must
save ourselves, because to focus the bulk of our resources on saving specific species and
ecosystems while ignoring the institutions and attitudes that give rise to the threat is like
treating the symptoms of an ailing person while ignoring the causes of the illness - the patient
will die anyway and the doctors will bill the next of kin. (S.N.A.F.U.2)
Addressing the problem is no small matter. Every sector of contemporary

1
I am convinced that what is ideally human-humane-in scale and design is ecological as well.
True human sensibilities are rooted in an organic history--a natural history-that evolved
within the context of complex, interrelated communities of similar and dissimilar species.
This history has endowed us all with ecological sensibilities-sensibilities that know when a
thing is fit and when it is not. Scale and design that is sensible, fits both human and
ecological sensibilities.
2
S.N.A.F.U. = "SITUATION NORMAL - ALL FUCKED UP"
 4

technological society needs reform along human and ecological parameters, and developing
countries need to reorient along these same lines in order to avoid recapitulating the same
mistakes that the industrialized North has made and continues to make.
Of the many institutions that shape our attitudes and enact our intents, there are seven
that are seminal- science, technology, art, religion, education, politics, and economics.
Although I am very interested in the role of each of these institutions in both the problem and
it's solution, the scope of this paper is limited to the role politics can play in resolving
biospheric degradation and creating societies worthy of our participation.
The way politics is done today is inflated beyond the ken of most people. Trends in
centralization, globalization, and sophisticated communication technologies are accessible to
roughly 20% of the world's people, while the remainder is increasingly alienated by varying
degrees. This is an extremely dangerous state of affairs for several reasons: First, when
people are alienated from the means to effect control and change over their lives, they are
disenfranchised and marginalized - a condition that fosters distrust, disillusionment, civil
unrest, lawlessness, and violence. An example of such alienation is the recent popularity of
militias throughout the United States and the associated Oklahoma City bombing. Second,
insofar as political institutions are dependent upon the cooperation of the governed, they are
liable to become unstable when the governed are significantly alienated. Third, when
political institutions become unstable, they tend to resort to militant, often violent, policing of
the governed. Fourth, when political institutions have to resort to extreme measures to ensure
cooperation of the governed, then civil war is on the horizon. Fifth, and last, environmental
and social degradation will only increase in such conditions.
The trends of centralization, globalization, etceteras inevitably lead to this chain of
conditions, because these trends are born of attitudes oriented towards ends that are beyond
human and ecological scale and design – ends that can only alienate. The enormity of the
environmental crisis is born of the enormous mess that is the leviathan of centralized
governments (and globalized economies). Not only are people in a stupor about biospheric
degradation, they are equally stupefied by the political (and economic) trends. It's all just too
damn big!
Attitude, scale, and design are the three pillars upon which both the problem and the
solution are founded. Empires are the spoiled children of hubris coupled with rampant
 5

ignorance. They have an insatiable need to control and exploit everything in order to exist,
because the overhead incurred in maintaining an imperial lifestyle is exhaustive, especially
the resources required to maintain military offensive and defensive capacities. Case in point,
consider the United States' military budget: over one half of the budget is allocated to the
military. Given that the US budget is approximately three trillion dollars annually, the
military budget is over 1.5 trillion dollars annually!
The design is fundamentally flawed. In order to exist, empires must forever grow
because they are locked into a cycle of ever shrinking returns in real wealth, all the while
subjugating both the human and non-human communities for their labor and resources.
Obviously, such a condition is offensive and injurious to the subjugated, creating great
disparities in wealth between the centralized political and economic hubs and their colonized
rims. Furthermore, it is totally unrealistic in terms of natural limits - carrying capacities and
the like. The imperial regime is unsustainable, as history has born out time and again.3
The world needs the disciplined children of humility and wisdom communities or
what might be regarded as ecological regimes. These are born of politics (and economics)
pursued on a human and ecological scale and according to sustainable designs.
The purpose of this paper is to explore what might characterize an ecological regime.
As indicated above, I will look at political structures that would do at least two things: (1)
transform the existing order in accordance with humane and ecological criteria, and (2)
sustain humanity and the biosphere in a harmonious dance indefinitely.

To dream the impossible dream. . .

3
The former USSR is an excellent example of the fate of all empires. The US will follow suit
unless fundamental reforms occur.
 6

Properly speaking, global thinking is not possible. Those who have "thought
globally" (and among them the most successful have been imperial governments and
multinational corporations) have done so by means of simplifications too extreme and
oppressive to merit the name of thought. Global thinkers have been and will be dangerous
people. National thinkers tend to be dangerous also: we now have national thinkers in the
northeastern United States who look on Kentucky as a garbage dump...If we could think
locally, we would take far better care of things than we do now. The right local questions
and answers will be the right global ones. Wendell Berry, 1992

[There] are such things as "natural units of inhabitation" which lend themselves to
the political act of willing a common world. We are familiar with such units of inhabitation
for non-human life; they are what we call "ecosystems." The root of ecosystem is the same
Greek word, oikos, ("household') which stands at the root of the word economy. In fact,
these two households may have more in common than we generally realize – a commonality
which we may have to recognize in order actually to practice a politics of willing a common
world… Daniel Kemmis, 1990

The Ecology of Sustainable Politics

Politics is the craft of deciding who gets what, where, when, and how. There are
many ways to do this- imperialism, totalitarian and fascist regimes, monarchy and oligarchy
(feudalism), communism, federalism, republicanism, democracy, consensus, anarchy,
etceteras.4 Many historical expressions of these various political paths (and most that are
practiced today) are hybridizations arranged to meet, at best, the perceived needs of a society
(such as the democratic republics of most of the western and northern European nations), and
at worst, the ideological and exclusive ambitions of an elite cadre (such as the imperial
oligopolies of global cartels). All of these regimes have their strengths and weaknesses
regarding power and resource allocation and distribution, some more than others. But which
of these can best meet the allocation and distribution challenges spawned of the biospheric
and, consequentially, social crisis of today's world?
Imperial, totalitarian, fascist, monarchical, oligarchic, and federal regimes can effect
tremendous systemic changes within a few years. Consider the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, which was imperialistic, totalitarian, fascist, communistic, and federal in its

4
For those who are not familiar with the characteristics of these various forms of political
regimes, there is a list of definitions provided in the appendix.
 7

structure. It was able to effect revolutionary changes, virtually transforming a moderately

industrial, feudal empire of considerable European political significance into a modern
technological dynasty of tremendous international import within a decade. It educated a vast
society, comprised of various disparate cultures, and produced some of the world's greatest
literary, scientific, and athletic persons. But it paid for its temporal efficiency and social
successes with, paradoxically, tremendous loss of life, liberty, and economic and ecological
viability. As George Konrad, a Hungarian writer and politician, once said,

Many people feel empty, a world that seemed so strong just collapsed. Forty years have been
wasted on stupid strife for the sake of an unsuccessful experiment. The values gathered
together have vanished, the strategies for survival have become ridiculous. And so forty
years of our lives have become a story, a bad anecdote.i

Where large centralized governments can fail miserably in respect to individual

liberties, economic frugality, and ecologically sound resource management, the small
decentralized governments of republics and democracies can succeed – eventually.
Democratic republics usually require decades to effect large, even small, systemic changes
where there is significant cultural diversity within the populous. France, for example, is home
to six indigenous ethnic groups and at least a dozen enclaves of foreign ethnicity. Since 1800,
France has undergone nine reformations due to either war (both external and internal) or
political reorganization. They are beset with the problems of pluralism, as are most
contemporary democracies. In the United States of America (perhaps not the best example of
a democratic republic because of our federal structure), African-Americans are still
stigmatized by slavery, even though they have been" free" since 1863.
Consensual regimes are the most egalitarian systems, and they are effective at
allocating and distributing power and resources on a small scale. But the practice of
consensus government in a community larger than a village would be hopelessly ineffective
due to the enclaves of interests that would develop in a community of several thousand
citizens. We might all agree on liberty and justice for all, except for those who do not agree
with us. When it comes to the question of consensus, I tend to share the sentiments expressed
by Lewis Lapham:

Talk about the flag or drugs or crime (never about race or class or justice) and follow the
yellow brick road to the wonderful land of "consensus." In place of honest argument among
consenting adults the politicians substitute a lullaby for frightened children: the pretense
 8

that conflict doesn't really exist, that we have achieved the blessed state in which. . . we no
longer need politics.ii

As for anarchy, it might do it all; then again, it may do nothing. Few people can live
as an anarchist without becoming irresponsible and isolationist in character. The successful
anarchist is a successful and fairly integrated person. Only such a person could live according
to Emma Goldman's philosophy:

Anarchism is tire only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself, which
maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and
void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore
tire teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.iii

And only such a person could embrace the level of responsibility called for in Noam
Chomsky's comment about the consistent anarchist:

The consistent anarchist. . . should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will
not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of
capital by tire whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct,
not exercised by some elite force acting in tire name of the proletariat. . . . Some sort of
council communism is tire natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It
reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is largely a sham when the industrial
system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and
technocrats, a "vanguard" party, or a State bureaucracy.iv

The value of anarchy has never really been tested historically, save for a few art colonies, all
of which have failed. So, it is difficult to offer any serious critique on anarchy's effectiveness
as a political regime.
When I consider the gamut of these various political paths in view of most
contemporary governments' failure to meet the environmental crisis, I wonder which form (or
hybridization of forms) of government is most human and ecological in attitude, scale, and
design? Only a government organized along human and ecological criteria can help meet the
challenge of transforming our consumptive societies into sustainable havens. There are some
obvious and not so obvious answers. Before we turn to these answers, it would be fruitful to
reflect upon what is meant by human, ecological, attitude, scale, and design.
There is little gained in the appreciation of our humanity by defining us by our
bipedal mode of locomotion and opposable thumbs. Such definitions may do in defining our
species - Homo sapiens - but they shed very little light on the question of what is human.
 9

Strip me of my humanity, and the animal-Homo sapiens-remains. There is a difference. By

human, I mean humane- a way of acting in the world that is characterized by dignity,
compassion, and humor.5 Also, it is an appreciation for what is right and good and just. A
nuclear power plant, with its byproduct of lethal radioactive waste, is not humane
technology, because it is neither right nor good nor just to impose such poison on any
creature. Rather, it is demonic. Furthermore, the human being is endowed with a sensibility
of fitness that is bestowed by the animal – Homo sapiens. Edward Goldsmith speaks to this
latter point:

The perfection of Man's cognitive endowment for the purpose of assuring his adaptation to
his biological and social environment is an essential principle...Philosophers since the days
of Parmenides have insisted that the mind can understand reality only because they both
have the same structure or logos.v

Finally, wisdom is the consummate human quality, because it is the consummation of all
these qualities.
The ecological is that which accords with the principles of ecology; of course,
ecology is a very complex subject, far exceeding the parameters of this paper. And yet, some
sense of the subject is required for this discussion. One of the most critical insights of
ecology to understand in terms of this paper is the holarchical structure of the biosphere,
which means that every system within, and including, the biosphere is nested as both a whole
and a part. Arthur Koestler (1978) speaks to the point:

Wholes and parts cannot exist by themselves either at a biological or social level. What we
find are intermediary structures on a series of levels in ascending order of complexity, each
of which has two faces looking in opposite directions; the face turned towards lower levels is
that of an autonomous whole, the one turned upward that of a dependent part.vi

Within this holarchy, everything is connected so that the disruption of one level of an
ecosystem, such as spraying insecticide to eradicate mosquitoes, will disrupt other levels of
the ecosystem, such as the avian and aquatic populations that are dependent upon mosquitoes
and mosquito larvae for food. If disruptions are greater than an ecosystem's capacity to
absorb it, or if the species effected are keystone species, then the entire system will degrade.

5
Humor should not be understood as wittiness; rather, it is a rich capacity for appreciating
the paradoxes of life, especially the complex, often contradictory, and sometimes all too
simple nature of our species.
 10

This brings us to a seminal tenet of ecology: carrying capacity. Every living system,
including the biosphere, is able to function optimally within finite parameters. When these
parameters are transgressed, the system will inevitably degrade. Suffice it to say that practice,
structure, design, and/ or theory are ecological when they respect both the dynamic inter-
relations of living systems within their nested biotic and abiotic environments, as well as the
carrying capacity. Ecology is an understanding of how things work in the ecos, "household" -
whether an ecosystem or social system. The health of the household depends upon us
conducting ourselves according to this knowledge. When we do so, that is ecological.
Attitude is the interpretive lens through which one regards phenomena. It influences
our every word and deed. If I see a forest as "board feet", then I would have little
compunction in cutting it down, but if I see it as a living and splendid community of
organisms, then I would seek to preserve its integrity. When I speak of a human and
ecological attitude, I am indicating a perspective gained through human and ecological
lenses.
Regarding scale, I intend two meanings. The first meaning has to do with appropriate
proportions, such as the size of a house relative to its surround. The second meaning has to
do with a system of values that are determined by their relationship to the base of the system,
such as a musical score like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in C minor. Both interpretations of
the word, scale, connote a graceful sensibility of right relationship. Disregard either sense of
the word, and one courts discord. So, then, something expressed according to both human
and ecological scales should exhibit qualities that are congruent with both human sensibilities
and ecological necessities.
By design, I mean a basic scheme or pattern that effects and controls function or
development, such as the rhythmic scheme of an epic poem, or the complex pattern of
chaotic attractors. By human and ecological design, I mean a scheme that is in accord with
human and creaturely necessities, and that promotes human virtues and sustains biospheric
viability.
Now, to reiterate the earlier question: which form of government is most human and
ecological in attitude, scale, and design? It is obvious that any regime that is inherently
insensitive and violent to the needs of both societies and ecosystems will not meet the
criteria. So, we may disregard imperialism, totalitarianism, and fascism. Monarchy and
oligarchy, as well as federalism and communism, although not necessarily malevolent, are
 11

historically prone to the abuse of power through unjust allocation and distribution of
resources. This bias is endemic to highly centralized regimes.
Centralization, in general, fails to meet the human and ecological criteria in attitude,
scale, and design. First of all, it fosters self-serving attitudes premised on the demonic values
of greed and vainglory through concentrating too much power in too few hands. Leon
Trotsky, one of the masterminds of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, understood this well:

In inner-party politics, these methods lead, as we shall yet see, to this: the party organization
substitutes itself for the party, tire central committee substitutes itself for the organization,
and, finally, a "dictator" substitutes himself for the central committee.vii

Not all centralized regimes lead to dictatorships, but they do tend towards the
universalization of selfish interests, which is blatantly obvious today in the globalization of
self serving market interests manifested in the GATT treaties. Such attitudes undermine
human virtues, as well as human and non-human communities, and disregard ecological
necessities. Secondly, the scale of government engendered by centralization is far too big to
be adequately responsive to the vicissitudes of human and non-human communities. These
leviathans tend to overwhelm human sensibilities and ecosystem carrying capacities,
promoting moral despair, political disillusionment, civil unrest, and ecosystem degradation.
Finally, centralization is an unsustainable design, simply because it disregards the holarchical
structure of all living systems, human and otherwise. In view of this critique, it is evident that
the various centralized regimes are neither human nor ecological; hence, inadequate to the
job of building a sustainable regime worthy of our participation.
So, what is worthy of our participation? We are left with four types of political
regime: republicanism, democracy, "consensualism", and anarchy. In my opinion, there is a
place for each of these types in a human and ecological regime, because each embodies
practices and theories that facilitate freedom, communication, responsibility, cooperation,
personal efficacy, and participation- qualities that are essential to health of any community.
In ecological terms, these regimes facilitate feedback, which is indispensable if we are to
govern ourselves as good neighbors to our fellow citizens – the red fox, the spade-foot toad,
the spotted owl, the blue whale... These regimes are not equal in capabilities, and should not
be universally applied at every level of society. Each offers distinctive tools for equitably and
responsibly allocating and distributing power and resources. By applying the appropriate
tools at the appropriate levels of the societal and biospheric holarchy, a synthesis of regimens
 12

could occur that might realistically meet the societal and biospheric challenges of the new
millennium. Before we can do this with any wisdom, however, we need to understand the
holarchical structure of human society and the biosphere. Obviously, such an undertaking
could fill volumes (which is the important work that Ken Wilber is doing) and is beyond the
scope of this paper; so, I will draw on the work of Ken Wilber, Eric Jantsch, and Alastair
Taylor regarding holarchy for expediency.viii
Wilber, Jantsch, and Taylor have developed sophisticated models of holarchy that I have
taken the liberty of abridging (Figure 1, pg. 12). They have determined six societal levels
constituting the noosphere – the human sphere – emerging within the biosphere. These are
family systems, kinship systems, village systems, town systems, nation/state systems, and
planetary systems. A significant element of the noosphere – the individual – has been
omitted, because individuals, per se, do not constitute social organizations; rather, they are
agents of organization. Nevertheless, the individual certainly bears upon the discussion of
holarchy and politics. (The anarchist would not have it otherwise.) All told then, there are six
levels of society enacted by individuals, and all are embedded within the biosphere.
Furthermore, there is an analogous relationship between the individual, these six societal
levels, and levels comprising the biosphere:

1. There is the human individual and the non-human individual, both of which are
agents.
2. There is the human family and the non-human family, such as the parent/child
associations within a troop of Chimpanzees. Even plants exhibit micro-associations
spatially related to their "parent(s)", whether or not they are annuals or perennials.
3. There are human kinship systems (tribes) and non-human kinship systems, such as
flocks of geese and herds of buffalo.
4. There are human village systems and non-human "village" systems, such as micro-
ecosystems.
5. There are human town systems and non-human" town" systems, such as a watershed
ecosystem or an Alpine ecosystem.
6. There are human nation/ state systems and non-human "nation/state" systems, such as
a biome or a bioregion.
 13

7. Finally, there is the human planetary system of national alliances and global markets,
and there are the homeostatic processes of the biosphere that are maintained by the
exchange of organic and inorganic currency among the Earth's vast biological
communities.

This is not surprising since, as Gregory Bateson suggested, we are our natural history.
Our human institutions are elaborate recapitulations of themes fashioned by Nature herself,
as can be seen in Figure 1 below.
 14

Now, to grow this ecological regime from the ground up. Earth first! This attitude of
respect and gratitude toward the biosphere is the beginning and the end of any sustainable
regime. It should inform every word and deed.

Our roots are in the dark; the earth is our country. Why did we look up for blessing - instead
of around, and down? What hope we have lies there. Not in the sky full of orbiting spy-eyes
and weaponry, but in the earth we have looked down upon. Not from above, but from below.
Not in the light that blinds, but in the dark that nourishes, where human beings grow human
souls.ix

The first socio-political structure is the family – the root. Without strong and
nourishing families the whole will not hold. It is at our parents’ knees that we learn the
elemental principles of responsibility, compassion, and respect. It is with our brothers and
sisters that we first learn the tenets of fair play, equality, and communication. It is through
the home that we perceive the dimensions of security, which we intuitively know is built
upon trust, and learn our most salient values. Values, such as those Chief Seattle urges in the
following excerpt from his letter to President Franklin Pierce, lay the ground for citizenship
in the ecological regime:

You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of your
grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with
the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the earth is
our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the
ground, they spit upon themselves.x

In order for the family to be strong, there must be a clear order of power between the
parents, between the parents and the children, and between the children. Different families
will configure the power flow differently according to custom and culture, of course.
However, it seems to me that if we are to optimize personal efficacy in preparation for an
active citizenship, while at the same time cultivating respect for our elders (authority), then
the form of family politics should utilize consensual processes within generations, while
maintaining moderate deference between generations. (As the French novelist, Colette,
wrote, "It is not a bad thing that children should occasionally, and politely, put parents in
their place."xi) Everybody is respected in this arrangement, and the basic skills for citizenship
– communication (especially the art of conversation), participation, and responsibility – are
acquired and maintained in an active environment rather than a passive one.
 15

The next development is the kinship system - extended family - that would best be
served by the same structure as that of the family. The affiliations strengthen the ties that
bind us both to one another and the places where our roots are watered. Consensus cultivates
kinship, because it requires that families stay in touch and spend time together for both
mutual support and mutual enjoyment. It, also, disciplines kinship relations, which are often
complicated by deep emotional conflicts, by honing skills in conflict resolution and
diplomacy. The impact of strong, supportive, and disciplined ties to both people and land will
engender seasoned faith in community and common cause for celebration.
Historically, common cause was not only reason for celebration; it was the foundation
of a village. People built villages, because they shared occupations, needs, and values in
common, such as agricultural villages that facilitated the operations of the predominant
farming occupations, as well as supplying their needs for processed agricultural goods, such
as milled flour and woven cotton. The village was a fairly homogenous cultural and political
entity, comprised of a few different kinship lines of various families. Under such conditions,
consensus could effectively serve to facilitate political processes amongst the politically
responsible, such was the practice of Hopi villages and Jewish schtetels, and remains the
practice of Amish communities.
Today, however, most villages, even small ones, are host to long established kinship
lines, as well as various unrelated individuals and nuclear families with no local history. Such
a condition would make consensus difficult at the village level, although not impossible. The
modem village is relatively moderately challenged by pluralism and transience. Different
religious, political, economic, sexual, and cultural views, as well as uncommitted residencies
do not lend to a climate of trust nor to an ethic of land care. Many families in a New England
village do not know their neighbors nor the land held in common by the village (nor, perhaps,
their own backyard). This sad truth can only be remedied by active communication and a call
to responsibility – a policy of neighborliness. Such a policy can be facilitated by consensual
government tempered by democracy in times of stalemate. Even given the challenges of
pluralism and transience, a village is not so big that its members could not become
acquainted well enough to build trust and respect, and to act in mutual aid. Neighborliness
would extend beyond the needs of the people to the needs of the land and its winged, finned,
and four-footed inhabitants, as people and families become increasingly acquainted with
them through the necessity of sustainable land management and the pleasure of recreation.
Democracy, as I mentioned, does have a part to play at the village level, but I think it
 16

should largely be kept in reserve as a last resort. There is great power in rule by majority
vote. Citizens who would be unfavorably effected - the minority - by such power may resent
it unless they were well apprised of the necessity of breaking a stalemate. Decisions, after all,
must be made. Every adult knows this. But let us make these decisions out of profound
respect for all who would be affected - our neighbors. Wendell Berry, as usual, puts it very
well:

If we are to correct our abuses of each other and of other races and of our land, and if our
effort to correct these abuses is to be more than a political fad that will in the long run be
only another form of abuse, then we are going to have to go far beyond public protest and
political action. We are going to have to rebuild the substance and integrity of private life in
this country. We are going to have to gather up the fragments of knowledge and
responsibility that we have parceled out to the bureaus and the corporations and the
specialists, and we are going to have to put those fragments back together again in our own
minds and in our families and households and neighborhoods.xii

The results of open, honest discussion are often surprising. Dan Dagget, who was
honored by the Sierra Club in 1992 as one of the top grassroots activists in America, writes
about surprising resolutions to long term and complicated problems associated with cattle
ranching out West in his book, Beyond the Rangeland Conflict. These resolutions came out
of a decision by some beleaguered ranchers and environmental activists to stop yelling at
each other from their respective ideological pulpits, and to start talking with each other over
beers in ranchers' living rooms and out on the ranchlands in question. His story is an
excellent testimony to the value of dealing with each other as neighbors:

Spending time in such a diverse group, on the very landscape we were all so concerned
about, we began to see that the problems on the western range aren't as simple as the media
have been painting them. As time went along, it became more and more apparent that there
were no villains here, nor heroes - just people. And the land is so much more complex when
you're standing on it...
After looking at hundreds of thousands of acres of rangeland and hearing of the work scores
of people had done, not only to stop degrading the land but to restore and improve it, I found
my perspective on how we can best live as a positive force on America's rangelands
changing. I found myself beginning to believe that we have been focusing too much on what
is wrong with one another and not enough on what each of us has to offer; too much on how
one side or the other can win the fight and too little on how we can all make things better;
too much on issues and too little on the land.xiii
 17

At the town level, however, consensus utterly fails. Towns, which usually are
comprised of tens of thousands of people (in America), are beyond the capacity of effective
consensual dialogue. The proper vehicle of political power at this level is democracy,
especially what Benjamin Barber defines as "strong democracy":

The future of democracy lies with strong democracy – with the revitalization of a form of
community that is not collectivistic, a form of public reasoning that is not conformist, and a
set of civic institutions that is compatible with modern society. Strong democracy is defined
by politics in the participation mode: literally, it is self-government in the name of citizens
rather than representative government in the name of citizens. Active citizens govern
themselves directly here, not necessarily at every level and in every instance, but frequently
enough and in particular when basic policies are being decided and when significant power
is being deployed. Self-government is carried on through institutions designed to facilitate
ongoing civic participation in agenda-setting, deliberation, legislation, and policy
implementation (in the form of" common work"). Strong democracy does not place endless
faith in tire capacity of individuals to govern themselves [well], but affirms with... Theodore
Roosevelt that "the majority of the plain people will day in and day out make fewer mistakes
in governing themselves than any smaller body of men will wake in trying to govern them.”xiv

A town comprised of individuals raised in families and kindred relations where

consensualism was practiced will be eminently characterized by high levels of citizenry
participation and intelligent policy. In such a context, democracy would effectively and
efficiently facilitate public discussion of individual and corporate interests that would bear
upon the public domain, which includes the land. In such a regime, property may remain
private, but activities carried out on such property that effect public lands and water bodies
become public domain. Even without the supportive context of a citizenry reared in
consensual process, democracy would still be the most human and ecological political
practice, because it requires face-to-face participation in the discussion and legislation of
public interests, as is done today in town meetings and civil hearings.
Regarding the challenge of pluralism, democracy encourages intercourse between the
disparate groups for the sake of understanding and the legislating of fair policy. Given the
democratic premise of majority rule, minorities surely would find incentives to ensure their
voice in the public arena.
Of course, once we have come to the level of the town, the criteria of scale
and design come to bear in ways they do not on prior levels. Families, kinship systems, and
villages are small and simple in scale and design, which makes them very comprehensible
and accountable to human sensibilities; so, there is little or no need for representative
government. When you need to discuss a matter with your neighbor, you simply knock on
 18

the door. There is no need to appoint a representative in the matter. Whereas, a town,
although still comprehensible, begins to struggle with accountability due to the size of the
population. This limitation requires the appointment of offices that are invested with
responsibility by the people. Such a design assures, within reason, that the needs of the town
are met. Local individuals are selected – elected – into these offices by a town populace and
are accountable to that populace. This design ushers in republicanism (representative
government).
Republican government is not a "top down" regime; rather, it is "bottom up". Any
official is the individual agent of the public will, not the other way around. So, the
responsibility for shaping the common will remains with the public at large, and the official
is empowered to enact that will. Any resemblance to centralized federal government is
incidental. There is a world of difference between, a republican hierarchy and a federal
hierarchy. In the former, the people empower elected officials. In the latter, officials
empower the people. Democratic republican government retains its connection to the Earth.
Any kind of federalism does not.
The democratic republicanism that served the town will serve the state, the nation,
and the world. Town (city) politics should set the stage all the way up. Of course, there
would be adjustments to allow for the just representation of various public bodies and their
interests, such as the creation of districts, counties, and the like, which are magnitudes of
scale of the town model. Such a system remains comprehensible to human sensibilities,
because at any level the basic rules of "bottom up" representation hold. In other words, no
matter how high an office is, it is lower than (or equal to) the mother tending her children.
This may seem to promote tyranny of the masses, but can there be tyranny when a multitude
of opinions claim the floor? Who is being tyrannized anyway? The officials? The state?
Everybody must join in the dialogue.
And yet, can everybody join in the dialogue when the public is as vast as the former
Soviet Union, or China, or the United States? I do not believe so. Again, the criteria of scale
must come to bear. In considering the countries of the world, I am always impressed with the
public policies of the northern European nation/ states of Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Denmark, as well as others, such as Switzerland, Costa Rica, and New Zealand. What do
they have that we do not have? What they have is less, and they are able to do more with it.
What they do not have is the responsibility of governing anywhere from 250 million to a
 19

billion people over tremendous land expanses. The bigger you are, the less you can do. The
former Soviet Union is an excellent testament to this rule, and the United States is not far
behind with its shrinking middle class, increasing numbers of alienated and disenfranchised
individuals, soaring rates in crime and drug abuse, and the tell-tale presence of mushrooming
militias.
The radical reformation that President Gorbachev initiated through Perestroika and
Glasnost, which dismantled the Soviet empire and led to the creation of the Commonwealth
of Independent States, was a move in the right direction. All the "great" nations of the world
should follow suit, before they are forced by social, political, and economic necessity, as was
the case with the USSR.
You cannot love what you do not know. A country should not be larger than its
citizens' capacity to manage it well and to love it, which would entail first hand knowledge of
both the people and the land – such knowledge as could be had by a "local". In the US, this
could be realized if we subdivided the country into several nation/states defined by generally
contiguous bioregional characteristics. The New England states could become the nation,
New England. The southwestern states, including southern California, could become the
nation, Saguaro. The northern Pacific states west of the Cascade mountain ranges could
become the nation, Cascade. Etceteras. All of these nations could join in a confederacy to
facilitate economic necessities, but without establishing an international body to govern the
confederacy, because such a body would simply return us to the present state of affairs.
Throughout this paper, I have focused primarily upon changes that would promote
and nurture both human and non-human communities. The agent of all this change, of
course, is the individual embedded in community. (We are all invariably embedded in some
kind of contextual community.) As I mentioned earlier, the individual is not a level of social
organization; rather, s/he is the agent of social organizations, and as such s/he is free. This
freedom is critical to the health of the whole, because it permits great flexibility in
responding to the vicissitudes of life. This freedom is not license to do as one pleases without
regard to the social and ecological obligations inherent in community; rather, it is the ground
of personal efficacy and responsibility. If a person is not free, then can s/he be responsible to
oneself, to one's community, to one's bioregion, to one's country, and to one's world? The
freedom inherent in individuality is prerequisite for the mature political person, and is the
seat of responsibility within every community. This law is founded in the soul of nature, as
 20

well as humanity.
It is upon this ground of freedom that anarchy stands. The notion that an anarchist is
opposed to any form of government is immature. The mature anarchist is not opposed to
government if that government is founded by communities of individuals freely willing to
enter into a political contract for the benefit of all. Such an anarchist understands that s/he is
embedded within a community as a responsible member of the community – responsible not
by compulsion but rather by free and informed consent. So, in fact, every citizen of an
ecological regime would be an anarchist. A citizenry characterized by such a perspective
would be the best protection against political corruption and the ever-present threat of
tyranny.

When considering the entire structure, we see that the whole of it is informed by an
attitude of respect for humane and ecological values. We see that the scale is consistently
appropriate in size and attunement to human sensibilities and ecological necessity. And we
see that the design is integrated throughout to facilitate human participation, virtue, and
gratitude towards the biosphere. When attitude, scale, and design agree, a graceful harmonics
arises within the soul of the people. It is like a beautiful song that inspires people to sing. A
humane regime that fosters ecological values will inspire the people to participate.
Such a regime, then, is fundamentally moral, but it is not moral in the legal sense -
"Thou shall not..." Rather, it is moral by way of the heart- a natural morality that requires no
injunction. Because the ecological regime fosters right relationships to our neighbors and to
the land, every citizen knows what is good and just and the benefit of being so. The Buddha
once said, "I am not moral because I ought to be moral; rather, I am moral because there is
benefit in being so." In the same vein, one should not embrace a political regime because we
are told to do so; rather, one should embrace a regime only because there is worthwhile
benefit in doing so. In a humane and ecological regime there is benefit for all.
 21

Appendix
List of Political Regime Types:

1. Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by

the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

2. Totalitarianism: A form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute

and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state,
and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

3. Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,

stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and
censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

4. Monarchy: Government by a monarch, which is often feudalistic in design.

5. Feudalism: A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th
century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to
vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.

6. Oligarchy: Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

7. Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy
and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a
higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

8. Federalism: A system of government in which power is divided between a central

authority and constituent political units.

9. Republicanism: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens
who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. Usually
characterized by a hierarchy of representative government.

10. Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
representatives, wherein the common people are considered the primary source of political
power. It is founded upon the principles of social equality and respect for the individual
within a community. Majority rules.
 22

11. Consensus: Government by the people, wherein political decisions are wrought through
common agreements by al; persons deemed politically responsible. Consensual
government has never existed beyond small societies, such as certain aboriginal tribes,
religious communities, and "hippie" communes.

12. Anarchy: Absence of any forms of political authority or cohesive principle, such as a
common standard or purpose. Decisions are made according to the daily" give and take"
of individual needs and desires.
 23

Bibliography:

1. Barber, Benjamin; Strong Democracy, University of California Press, Berkeley & Los
Angeles, CA, & London, 1984
2. Bateson, G.; Mind and Nature, E.P. Dutton, New York, NY, 1979
3. Berry, Wendell; Continuous Harmony: Essays Cultural and Agricultural, Harcourt Brace
& Company, San Diego, New York & London, 1972
4. Berry, W.; Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community, Pantheon Books, New York & San
Francisco, 1992
5. Chomsky, N., "Notes on Anarchism," New York Review of Books, May 20,1970 5.
Colette, "The Priest on the Wall", My Mother's House, 1922
6. Dagget, Dan; Beyond the Rangeland Conflict, Gibbs-Smith Publishers, Layton, UT, and
The Grand Canyon Trust, Flagstaff, AZ, 1995
7. Daly, Herman; Beyond Growth, Beacon Press, Boston, 1996
8. Goldman, E., "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For", Anarchism and Other Essays,
1910
9. Goldsmith, Edward; The Way: An Ecological World-view, Shambhala, Boston, 1993
10. Hawken, Paul; The Ecology of Commerce, Harper Business, Harper Collins, New York,
NY, 1993
11. Henderson, Hazel; Paradigms In Progress, Knowledge Systems, Inc., Indianapolis, IN,
1991
11. Kemmis, Daniel; Community and the Politics of Place, University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, Oklahoma, and London, 1990
12. Koestler, A., Janus-A Summing Up, Hutchinson, London, 1978
13. Konrad, G., Sunday Correspondent, London, April 15, 1990
14. Lapham, L. H., "Democracy in America?", Harper's, New York, Nov. 1990
15. Le Guin, U. K., "A Left-Handed Commencement Address", to Mills College Class of
1983, Dancing at the Edge of the World, 1989
16. Mander, J. & Goldsmith, E.: editors; The Case Against the Global Economy; Sierra Club
Books, San Francisco, 1996
17. Roelofs, Joan; Greening Cities; The Bootstrap Press, New York, NY, 1996
18. Schumacher, E.F.; Small Is Beautiful; Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, NY, 1973
19. Seattle, Chief; letter to President Franklin Pierce, 1854, Brother Eagle, Sister Sky: A
Message from Chief Seattle, 1990
20. Trotsky, L., Our Political Tasks, 1904, quoted in Isaac Deutscher's, The Prophet Armed,
1963
 24

21. Wilber, K., Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Shambala, Boston & London, 1995
22. Yutang, Lin; Between Tears and Laughter; The John Day Company, New York, NY,
1943
 25

End Notes
i
George Konrad, Sunday Correspondent (London, 15 April 1990)
ii
Lewis H. Lapham, "Democracy in America?" in Harper's (New York, Nov. 1990)
iii
Emma Goldman, "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For", Anarchism and Other Essays, (1910)
iv
Noam Chomsky, "Notes on Anarchism," in New York Review of Books (21 May 1970)
v
Edward Goldsmith, The Way: an Ecological World-View, Shambala, Boston (1993)
vi
Arthur Koestler, Janus-A Summing Up, Hutchinson, London, 1978. Pg.139
vii
Leon Trotsky, Our Political Tasks (1904) Quoted in: Isaac Deutscher, The Prophet Armed,
(1963)
viii
Ken Wilber, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Shambala, Boston & London, 1995. Jantsch and Taylor's
work are referenced therein. Eric Jantsch The Self-Organizing Universe, pg. 132; Alaister Taylor,
"Sociocultural Nonequilibrium Systems Model"
ix
Ursula K. Le Guin, "A Left-Handed Commencement Address," to Mills College Class of 1983
(published in Dancing at the Edge of the World, 1989)
x
Seattle, Chief of the Duwamish, Suquamish and allied Indian tribes. Letter, written in 1854, to
President Franklin Pierce (published in Brother Eagle, Sister Sky: A Message from Chief Seattle,
1990).
xi
Colette, "The Priest on the Wall", My Mother's House, (1922)
xii
Wendell Berry, Continuous Harmony: Essays Cultural and Agricultural, 1972
xiii
Dan Dagget, Beyond the Rangeland Conflict, The Grand Canyon Trust, Flagstaff, Arizona, 1995,
pp. 7-8
xiv
Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London, 1984, pp. 150-151