backyard farm

Agrarianism, Spirituality, and Myth – Some Questions

by Jonni on September 13, 2011

Pin It

I’m going to get a bit philosophical today. No gardening advice, no pictures of the achocha fruit or the chickens. You’ve been forewarned. :)

Last week I read Michael Bunker’s book Surviving Off Off-Grid: Decolonizing the Industrial Mind. I tried to talk several other people into reading it, because I’d love to have a conversation about  this book and several others I’ve read recently. I imagined lively talks about philosophy and spirituality and sustainable living, all accompanied by a few beers and some home-made pizza (caramelized onion and feta cheese – yum).

Unfortunately, people weren’t very excited about my suggestion because I didn’t do a very good job of explaining why the book was especially important to me, (and maybe because I left out the part about the beer and pizza). I think I told them it was a book about a family that moved back to the land in a somewhat radical way, but it was much, much more than that. Since my error probably means that my offline friends won’t be reading the book any time soon, I thought I’d try again with you, my online acquaintances. Maybe we can get that conversations started. Or not. Perhaps you need to be a geek of a certain sort to find this kind of thing interesting. Anyway…

Here’s why I think the book is important:

Michael Bunker and a group of like-minded people came together to form the foundation of a new tribe, a sustainable community that, like the Amish and Mennonites, has a very good chance of surviving almost unchanged even if the global economy were to collapse entirely (which seems more likely every day).  The value of Mr Bunker’s book is not that he described a way of life on the land that is more respectful of nature and more sustainable, although that’s important. The thing that matters most is that he recognizes the power of myth – especially the power of the unacknowledged myths that most of us unconsciously live by. Because we don’t question the most basic ideas that govern our society, we’re trapped into wishing things were different, but we can’t quite find a way to change our lives in a truly meaningful way.

I think there are many people in the world who, like myself, would like to belong to a sustainable agrarian community like the one Mr. Bunker and his neighbors are building, but we haven’t figured out how to make it happen. So we try to make our city life more sustainable, grow a bigger garden, get rid of the car, hang out with like-minded people. But the desire for community still nags at us, even though it always seems unattainable.

I believe that a lot of people in modern America feel almost as anxious as a duck that’s been separated from its flock – in the background of our consciousness is a need to belong to a community, a tribe. We want something more than a group of friends with similar interests, or a career that lets us work beside other with the same education or skills. This anxiety may be present, but not always acknowledged, even in those of us who enjoy living a fairly solitary lifestyle. We enjoy our own company, but we sense that something else is needed. But how do we find it?

If we’re Christians, and if we can accept Mr. Bunker’s somewhat radical interpretation of the bible, we might gather a few friends and neighbors together and use his blueprint, just as he presents it in his book. I suspect that this is entirely possible, and it may be exactly what many people are looking for.

However, for some of us, the bible isn’t the right source of inspiration for this kind of radical change in our lifestyle. That’s certainly true for me, and I’ll talk about that more a bit later.

But I am now convinced that we can’t build the foundation of a new, sustainable community without a story of our own. It doesn’t need to be the same story that Mr. Bunker and his community chose for themselves, but there must be a story.

Why is a story, or, more correctly, a mythology, so important? Why can’t we simply find other people who would also like to live a sustainable lifestyle, and join together with them on a plot of land, or buy or build houses next to each other, and build a new community? It’s certainly been tried before, and on rare occasions it has even worked. But very few communities of this type have survived more than one generation, and they often fail after just a few years. And besides, most of us can’t even talk our spouse or partner into making such a radical lifestyle change, let alone finding 5 or ten other families who’ll help us build a new community.

A truly sustainable community built around homesteading and organic practices and integrated agriculture or permaculture requires hard work. The greater society whispers that it’s “too much work,” that “it’s weird,” and “un-American.” (Ever try doing something as simple and rational as giving up sugar? Then you know how hard your friends and family can work to keep you from doing things differently. And how hard it is to oppose them.)

As Mr. Bunker suggests, we live in a world in which we’re bombarded by stories every day, from TV, movies, the radio, school textbooks, the Internet – and each one of those stories helps to perpetuate the mythology of our culture, to create, in Mr. Bunker’s words, the “colonized mind.” But exactly what is that mythology that so pervades our airwaves? What is it that we believe, exactly, and why? Where did our common ideas come from?  Most of us never question the things we accept as true, because we don’t choose the stories we’ll live by, even if we truly believe that we’re “progressive” or “enlightened.” We tend to accept the hidden ideas that, intentionally or otherwise, keep us from questioning the status quo in radical ways — pervasive stories constantly remind us that there is great value in being “normal,” as it is defined by our debt-driven society. We must not color too far outside the lines.

There’s another reason why a story is important–a story can act as the catalyst for a new community. Octavia Butler, (one of the authors who were recommended by the readers of the Green Wizard forum), suggested in her Parable novels that people are naturally distrustful of each other–especially during a time of crisis. The characters in her novels transformed their natural distrust into a common purpose by adopting a particular story. In fact, she seems to suggest that the need for community is so strong that almost any story will do, even if most of the people in the group don’t believe it at first. But without a common purpose built into a powerful story, people will remain apart. Stories are a form of magic.

We need that magic, because we have to be able to imagine a thing before it can be brought into existence. Creating a community where none existed before is a huge creative project — so huge, in fact, that many of us can’t see how it would be possible to make it happen. Stories and myths and celebration and song can help us imagine a new world. And once enough of us imagine it, we can build it. Or that, at least, is what I now believe.

As Joseph Campbell suggested, if we want to change the world, we need a new mythology.

What myths could we embrace with that kind of enthusiasm if we can’t, for one reason or another, accept Mr. Bunker’s radical interpretation of the bible. Or the bible itself? What myths can we use in place of the unacknowledged myths of consumerism, global interventionism and debt?

Could we take a cue from the modern-day Druids, and write a new mythology that feels as timeless as the earth? What new traditions would we want to create? What grand purpose would our stories point to; what kinds of behaviors would our mythology encourage and discourage; how would our new mythology help us relate to the world around us? And, how many new stories could be written, and how many new tribes could come into existence, if the idea catches on? If that happened, how would our world change?

If you’re still reading this, you must find this idea somewhat interesting. What do you think? If you helped write the stories that become the foundation of a new community — the kind of community you would enjoy living in — what kind of stories would they be? What stories from other writers, both ancient and modern, do you feel have that kind of power? Which words of wise women and men from the past would you want to include?

Here are a few of the things that would be important to me:

First, I do feel rather strongly that any new mythology should be written by more than one person. When people come together around a story that’s written by just one person, (Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard comes to mind), some rather weird things seem to happen. A mythology needs to be complicated enough, and even contain enough contradictions within it, to allow each new generation to interpret it in new ways. This is the equivalent of the need for diversity in genetics – without this diversity, a tribe might become too rigid in its beliefs and this could make it hard for them to adapt as the world changes.

I would want our stories to revolve around two creatures whose lives are intricately entwined with ours – the honey bee and the earthworm. The way we care for these creatures will determine the fate of human life on earth, so I believe we need to elevate them to the sacred. There should be a provision for celebrating our relationship with these creatures, (it would be nice to include mead in the celebrations for the bees). People with a strong affinity for these creatures might become important spiritual leaders of the tribe.

There are many ancient stories and traditions that celebrate bees. We could borrow some of those traditions, or write new ones of our own.

I don’t know of any cultures that honor the earthworm, but it’s easy to imagine that they commune with the ancestors and with the spirits of the earth, so if we can’t find ancient stories or traditions, we could certainly come up with new ones. Which would, naturally, require a certain sense of humor and a willingness to take ourselves less seriously than normal. Perhaps mead would be helpful in the writing, too.

I would like to borrow the words of wise men and women who have shown a deep understanding of human nature and who honor the relationship of humans with other creatures of the earth. And we shouldn’t shy away from including stories or sayings that may contradict other parts of our compiled mythology, because contradictions are an important part of life.

A few questions we might want to ponder:

  • What story or group of traditions and ceremonies would be powerful enough to allow a small permaculture-oriented or integrated agriculture/agrarian community to continue through generations, no matter what happens in the outside world?
  • How could that story be large enough, and encompass enough truth, so that the members of the community could use it as a way to determine if their own actions and plans are in keeping with the greater purpose for them and the community as a whole?
  • How could the story be made be interesting enough, and complicated enough, so each person and each generation can interpret it in new ways to fit the changes that are inevitable in life?

I do hope that, if you think any of this is worth thinking about, you’ll read Mr. Bunker’s book so you can see what he and his neighbors have been able to do, using the power of myth. If you would like to play with this idea, please suggest some ways that we could work together as a group. I’d also like to know if you were persuaded by Mr. Bunker’s arguments about the un-sustainability of city life. I have learned in this last year that I can’t grow enough food on a small city lot for even one person, which means that I can’t grow enough for my neighbors, either. And they’re not even trying to grow their own. That convinced me that Mr. Bunker was right – we can’t survive in the city if the trucks stop running. If you disagree, please let us know why.

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Jonni September 14, 2011 at 5:50 pm

To clarify:
(Yes, I’m talking to myself again. but it takes time for me to work these things through…)

I think the idea that one must “believe” the stories that define a culture is actually a myth in itself. Stories that explain the way the world works and our relationship to that world don’t need to be factually or historically correct in order to be powerful, or in order to provide a purpose for a community. Therefore, I believe it’s possible that a group of people can simply have fun, perhaps even indulge in a bit of whimsy, while developing their origin stories. Too much seriousness is not necessarily a good thing.

Also, I would like to incorporate stories that honor intentional poverty (since we might as well appreciate what we may be in our future whether we want it or not. If we embrace it on purpose, it will come as less of a shock when the excesses of our oil-driven economy are no longer available to us).

And I’d like to incorporate a respect for knowledge about useful technology and inventions of the past, along with the classics of literature and science and spirituality, so that being a keeper of the books, (or whatever our librarian is called), will be a career worth aspiring to. This brings to mind the monastic communities of the Middle Ages, but without the prohibitions against pleasure and worldly joy.

And lastly, while I believe that the world may be inhabited by many non-material beings or spirits, I don’t believe there’s any reason to assume that they all have benevolent intent towards humans, or even that they have any interest in us at all. The ancient methods of contacting these beings have been lost for many years, and any made-up magic rites intended to manipulate the behavior of these beings to our own benefit could have rather unfortunate consequences. I would like the spirits of the world to be honored, but left pretty much alone.

Reply

Xan September 14, 2011 at 9:04 pm

I love it when you get all lets-us-really-do-this-thing!

I’ve just downloaded the Nook version of this book, and will read it with great interest.

We’ve talked about communities before, and it was a pretty hot topic! Coincidentally, I’ve recently been doing searches for “find your tribe”, and following the linky trails that turned up. I’ve also been browsing around about the concept of Wabi, with its roots in serene poverty, and the beauty of simple things. I wonder if studying eastern monastic life might not give a closer sense of what you’re imagining than christian-based monasticism. I don’t know enough about that to say.

While I don’t now, I’ve lived off-grid in the past, in a relatively small rural community. It wasn’t an “intentional community”, just a string of small towns on the rugged northern California coast, but the sense of belonging, of having a network of people who were able to connect for important things on both a private and civic level, was wonderful. I’ve been a part of a seasonal community that never got over 150 people, which heightened that sense of “tribe”, and it was even better! Even if I didn’t know, or even like, every individual, it was still a sort of extended family, in which I was able to both contribute and be a hermit a lot of the time.

Bla bla! Back to your point: I like the idea of community. The mythology thing scares me, however. People tend to make such stories not just a way of glueing a group together, but also of keeping others out, or justification for lots of oppressive and even violent stuff. We don’t seem able to remember that our self-created myths are just that: fictions we imagined to explain stuff or codify societal norms. It’s attractive: we all like stories, but it still scares me.

I’m not sold on the idea that an intentional community can’t survive without a made-up story, though it seems to me that the *intention* does need to be clear, and might stand in for what you mean when you say “story”.

A beautiful community for me might be one where both food and flowers are grown, all mixed together; where homes are comfortable, but simple; where the level of technology is appropriate to the needs of the community and the environment; where social life is supported and creative while being tolerant of individuals’ needs; where there would be a communal dining and kitchen area, but also modest kitchens in the homes if desired; where the products of the land are held in common, and respectfully shared; and in *MY* ideal community, no animals would be used, though benign cooperation would be encouraged.

So, that’s my first reaction. I’ll be interested to see what else people come up with!

Reply

Jonni September 15, 2011 at 1:02 am

I like your idea of an ideal community. Something very much like that seems to be running around in my head, too. (I’m not sure about the animal thing – I think we might have some disagreements there. But only minor ones). I think that the unsettled situation of the economy, the peak oil problem, etc., etc., is causing a lot of us wondering what we should do next.

I haven’t heard of the Wabi before. I’ll check it out. It sounds interesting. I probably shouldn’t have used the word “monastic” since it has such strong religious connotations, (and I’m not really a very religious person), but I do like the idea of a group of people who take knowledge very seriously – more seriously than the acquisition of stuff. I don’t think it should be against the rules to acquire stuff, but I do like the Potlatch idea, which reminds people that ownership is meant to be temporary. Acquiring is fun. But we seem to take it to an extreme.

Let us know what you learn about finding one’s tribe – it would be a lot easier to find one than to start one from scratch. I much prefer the idea of people moving in next door to each other, rather than an intentional community that screens it’s new members and where land and homes are held in common. That just seems a bit too “together” to me. And it doesn’t feel quite natural. How many communes have survived for more than a few years?

I think that intentional communities make a mistake when they try to find members who all think alike. They often advertise that they’re looking for specific outgoing personality types, as if having no shy or withdrawn people in the community will somehow help them stay together. Aside from the fact that this would leave me out, it also seems like they’re dooming themselves from the start. The tiny town my grandparents helped build here in the valley had all sorts of eccentric personalities, some of them likeable, some not. It made for great stories – and for a real community, like the one you describe in California.

Your point about the dangers of stories is well taken. I would not want a community built around doctrine. But a shared purpose would sure be nice. That’s why any stories we did develop would have to be open-ended somehow, and allow a huge diversity of opinions. I think the primary value of choosing stories is that it reminds us that there is magic in every story we hear- we become almost hypnotized when we watch a TV show or listen to the news. We might know the author or actors have an agenda that may be completely different from our own views, and we think we can reject the ideas they’re offering while enjoying the story itself. But the ideas still get stuck in our minds, and help define our own sense of “normal.” If you choose your own stories, or make up your own, at least you aren’t just accepting the ideas that are thrown at us, willy-nilly, from the society at large.

We don’t call our TV shows and movies and YouTube videos “mythology.” So maybe we shouldn’t call our own stories Mythology either. Maybe in your community you’d just prefer to write your own plays and children’s books and school textbooks, which would help to create a common language and reinforce your point of view. That might slow down the thought police – but who decides what plays to write and what stories to tell the kids? How do you know what your community’s purpose is, exactly? Even if that decision isn’t written down in the form of a fictional narrative, isn’t there a threat that someday it could become doctrine? And is “someday” something that we can control?

A hint, by the way. If you get bogged down by the somewhat opinionated religious passages in that book, I found it helped if I replaced each “God willing” with “Insha’Allah.” That way, I could see that he wasn’t actually directing that portion of the book at me, since he only seemed concerned with the right-thinking of fellow Christians – adding terms from another culture reminded me that I was reading the words of a man who lives in another culture. That made it easier for me to see the parts that felt real to me, and to ignore the rest.

And, I’m not sure we’ll get any more comments – you may be my only reader on this blog. I’ll try to round up a few more somewhere… Keep thinking, and keep sharing. Your ideas are always thought-provoking.

Reply

Jonni September 16, 2011 at 4:11 am

The town of Vernonia in Oregon seems to be for sale. Maybe we should all move in there. Not much more sun than up your way, though.

Reply

Jonni September 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm

I just started reading Ensouling Language by Stephen Buhner, and for no obvious reason this question popped up in my mind:

If we approached the building of a community as a huge communal art project, fully hoping that we would somehow, someday, approach that state of focus, the zone, that one magically encounters (without knowing exactly why) when the process of art “works,” would we be so concerned about openly stating what we believe? Wouldn’t the process of finding out what we believe, the mythology that sings to us because it feels right and true – wouldn’t that process in itself be joyful and sacred? When we paint or sculpt or write, we hope to tell the truth, or, at least, the small portion of the truth that we can access at the time. But when we consider the idea of finding the larger truth that governs our lives, we worry that others may not agree, that it might exclude people, or that some people might not know how to think for themselves so they hold on to our version of the truth as though it were the word of god. (And we know what can happen then…)

People can have that creative focus when designing a house or a garden or a painting or a life. Why not try to find it as a group while creating something together?

Reply

Xan September 16, 2011 at 6:42 pm

Quick note to let you know I’m thinking up a wordy and pertinent response, which will take me approximately 6 days. Maybe we’ll have some more participants in this convo at that point! H is contributing, at least where I can hear him. I may have to quote him to get his voice in here.
Have a good weekend!

Reply

Jonni September 16, 2011 at 7:02 pm

I can’t wait – for both of you and your insightful comments. The wordier the better.

Reply

Jonni September 16, 2011 at 7:12 pm

I thought of something this morning, along these lines. In the past I’ve always dismissed the idea that Christian home-schoolers should keep their kids out of public school to keep them from being indoctrinated by the society at large. Since the kind of indoctrination they prefer instead doesn’t fit with my own world view, I dismissed the whole idea as silly. But everyone lives by a set of principals and beliefs, and those ideas have to come from somewhere. Right now, I’m wondering why we’re so calm about the fact that a president we elected, in part, because he stood up against the Iraq war is now working with staff to find the legal justification for assassinating people in other countries, while also starting several wars that have not received the congressional OK, which is also the law. We went through all this back in the 70′s. Now we’re exporting the kind of things that we firmly believe will never happen here.

Isn’t it possible, just for the sake of argument, that assassinations have become acceptable again, in part, because we watch NCIS and other shows like it every day of the week? Are we giving up the principals our country was founded on, because we’ve been indoctrinated by all these stories? Maybe the home-schoolers are right, and it’s time to find stories that reflect the way we really want the world to work.

Now I’m getting political, too. Maybe it’s a good thing nobody else reads this blog…

Reply

Xan September 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

I don’t know if I can get H to actually put his oar in, but one of his major points was that he still feels it’s important to try to work to improve the national culture, as opposed to opting out into a sub-culture. I don’t think it’s realistic to think that would be successful anyway. Assuming a group did decide to cocoon itself apart from the wider culture, they would of course still be affected by environmental impacts of that wider culture. Best approach is maybe to do the best of both: remain active in efforts to shape and improve the WHOLE planet, while also working locally to make a sustainable local culture.

Wabi, by the way, was what we named our very deformed little greyhound girl, who died suddenly 3 weeks ago. Her message is much on my mind. The simple joys of a simple life can be profound. One doesn’t have to be a monastic to appreciate a wildflower or a full moon rising through the trees. (I did not take your references to monastic life as being really about a religious life, but more as relating to the simple lifestyle.)

Your thoughts about a more naturally occurring community are realistic, I think. An actual community that can do all the things it needs to survive will necessarily have a lot of different types of people. There’s no way, in any case, to get even TWO people to agree on everything, or even most things, or even a whole lot of really key things (as weighted by the two people)! The spice of having varied personalities is one of the things that might well keep the community worth living in for the long run.

So, what do you have, then? A village where there is some common philosophy of some general sort (simply sustainability with an emphasis on local production of goods?), and a place where those goals can be achieved to maximum effect. I’ve been reading lately that people tend to top out at just over 100 people that they can truly know and relate to at a time. That’s a very small community, probably not big enough to support itself for long, socially or genetically. So, let’s assume that it’s either a bigger community than that, and/or practices exogamy, and/or otherwise has a porous population.

A larger community means it won’t be as intimate, but it might be able to absorb factions more easily because sub-communities will certainly form with room to move around a little. I’m no sociologist or cultural anthropologist, but it’s probably worth looking into what’s already been researched along these lines to make a serious plan or model.

Your thinking further about stories or mythologies is right along my point about the dangers inherent in them. I was thinking specifically of what your bring up in your comment from 9/16 about Christian home-schoolers. There is danger in culturally isolating ourselves and our offspring, both from the inside and the outside. The wider culture may become hostile to our villagers if they can perceive them as a threat inside their own borders — and it doesn’t seem to take much to trigger that reaction in some people. From the inside, it becomes a set-up for our members to want to rebel, to have the *stuff* they see on the “outside”, and either upset the internal systems or just leave. These are issues I don’t have any constructive thoughts about.

As for our national tendency towards a violent solution to just about any problem, maybe you’re right, or maybe the art-follows-culture and culture-follows-art models need to undergo the synthesis stage of theory building. We justify our impulses to act violently through repetition and rehearsal in “art” and “entertainment”, work ourselves up as individuals and as a culture, then it all seems logical to act on these impulses in the “real world”. Nothing new there. There’s evidence of it as far back as cave art. We’re a violent species. More’s the pity. H has been reading a book that hypothesizes that we’re evolving genetically towards a less violent, more cooperative state, but if it’s true, I wonder if we’ll make it to peaceful before we annihilate ourselves, or knock ourselves back to the stone age.

Is it dark today, or is it just me? 8^\

Reply

Jonni September 22, 2011 at 6:00 pm

All good thoughts. Most of which I have no answers for, but I’ll mull them over for a bit. I did get myself started on putting together a few ideas, on a new post, which kind of show where I’m going, idea-wise. As for how big a village should be, 100 to 300 might be about right, with plenty of trade and movement between villages. That’s how it normally happens I think, outside the city. People can’t wall themselves off from each other and survive.

I don’t know if we’re evolving towards a more cooperative, less violent state. I’m not convinced. I can’t see it. Maybe the book H is reading has good arguments, but just looking at the world as it is, I’d have to disagree. I just read the headlines on the NYT saying that Pakistan is being blamed for the Kabul attack, which may mean that we’re working on the justification for a new/expanded war. That’s not the work of one person or a species, of course…

The Nearings believed, I think, that staying in the city was counter-productive. I can’t remember why, especially Scott was once so active in his attempts to change the world while he lived in the city. I don’t think that either the Nearings or Michael Bunker saw/see themselves as hiding from the world or giving up on trying to make it better. They simply changed their base of operations, so that they could live the kind of sustainable life, now, that they hope that someday more people would choose to live. The fact that both the Nearings and Bunker are writers, and try to reach as many people with their message as possible, seems to bear this out.

Anyway, I have to go dig up some spuds, and then clean up the house for company coming on Saturday. I’ll think on it more. Meanwhile, check out the newest post and put in your two cent’s worth, if you have the time. ;)

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: