An alternative view to help reduce the problems within the prevailing model of thinking

It is widely acknowledged that the attitudes, approaches and mechanistic metaphors of the prevailing model of thinking lie at the root cause of the current ecological crisis and finding a means of addressing this is now an imperative. The ecological crisis, Bateson (2000) argues, cannot be understood or addressed in isolation as it is a facet of a deeper total crisis caused by an epistemological error at the root of our thinking. Capra (1987) argues that this has led to a crisis in perception that is just as likely to manifest itself in

dysfunctional economic approaches, attitudes to poverty, approaches in education, patriarchal value systems, religious fundamentalism as it is in the destruction of the natural environment. Finding an effective means of

addressing the dysfunction that has led to the current eco-crisis may require a shift in approach. This may mean dealing not with the symptoms of specific problems but focusing on the epistemological error which Bateson and Capra describe as the cause of the dysfunction.

4.7.1 Deep Ecology

Naess (1984), Capra (1987) Berry (1994), Devall and Sessions (1985) and Fox (1990) argue that an alternative to the prevailing model of thinking is found in a view known as Deep Ecology. They argue for a complete change in ontology, claiming that only a widespread change in human consciousness and a

fundamental change in the way people relate to the environment may begin to address the ecological crisis. They propose to deal with the root causes of the crisis rather than its effects and argue that ‘a shift is needed from an

anthropocentric (person-centred) philosophy with its built in ‘biospheric inegalitarianism’, to a biocentric (life-centred) philosophy which humbly recognises that we are within the environment; that reverence rather than ruthlessness is due to the natural world; that, however special and significant, we are but one creature in an incredibly complex and seamless web of life’

(Greig, 1989: 9). Capra (1987) describes that a consequence of this is that the prevailing mechanistic view will dissipate towards a one that is more

ecological, systemic and holistic.

A fundamental concern of Deep Ecology is with the nature of the cultural transformation needed to achieve sustainable lifestyles. Devall (1993) claims that deep questioning is the starting point towards this transformation. Naess (1984), Devall and Sessions (1985) and Fox (1990) propose that from this questioning arises a notion of self-realisation, a crucial component of this transformation. What this notion means in its simplest form is a state of ecological consciousness that emerges from and produces a systemic and

holistic view. For supporters of Deep Ecology this notion of self-realisation or ecological consciousness is a necessary precursor, a first step to realising a way of thinking and acting that can solve the eco-crisis.

4.7.2 Process thinking

Thiele (1999) similarly argues for the necessity to think ecologically and systemically. He states that an ecological view is positively at odds with and contradicts the mechanistic attitudes and metaphors of the prevailing model of thinking and as such cannot be reached by using approaches derived from the latter. To begin to move towards an ecological perspective, Thiele suggests that a change in perception is necessary so as to break with metaphors derived from mechanistic views. This, he argues, means to conceive the world as in flux, as processes and events that are ceaselessly interacting, unfolding, and transforming and to move towards a mode he characterises as process thinking.

Chia & King (1998), Thiele (1999) and Delanda (2005) describe the basis of process thinking is to conceive the world as sets of interconnected, ceaselessly unfolding and changing events and phenomena. They argue that from a process viewpoint the fundamental ontological principles of reality are

concerned with ‘becoming’ rather than ‘being’. This idea of becoming relates to conceiving the world as composed of unfolding processes that are

ceaselessly interacting, unfolding, and transforming themselves.² In

comparison to metaphors derived from a mechanistic conception of the world, the fundamental features of reality no longer begin with separate entities but

2 This concept informs the practical work of the research and is discussed further in the later chapters.

with processes of change, movement and transformation from which actual entities may appear and disappear. Whitehead (1998: 464) proposes that the idea of reality as relentless processes of becoming and perishing should be the fundamental generalisation around which one should weave one’s

philosophical system, and that ceaseless flow and change must be understood as the basic ontological principles of reality. Delanda (2005) and Chia & King (1998) argue that one should study the processes that lead to entities rather than the entities themselves as notions of stasis, permanence and separation that dominate mechanistic metaphors are only temporary states which are neither indicative of reality nor what one should found their ontological principles upon. They argue that the entities that we see are a temporary manifestation of process, just moments in a perpetual state of assembling and disassembling. In process thinking, movement and change are conceived as fundamental to reality, and immobility is only an extreme limit of the slowing down of such movement, a concept according to Chia & King (1998) that is only reached in human thought but never realised in nature. Chia & King (1998) argue that this process view, where all things are perceived as in a process of relentless

becoming and perishing, is better suited to conceiving the ceaselessly unfolding in-flux nature of reality. Capra (2002) and Chia & King (1998) argue that an implication of process thinking is that it alters the way one thinks about change.

From a mechanistic view one typically thinks in terms of things changing as something that occurs to an entity-like substance. However, from a process view, there is no need to think of any discrete entity as undergoing change as everything is change, and change is process and process is the character of everything. Capra (2002) argues that if process is the character of everything

then one can begin to understand mind and consciousness, not as things but as processes. Following Capra’s insight, if mind is understood as a process then it can no longer be conceived as separate from matter, thus contradicts the very core of mechanistic thinking and its metaphors. If process is recognised as the character of everything then the ideas of separation that underpin the prevailing model of thinking, fail to make any sense. Mesle (2008) and Booth Fowler (1995) each argue that as a consequence of conceiving the world from a

process perspective, as ceaselessly interconnected relational processes, this has the capacity to significantly alter the way one feels and acts in the world. From a process perspective, where everything is tied together as a fusion of

interrelated processes of which humans are integral, there can be no external observer and no separation and thus it may be understood as a foil against entitative conceptions of reality. Humans are inextricably interwoven into participating in the unfolding processes of the world and, as a consequence, one is able to recognise that all of our actions and choices contribute to the

processes of forming the world. Hence fostering an attitude based on recognising the world in terms of change and process may be an important means of engaging with the epistemological error understood to lie at the root cause of problems today. It may help establish an understanding that we and all other entities, processes and events are aspects of a single unfolding reality.

A view of the world from a process perspective produces an explicit critique of the mechanistic attitudes and the methods of the prevailing model and suggests an entirely different set of metaphors to help comprehend the world. The process view of Booth Fowler (1995), Chia & King (1998), Delanda (1999), Capra (2002) and Mesle (2008) is consistent with discussions found in the

ecological thinking of Deep Ecology writers such as Naess (1994), Sessions (1995) and Code (2006). A common understanding throughout the literature is the necessity of finding ways of producing whole systemic viewpoints to counter the partial, selectivity of the approaches of the prevailing model.