62
Subtle Agroecologies
worldview’, which supports and is supported by the select truths of modern science, is fully compatible
with the view that other worldviews exist that, all things considered, correspond equally well or even
better to the full nature of reality.
Griffn (1988: 9–10, emphasis in the original)
FROM ‘INNER SOIL’ TO BEING SOIL
In another attempt to shift away from the dualistic, one-dimensional paradigm of academia,
Patzel (2009) unearthed some of the subtler relationships between soil scientists, farmers and
soil itself. His discoveries went a long way towards making the conversations between these
entities less one-sided by highlighting the various ways that different individuals conceived
of their connection to soil, using terms such as ‘Mother Earth’ or as working with ‘the vital
forces or spirits’ to describe the relationship (ibid). In these exchanges, people were tending to
their ‘inner soil’, meaning they were working with a fuller conception of their humanity and
their relationships to the deeper aspects of soil, just as much as they were relating to the ‘outer
soil’, the physical soil itself. For instance, the early European organic farmer, Hans-Peter Rusch
(1906–1977), understood that reductionism provided an insuffcient understanding of soil, or
in his words, ‘holy Mother Earth’ (Patzel, 2009: 207). Another early European organic farmer,
Mina Hofstetter (1883–1967), in Patzel’s (2009) characterisation, ‘claimed the importance of a
spiritually receptive attitude towards Mother Earth’ (ibid: 208), seemingly in an effort to create
the kind of conversation that Kirschenmann (2009) advocated (see the previous section). When
an individual adopts this co-creative outlook while in conversation with soil, Hofstetter notes,
‘then suddenly, she [soil, or mother nature] starts talking and becomes understandable’ (Patzel,
2009: 208).
From a farmer’s perspective, British progenitor of organic agriculture, Lady Eve Balfour (1898–
1990), composed the wholeness approach, which argued that every part of a whole had a right to
exist, stating that ‘the biota is a whole, of which we are a part’ and ‘if I am right, this means that
we cannot escape from the ethical and spiritual values of life for they are a part of the wholeness’
(Patzel, 2009: 217). This mindset wasn’t exclusive to farmers; many scientists embraced it as well.
Russian soil scientist Vasily Vasilyevich Dokuchaev advocated the study of holistic soil science and
stated that ‘all its principal elements must be revered and studied alike’ (Patzel, 2009: 215, emphasis
added). Acknowledging that soil has its own right to exist creates the theoretical foundation necessary to initiate and establish an eco-psychological relationship to soil.
However, even Patzel (2009) recognised possible discrepancies when it comes to relating to the
‘inner soil’. He gave the example of two preeminent soil scientists, Fallou (the German founder of
modern soil science working in the frst half of the nineteenth century) and Jenny (former President
of the Soil Science Society of America working throughout the twentieth century), who exhibited
an ‘inner soil’ understanding, but with ‘the polarity between the emotional and feeling approach on
the one hand, and the fascination with rational order on the other hand’, the ‘inner soil’ experience
was discounted or ignored: ‘In fact, this had been widely the case, and one might argue that this
contributes to the accelerated and ongoing soil deterioration and destruction in large parts of the
world’ (Patzel, 2009: 216). Jenny (Patzel, 2009) continued to advocate that:
[The soil] speaks to us through the colours and sculptures of its profle, thereby revealing its personality; we acknowledge it by giving soil a name, albeit in a foreign tongue, but we don’t mention our
emotional involvements. In fact, our soil language is lifeless.
Patzel (2011: 216)
One could further argue that the division of the emotional and the rational is just another manifestation of dualism at work. Patzel (2009) ended his essay by returning to the question posited earlier:
Subtle Agroecologies
worldview’, which supports and is supported by the select truths of modern science, is fully compatible
with the view that other worldviews exist that, all things considered, correspond equally well or even
better to the full nature of reality.
Griffn (1988: 9–10, emphasis in the original)
FROM ‘INNER SOIL’ TO BEING SOIL
In another attempt to shift away from the dualistic, one-dimensional paradigm of academia,
Patzel (2009) unearthed some of the subtler relationships between soil scientists, farmers and
soil itself. His discoveries went a long way towards making the conversations between these
entities less one-sided by highlighting the various ways that different individuals conceived
of their connection to soil, using terms such as ‘Mother Earth’ or as working with ‘the vital
forces or spirits’ to describe the relationship (ibid). In these exchanges, people were tending to
their ‘inner soil’, meaning they were working with a fuller conception of their humanity and
their relationships to the deeper aspects of soil, just as much as they were relating to the ‘outer
soil’, the physical soil itself. For instance, the early European organic farmer, Hans-Peter Rusch
(1906–1977), understood that reductionism provided an insuffcient understanding of soil, or
in his words, ‘holy Mother Earth’ (Patzel, 2009: 207). Another early European organic farmer,
Mina Hofstetter (1883–1967), in Patzel’s (2009) characterisation, ‘claimed the importance of a
spiritually receptive attitude towards Mother Earth’ (ibid: 208), seemingly in an effort to create
the kind of conversation that Kirschenmann (2009) advocated (see the previous section). When
an individual adopts this co-creative outlook while in conversation with soil, Hofstetter notes,
‘then suddenly, she [soil, or mother nature] starts talking and becomes understandable’ (Patzel,
2009: 208).
From a farmer’s perspective, British progenitor of organic agriculture, Lady Eve Balfour (1898–
1990), composed the wholeness approach, which argued that every part of a whole had a right to
exist, stating that ‘the biota is a whole, of which we are a part’ and ‘if I am right, this means that
we cannot escape from the ethical and spiritual values of life for they are a part of the wholeness’
(Patzel, 2009: 217). This mindset wasn’t exclusive to farmers; many scientists embraced it as well.
Russian soil scientist Vasily Vasilyevich Dokuchaev advocated the study of holistic soil science and
stated that ‘all its principal elements must be revered and studied alike’ (Patzel, 2009: 215, emphasis
added). Acknowledging that soil has its own right to exist creates the theoretical foundation necessary to initiate and establish an eco-psychological relationship to soil.
However, even Patzel (2009) recognised possible discrepancies when it comes to relating to the
‘inner soil’. He gave the example of two preeminent soil scientists, Fallou (the German founder of
modern soil science working in the frst half of the nineteenth century) and Jenny (former President
of the Soil Science Society of America working throughout the twentieth century), who exhibited
an ‘inner soil’ understanding, but with ‘the polarity between the emotional and feeling approach on
the one hand, and the fascination with rational order on the other hand’, the ‘inner soil’ experience
was discounted or ignored: ‘In fact, this had been widely the case, and one might argue that this
contributes to the accelerated and ongoing soil deterioration and destruction in large parts of the
world’ (Patzel, 2009: 216). Jenny (Patzel, 2009) continued to advocate that:
[The soil] speaks to us through the colours and sculptures of its profle, thereby revealing its personality; we acknowledge it by giving soil a name, albeit in a foreign tongue, but we don’t mention our
emotional involvements. In fact, our soil language is lifeless.
Patzel (2011: 216)
One could further argue that the division of the emotional and the rational is just another manifestation of dualism at work. Patzel (2009) ended his essay by returning to the question posited earlier: