Worries about how to proceed and perpetuating the problems

Throughout Bateson’s late writing and against the context of a worsening ecological crisis, there is an urgency to find an adequate means of addressing this problem. Although he acknowledges the benefits of a change in

consciousness from the mechanist metaphors of the prevailing model to a systemic and ecological view, he is reluctant to propose or advocate how this

might be achieved. Bateson is particularly concerned about the use of linear problem solving approaches in response to the crisis as he argues these are deeply implicated in the attitudes of the prevailing model of thinking and in the production of the crisis. A linear approach to problem solving, Bateson claims, is a symptom of error at the core of the prevailing model. He states that the conscious problem solving approach of the prevailing model is pathological and that we shall maintain these pathologies for as long as we continue using its premises, approaches and metaphors. He is worried that using linear problem solving approaches will exacerbate and perpetuate rather than address the problems, and that any approach, irrespective of good intention, that seeks to solve problems will be guided by values, beliefs and motivations that may contain their own systemic error and dysfunction. Bateson (2000) is also worried that attempting to change the behaviour of another, even if well intentioned, assumes a position of power and knowing over a subordinate. He argues that at the root of desires to control and change another’s behaviour are problematic attitudes that are symptomatic of the hierarchical approaches of the prevailing model prevalent, what Bateson describes as ‘philosophies of control’

(2000b: 49). It follows that before trying to solve a problem we need to acknowledge the potential dysfunction in our own views and also to consider the way our approach may perpetuate the very problems we seek to address.

He summarises this problem when he writes that ‘the problem of how to transmit our ecological reasoning to those who we wish to influence in what seems to be an ecologically good direction is itself an ecological problem’

(Bateson, 2000a: 473).

Bateson argues that whilst using a linear problem solving approach may temporarily address problems, in the long term one cannot know if this may also lead to further problems and thus lead to more dysfunction. In the context of the current ecological crisis, attempts to address causes of climate change through developing new technologies may bring about some solutions but may also result in the amplification of problems or the perpetuation of dysfunction.

For example, in trying to address the problem of C0² emissions, bio fuels and nuclear power have been considered as potential solutions. Although both options present a way of addressing the symptoms of the problem, the deeper malaise at the root cause of the ecological crisis is ignored, and thus the dysfunctional attitudes remain. Bateson is deeply concerned that ameliorative actions determined by ones own considerations of purpose, although potentially well meaning, may well not only perpetuate the approaches of the prevailing model but also the fundamental epistemological error at the root cause of the problem. Charlton (2008) writes that ‘decisions made by processes of

conscious reasoning would inevitably be tainted and rendered dangerous by the very fact that they were the product of the same linear conscious

purposefulness that was producing so much ecological damage’ (2008: 115).

Bateson describes problem solving approaches steered by conscious purpose as an aberration, akin to ‘a deviant mind, a kind of insanity’ (2008: 5), yet they will more than likely be the basis for actions that seek to address the worsening ecological crisis. It seems clear that we need to find a means of address that does not perpetuate or embody the narrow purposive attitudes and mechanistic metaphors of the prevailing model. It follows that speculating upon how we

might begin to think differently means to devise ways so that one might break from approaches defined by conscious purpose and linear problem solving.

The insights from Deep Ecology and Process Thought produce metaphors that can help imagine an alternative way of thinking about the world that may address many of the problems caused by the error at the root of our thinking.

However, it follows that one cannot simply propose these as the solution to the problem as this would simply reinforce the logic of the linear problem solving approach. Also, even though the benefits of adopting a Process or Deep Ecology view are recognised, it is not a given that one can simply switch one’s perspective even if one wishes to. The thesis argues that seeking to switch perspective from mechanistic to systemic is the embodiment of the problem solving prevailing view. Thus the aim of the research is not to propose that the Deep Ecology or Process view should replace the prevailing model as this is neither possible nor desirable. Seeking to replace one view (mechanistic) with another that is supposedly more adequate (Process) would clearly embody a mechanistic attitude.

As a consequence the aim is to shift the way one thinks about the problem so that one seeks to find ways to critically engage with, rather than replace the prevailing model of thinking. The insights from Deep Ecology and Process Thought represent alternative ways of thinking about the world and provide the theoretical basis and guiding metaphors for what this critical engagement might mean and achieve. The research problem is to explore how art can contribute to this alternative view and act critically within the prevailing model, and set up the possibility for thinking and acting differently. The subsequent chapters

discuss this problem fully. The final section briefly considers how art might work to set up the possibility for an alternative way of thinking and acting.