64
Subtle Agroecologies
Make distinctions, and ‘self-refect’, now appears as a beautiful capacity run amok, proceeding from
distinction to disjunction, from refection to alienation, and from alienation to the kind of full blown
split between subjects and objects (or between the poles of any disjunction) termed ‘dualism’.
Greenway (1995: 131)
Greenway (1995) recognised that yet another way to relate, in the case of this chapter, to soil
would be to ‘shift from culturally reinforced, dualism-producing reality processing to a more
non-dualistic mode’ (p. 131), whereby humans honour the Earth by their self-awareness as humus.
Even the middle ground between these two ‘poles of disjunction’ is celebrated in eco-psychology,
where ‘healthy relationships (between distinct beings) are not an esoteric goal. It is a matter of our
very survival and the survival of most of the life upon this Earth’ (O’Connor, 1995: 151). In fact,
from an eco-psychological lens, it is possible to see all three of these perspectives in enterprises
of the soil, such as gardening and farming, ‘activities in which people and wild nature intermesh
and begin to co-evolve’, like ‘the physical embodiment of symbiosis and co-evolution’ (Harper,
1995: 198).
The non-dual aspects of eco-psychology overlap signifcantly with its non-anthropocentric
aspects. To talk about relating to soil on its own terms is to attempt to remove the human projections onto soil and the projections onto the beings which comprise it and allow soil to present itself
as it is. To talk about holistic human relationships with soil is to invoke the symbiotic nature of those
relationships which facilitate the well-being of both humans and soil. Furthermore, to talk about
humans as soil is to invoke a level of relationship that transcends the boundaries of human and soil
and to see the unity at the core of their separate existences, both ontologically and through time
and space.
In case this all seems too esoteric, Roszak (1995), who coined the term eco-psychology, explicitly counters that mischaracterisation:
Some are quick to see elements of sentimentality or romanticism in our growing appreciation of the
sacred ecologies that guide traditional societies [which are signifcant contributors to the discipline of
ecopsychology]. This is mistaken. There is nothing “mystical” or “transcendent” about the matter as
we might understand those words. It is homely common sense that human beings must live in a state
of respectful give and take with the fora and fauna, the rivers and hills, the sky and soil on which we
depend for physical sustenance and practical instruction.
Roszak (1995: 6)
Or, as Liberty Hyde Bailey (as cited in Cox, 2014: 50), Dean of Agriculture at Cornell University
from 1903 to 1913 and pioneer of the US National Extension Service, put it: ‘The good spiritual
reaction to nature is not a form of dogmatism or impressionism. It results normally from objective
experience, when the person is ready for it’ (p. 52).
These sentiments, as stated by both Roszak (1995) and Bailey (as cited in Cox, 2014: 50), that
non-dual, non-anthropocentric ways of relating to soil are ‘common sense’ and ‘result normally
from objective experience’ obviously invoke a discussion around alternative epistemologies, where
one moves from ‘standard resource management models’ which ‘are almost entirely anthropocentric and utilitarian’ towards multiple understandings, including animistic, relating to ‘the world
no longer as a conglomerate of dead material objects but as ensouled, alive and animate’ (Perluss,
2014: 8; Rees, 2010: 28), as well as non-dual, which ‘allows eco-psychology to recognize that an
individual person is always a part of a greater ecological whole’ (Soule, 2014: 29). Indeed, these
relationships, and ways of knowing, are so ecologically and psychologically complex as to begin to
call into question even the concept of the individual, egoic ‘self’.
As an example of our visceral interconnectedness, Professor John Cryan (cited in Wheeler,
2012), Chair of the Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience at the University College Cork in
Ireland, believes that his research fndings suggest that our thoughts could be directly infuenced by
Subtle Agroecologies
Make distinctions, and ‘self-refect’, now appears as a beautiful capacity run amok, proceeding from
distinction to disjunction, from refection to alienation, and from alienation to the kind of full blown
split between subjects and objects (or between the poles of any disjunction) termed ‘dualism’.
Greenway (1995: 131)
Greenway (1995) recognised that yet another way to relate, in the case of this chapter, to soil
would be to ‘shift from culturally reinforced, dualism-producing reality processing to a more
non-dualistic mode’ (p. 131), whereby humans honour the Earth by their self-awareness as humus.
Even the middle ground between these two ‘poles of disjunction’ is celebrated in eco-psychology,
where ‘healthy relationships (between distinct beings) are not an esoteric goal. It is a matter of our
very survival and the survival of most of the life upon this Earth’ (O’Connor, 1995: 151). In fact,
from an eco-psychological lens, it is possible to see all three of these perspectives in enterprises
of the soil, such as gardening and farming, ‘activities in which people and wild nature intermesh
and begin to co-evolve’, like ‘the physical embodiment of symbiosis and co-evolution’ (Harper,
1995: 198).
The non-dual aspects of eco-psychology overlap signifcantly with its non-anthropocentric
aspects. To talk about relating to soil on its own terms is to attempt to remove the human projections onto soil and the projections onto the beings which comprise it and allow soil to present itself
as it is. To talk about holistic human relationships with soil is to invoke the symbiotic nature of those
relationships which facilitate the well-being of both humans and soil. Furthermore, to talk about
humans as soil is to invoke a level of relationship that transcends the boundaries of human and soil
and to see the unity at the core of their separate existences, both ontologically and through time
and space.
In case this all seems too esoteric, Roszak (1995), who coined the term eco-psychology, explicitly counters that mischaracterisation:
Some are quick to see elements of sentimentality or romanticism in our growing appreciation of the
sacred ecologies that guide traditional societies [which are signifcant contributors to the discipline of
ecopsychology]. This is mistaken. There is nothing “mystical” or “transcendent” about the matter as
we might understand those words. It is homely common sense that human beings must live in a state
of respectful give and take with the fora and fauna, the rivers and hills, the sky and soil on which we
depend for physical sustenance and practical instruction.
Roszak (1995: 6)
Or, as Liberty Hyde Bailey (as cited in Cox, 2014: 50), Dean of Agriculture at Cornell University
from 1903 to 1913 and pioneer of the US National Extension Service, put it: ‘The good spiritual
reaction to nature is not a form of dogmatism or impressionism. It results normally from objective
experience, when the person is ready for it’ (p. 52).
These sentiments, as stated by both Roszak (1995) and Bailey (as cited in Cox, 2014: 50), that
non-dual, non-anthropocentric ways of relating to soil are ‘common sense’ and ‘result normally
from objective experience’ obviously invoke a discussion around alternative epistemologies, where
one moves from ‘standard resource management models’ which ‘are almost entirely anthropocentric and utilitarian’ towards multiple understandings, including animistic, relating to ‘the world
no longer as a conglomerate of dead material objects but as ensouled, alive and animate’ (Perluss,
2014: 8; Rees, 2010: 28), as well as non-dual, which ‘allows eco-psychology to recognize that an
individual person is always a part of a greater ecological whole’ (Soule, 2014: 29). Indeed, these
relationships, and ways of knowing, are so ecologically and psychologically complex as to begin to
call into question even the concept of the individual, egoic ‘self’.
As an example of our visceral interconnectedness, Professor John Cryan (cited in Wheeler,
2012), Chair of the Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience at the University College Cork in
Ireland, believes that his research fndings suggest that our thoughts could be directly infuenced by