Sex, God, and Integral International Development

Today I share with you a 17 minute video that was recorded at a recent Integral Institute conference, where Gail Hochachka, co-director of Integral Without Borders, shares about her work in integral international development and sustainability – “work that is actively reducing suffering, enriching lives, and bringing integral solutions to the parts of the world that need them the most, in places as diverse as Peru, Nigeria, and El Salvador.”  Gail finds this work to be both “sexy” and “godly” Her heart for this work springs ultimately from her own spiritual practice.

This is an inspiring video, and demonstrates how Integral theory and philosophy helps inform and make more effective the work that she does, working toward a world of enduring health.  There is a small amount of Integral jargon, when she talks about “Amber,” “Orange,” and “Green” waves of development. If you need a little primer on that, continue reading below the video.

A short primer on Integral levels or waves of development, borrowed from Sean Esbjorn-Hargens

“Integral theory uses the notion of general altitude as a content-free way of comparing and contrasting development across different domains either within or between quadrants. This is akin to using a thermometer to gauge temperature in a variety of settings—a centigrade thermometer works at the equator just as well as in the arctic, and as a result allows us to compare the weather in those distant places in a meaningful way. Integral theory uses the colors of the rainbow to represent each distinct level (e.g., red, amber, orange, green, teal, turquoise). This spectrum of color also represents the general movement of a widening identity: from “me” (egocentric) to “my group” (ethnocentric) to “my country” (sociocentric) to “all of us” (worldcentric) to “all beings” (planetcentric) to finally “all of reality” (Kosmoscentric) (see Fig. 6)…Integral theory also uses the image of concentric circles … to highlight the nested quality of levels transcending and including each other (see Fig. 6).”

Figure 6. Widening identity (left) and the nested quality of levels as they transcend and include each other (right).

The inclusion of levels in an integral approach is valuable because it recognizes the many potential layers of development within any domain of reality. Practitioners gain valuable traction by aiming their efforts at the appropriate scale and thereby finding the key leverage point—like an acupuncturist hitting the right spot for optimal health and well-being. This conserves energy and resources and focuses efforts optimally. For example, imagine working with a group of teachers on developing a new mission statement for their educational program. Clearly, working with the realities of the LL quadrant will be paramount—articulating shared vision and meaning, exploring via dialogue various phrases that might be used in the document, and so on. But you are going to be more effective in facilitating this collaborative process if you have a sense of the levels of shared meaning that are operative in this group and what they are trying to communicate in their statement. Are they operating primarily out of modern values, postmodern values, or a combination of both? Knowing this will greatly inform your capacity to serve their effort.”

Aspects and Perspectives on Localization and Relocalization

Our local Transition Initiative is currently running a book study group, going through Rob Hopkins’ latest book, The Transition Companion. Last week we looked at Chapter 4: “Resilience and Localisation.” The equivalent chapter in the previous book, The Transition Handbook, is “Why Small Is Inevitable.”  Both of these chapters are excellent introductions to the topic of “Localisation” (the term used in the Companion” or “Relocalization” (the term used in the Handbook.

In this post, I want to share some additional resources available online.  A variety of articles that provided some interesting perspectives on the topic.

‘Localism’ or ‘Localisation’? Defining our terms

by Rob Hopkins (Transition Culture, 2010)
“There is often confusion within the peak oil/Transition movement about the distinction between the terms ‘localism‘ and ‘localisation‘.  On Energy Bulletin yesterday, Richard Moore’s piece, ‘The Emergence of Localism” was actually referring, I would argue, to localisation, not localism.  In the UK, in the context of the government’s Big Society agenda, the two definitely mean very different things.  Here is section from my forthcoming thesis which explores this distinction.  ‘Localism’ or ‘localisation’?  The national context.
My comment at end of Hopkins’ article above:
‘Localization’ or Relocalization’? Defining Our Terms
by David MacLeod (2010)

I’m surprised to see that there is no discussion about the term ‘relocalization’ here.

If localism refers primarily to governance, and localization is a response to economic globalization, then relocalization can be defined as a response to peak oil and climate change.

As a member of a group that was part of the Post Carbon Institute’s Relocalization Network, we found the distinction to be important, especially due to the fact that we were in a community where the flagship organization of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies already existed (Sustainable Connections).

Here’s how the Relocalization Network defined the term:
“Relocalization is a strategy to build societies based on the local production of food, energy and goods, and the local development of currency, governance and culture. The main goals of Relocalization are to increase community energy security, to strengthen local economies, and to dramatically improve environmental conditions and social equity.
The Relocalization strategy developed in response to the environmental, social, political and economic impacts of global over-reliance on cheap energy. Our dependence on cheap non-renewable fossil fuel energy has produced climate change, the erosion of community, wars for oil-rich land and the instability of the global economic system.
The tagline the Relocalization Network used, to put the term into the smallest nutshell was “Reduce Consumption; Produce Locally.”

Jason Bradford wrote a greate piece on Relocalization for the Oil Drum. He characterized the idea as follows:

“The case for relocalization will be made in the context of responding sensibly to two problems facing societies right now: climate change and peak oil and gas. Both problems are a result of our dependency on fossil fuels, but some solutions to one will only exacerbate the other. This is why a new approach, that of relocalization, is necessary.
Relocalization is based on a systems approach that doesn’t solve one set of problems only to make another problem worse.

…Relocalization starts from the premise that the world is a finite place and that humanity is in a state of overshoot. Perpetual growth of the economy and the population is neither possible nor desirable. It is wise to start planning now for a world with less available energy, not more.
…While we can’t know future threats precisely, scientists do agree that creating a carbon-cycle neutral economy should be the dominant task occupying our minds. This is exactly what Relocalization aims to do.
…Relocalization advocates rebuilding more balanced local economies that emphasize securing basic needs. Local food, energy and water systems are perhaps the most critical to build. In the absence of reliable trade partners, whether from peak oil, natural disaster or political instability, a local economy that at least produces its essential goods will have a true comparative advantage.
…Instead of working to keep a system going that has no future, it calls us to develop means of livelihood that pollute as little as possible and that promote local and regional stability. Since much of our pollution results from the distances goods travel, we must shorten distances between production and consumption as much as we can.
…Relocalization recognizes the liabilities of fossil fuel dependency and promotes greater security through redevelopment of local and regional economies more or less self-reliant in terms of energy, food and water systems. Many social benefits might accrue to a relocalized society, including greater job stability, employment diversity, community cohesion, and public health.”

Relocalization: A Strategic Response to Climate Change and Peak Oil
by Jason Bradford (The Oil Drum, 2007)

Community Rights vs. States Rights vs. Federal Law
by David MacLeod (Integral Permaculture, 2012)
A somewhat controversial post I wrote, posted both on my blog and at Energy Bulletin.  This post was mis-interpreted by some, but I was wanting to bring attention to some gray areas, and to point out that different people and groups have different goals when they talk about going local, and that we need to think very carefully about how we apply these concepts.  Specifically about relocalization, I wrote:
I’m a big believer in relocalization, but I still believe we need to work within the realm of federal laws as well as our continued connection with the world as a whole.
“This will not be an isolationist process of turning our backs on the global community. Rather it will be one of communities and nations meeting each other not from a place of mutual dependency, but of increased resilience.”
– Rob Hopkins, The Transition Handbook
As Jason Bradford wrote, “Relocalization is based on an ethic of protecting the Earth System–or Natural Capital– knowing that despite our cleverness, human well-being is fundamentally derived from the ecological and geological richness of Earth.”
The main feature of Relocalization, however, is not home rule government overriding federal law.  It is about building a parallel public infrastructure whose goal is “rebuilding more balanced local economies that emphasize securing basic needs. Local food, energy and water systems are perhaps the most critical to build. In the absence of reliable trade partners, whether from peak oil, natural disaster or political instability, a local economy that at least produces its essential goods will have a true comparative advantage.”
We Don’t Live in Neverland
by John Michael Greer (The Archdruid Report, 1/30/13)
Thanks to Garrett Snedaker for pointing me to this and the following recent articles by Mr. Greer. Greer touches on some of the same themes that I wrote about above, but in his own inimitable style, and with his own unique insights.
“Those of my readers who have been following the peak oil scene for any length of time will have encountered any number of enthusiastic discussions of relocalization: the process, that is, of disconnecting from the vast and extravagant global networks of production, consumption, and control that define so much of industrial society, in order to restore or reinvent local systems that will be more resilient in the face of energy shortages and other disruptions, and provide more security and more autonomy to those who embrace them.

A very good case can be made for this strategy…[and] each of these arguments comes with its own downside, which by and large you won’t find mentioned anywhere on those same websites…”

The Center Cannot Hold
by John Michael Greer (The Archdruid Report, 2/07/13)
“I’d like, to pursue the point a little further, to offer two unpopular predictions about the future of American government.  The first is that the centralization of power in Washington DC has almost certainly reached its peak, and will be reversing in the decades ahead of us. The second is that, although there will inevitably be downsides to that reversal, it will turn out by and large to be an improvement over the system we have today.  These predictions unfold from a common logic; both are consequences of the inevitable failure of overcentralized power.”
I’ll close with references to two essays from The Post Carbon Reader that are available to download.
Economy: The Competitiveness of Local Living Economies
by Michael Shuman (The Post Carbon Reader, 2010)
“The only thing standing in the way of localization is policy-makers committed to propping up noncompetitive global corporations.”
Building Resilience: What Can Communities Do?
by Rob Hopkins (The Post Carbon Reader, 2010)
“Community matters when we are looking for responses to peak oil and climate change because of the power that emerges from working together and creating meaningful change through shared action.”