I think you raise an excellent point concerning the natural tendency of
people to want to dissect sustainability into three parts - ecological,
economic, and social. I try to avoid the habit of referring to
sustainability as having three "parts" - although the reductionism habit is
hard to break. Instead, I think of sustainability as a single entity that
has three distinct "dimensions" -- in the same sense that a wooden box has
three dimensions; height, length, and width. A box that lacks any one or
two of these dimensions is not a box at all, but instead is an infinitely
thin board or stick. We can't understand the fundamental nature of a box
by taking it apart and looking at its height, length, or width separately.
We have to understand the concept of a box as a whole. But, once we
understand the holistic concept of a box; knowing its height, length, and
width become important descriptive dimensions. A fundamental problem with
sustainability is that, unlike a box, we can't measure the three dimensions
of sustainability using inches or feet or any single unit of measure.
That's one reason why we simply cannot ignore the fact that sustainability
has these different dimensions.
It really doesn't matter to me whether we come to the sustainability issue
from an economic, ecological, or social perspective, as long as we give due
consideration to all three dimensions. I have no problem with your
suggestion that we approach sustainability from a social/cultural
perspective as long as we give adequate consideration to the economic and
ecological dimensions. I agree that we have given far too much emphasis to
the economics and too little emphasis to social organization in the past,
but we don't want to make a similar mistake by ignoring the economic
dimension in the future. We can't make a bigger box simply by making one
that it taller, or wider, or longer - by concentrating on one dimension and
ignoring the other two. You included "the values of stewardship,
self-reliance, humility and holism" in your description of sustainable
social organization. I just prefer to deal with the dimensions more
explicitly so that none gets left out.
John Ikerd
-----Original Message-----
From: jim worstell [mailto:jvworstell@futura.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:17 PM
To: Hal Hamilton; Wilson, Dale;
sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Social and political aspects
By accepting a reductionistic three component definition of
sustainability we invite people to delete or redefine the "social" component
as wilsondo@phibred.com <mailto:wilsondo@phibred.com> and others do.
The original source for the three part definition seems to
be misleading simplification of a 1984 analysis by Gordon Douglass.
Douglass described three schools of thought regarding agricultural
sustainability. The "community school" , in contrast to the other two
schools, "pays most attention to the effects of different agricultural
systems on the vitality, social organization, and culture of rural life".
"[I]t's members are also ecologically minded, but their prime interest is in
promoting vital, coherent, rural cultures that encourage the values of
stewardship, self-reliance, humility, and holism".
The "social aspects" then become not one leg of
sustainability, but the entire foundation. Any economic or ecological
"profit or loss" results from these social structures. Such an approach
underscores the qualitative difference of sustainable and conventional
agricultural systems.
Think about abandoning component thinking for a more
holistic approach. Aren't "vital, coherent rural cultures" common to all
sustainable agricultural systems?
Stressing profit and ecology instead, as we have here in the
U.S., have led us into our present quagmire of agricultural crisis. Social
organization which encourages "the values of stewardship, self-reliance,
humility and holism," appears to provide the long-term solution. Yet we've
allowed such concepts to be marginalized to the point of extinction in ag
policy debates.
Douglass' book, Agricultural Sustainability in the New World
Order, in out of print, but a webpage discussing some of his ideas can be
found at www.canr.msu.edu/bailey/background/pub
<http://www.canr.msu.edu/bailey/background/pub> 3.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Hamilton <hhamilton@centerss.org
<mailto:hhamilton@centerss.org> >
To: Wilson, Dale <WILSONDO@phibred.com
<mailto:WILSONDO@phibred.com> >; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
<mailto:sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu>
<sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
<mailto:sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu> >
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: Social and political aspects (was:
Questions on organic
livestock...)
>Dale,
>
>Sustainable agriculture, as defined by Congress and
many others, has a
social leg to balance environmental and economic legs.
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu
<mailto:majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu> with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe
sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu
<mailto:majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu> with the command "subscribe
sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
<http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail