240
Subtle Agroecologies
‘New Age’ (Kulick, 2017), this phenomenon is supported by a century of scientifc evidence (Dutton
and Williams, 2009; Erickson et al., 2016), as well as in grey literature.
Indigenous cultures worldwide share the notion that maintaining a dialogue with other-than-human
elements of their food production landscapes is crucial, for practical management reasons, as well as
to evolve new strategies to adapt to changing conditions (Gagliano, 2013; Kieft, 2015; Parry, 2005).
Even in the West, numerous organisations and intentional communities have been founded and operate with the belief that interspecies communication can be used to inform everyday practical decisions, including in food growing, such as the Findhorn Foundation (Scotland), Tamera (Portugal), the
Damanhur Federation of Communities (Italy), Perelandra Garden (USA), Cooperative BioBalance
(USA), and Govardhan and Auroville (India).
The existing evidence of the use of intuition and intuitive communication in food growing warrants more attention by both farming research and practice (van Eijk, 1998).
DEFINING INTUITIVE COMMUNICATION
DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING INTUITION
Academic literature on intuition emanates largely from the felds of psychology and business management, and while these felds provide no unifying defnition of intuition, they concur that it is an
immediate, pervasive and involuntary part of all decisions and provides highly useful information
beyond analysis (Dane and Pratt, 2007; Hogarth, 2010; Khatri and Ng, 2000).
A critical review of intuition from the nursing profession provides further interesting pointers as to its characteristics (King and Appleton, 1997). The authors explain that intuition is often
described in terms of ‘gut feelings, sixth sense, insight, instinct, presentient, common sense, inner
feelings, hunches, pre-monitions, foreboding and presentiment’ (ibid: 195). They suggest that,
because of this non-rational element, scientists have deliberately sidelined it. Yet the authors stress
that nursing would change dramatically if, or when, all forms of knowing are recognised as valid.
Here, we may see parallels with the sidelining of intuition in the agricultural sector, as indicated
earlier.
The etymology of intuition, stemming from in-tuir (Latin), offers another useful defnition as
‘knowing from within’, in other words ‘knowing without knowing how you know’ (Hodgkinson,
Langan-Fox and Sadler-Smith, 2008). Carl Jung identifed intuition as one of four basic functions
of the conscious psyche required for holistic orientation, along with thinking (comprising the intellect and logic), sensation perception (using sense organs) and feeling (more subjective valuation).
Jung defned intuition as ‘perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious contents’, which enables humans to ‘divine hidden possibilities in the background’ (Jung, 1933 [1921]:
567–568). Jung’s defnition remains widely accepted in mainstream psychology and management
science, characterising intuitive decisions as those where one is not lucidly aware of the process
preceding the decision (Dane and Pratt, 2007).
Yet, about two decades before Jung, Rudolf Steiner (whose lectures on agriculture form the
basis of biodynamic agriculture) also examined intuition. He believed that intuition operates at
a superconscious level, surpassing the intellect, which, when developed together with imagination and inspiration, enables super-sensible perception, i.e. perception beyond the fve physical
senses (Steiner, 1967). Steiner described intuition as one aspect of spiritual knowledge, and it
may be for this reason that his interpretation is far less commonly acknowledged (von Diest,
2019).
In explaining how human cognition deals with information, social and cognitive neuroscience,
psychology and related felds select just two of Jung’s four basic functions: intuition and thinking,
to describe a dual-processing model. Here, the process of intuition is characterised as being fast,
automatic, effortless, affectively charged (infuenced by mood), associative (through pattern recognition) and not easily verbalised. This intuitive process runs simultaneously with the analytical or
Subtle Agroecologies
‘New Age’ (Kulick, 2017), this phenomenon is supported by a century of scientifc evidence (Dutton
and Williams, 2009; Erickson et al., 2016), as well as in grey literature.
Indigenous cultures worldwide share the notion that maintaining a dialogue with other-than-human
elements of their food production landscapes is crucial, for practical management reasons, as well as
to evolve new strategies to adapt to changing conditions (Gagliano, 2013; Kieft, 2015; Parry, 2005).
Even in the West, numerous organisations and intentional communities have been founded and operate with the belief that interspecies communication can be used to inform everyday practical decisions, including in food growing, such as the Findhorn Foundation (Scotland), Tamera (Portugal), the
Damanhur Federation of Communities (Italy), Perelandra Garden (USA), Cooperative BioBalance
(USA), and Govardhan and Auroville (India).
The existing evidence of the use of intuition and intuitive communication in food growing warrants more attention by both farming research and practice (van Eijk, 1998).
DEFINING INTUITIVE COMMUNICATION
DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING INTUITION
Academic literature on intuition emanates largely from the felds of psychology and business management, and while these felds provide no unifying defnition of intuition, they concur that it is an
immediate, pervasive and involuntary part of all decisions and provides highly useful information
beyond analysis (Dane and Pratt, 2007; Hogarth, 2010; Khatri and Ng, 2000).
A critical review of intuition from the nursing profession provides further interesting pointers as to its characteristics (King and Appleton, 1997). The authors explain that intuition is often
described in terms of ‘gut feelings, sixth sense, insight, instinct, presentient, common sense, inner
feelings, hunches, pre-monitions, foreboding and presentiment’ (ibid: 195). They suggest that,
because of this non-rational element, scientists have deliberately sidelined it. Yet the authors stress
that nursing would change dramatically if, or when, all forms of knowing are recognised as valid.
Here, we may see parallels with the sidelining of intuition in the agricultural sector, as indicated
earlier.
The etymology of intuition, stemming from in-tuir (Latin), offers another useful defnition as
‘knowing from within’, in other words ‘knowing without knowing how you know’ (Hodgkinson,
Langan-Fox and Sadler-Smith, 2008). Carl Jung identifed intuition as one of four basic functions
of the conscious psyche required for holistic orientation, along with thinking (comprising the intellect and logic), sensation perception (using sense organs) and feeling (more subjective valuation).
Jung defned intuition as ‘perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious contents’, which enables humans to ‘divine hidden possibilities in the background’ (Jung, 1933 [1921]:
567–568). Jung’s defnition remains widely accepted in mainstream psychology and management
science, characterising intuitive decisions as those where one is not lucidly aware of the process
preceding the decision (Dane and Pratt, 2007).
Yet, about two decades before Jung, Rudolf Steiner (whose lectures on agriculture form the
basis of biodynamic agriculture) also examined intuition. He believed that intuition operates at
a superconscious level, surpassing the intellect, which, when developed together with imagination and inspiration, enables super-sensible perception, i.e. perception beyond the fve physical
senses (Steiner, 1967). Steiner described intuition as one aspect of spiritual knowledge, and it
may be for this reason that his interpretation is far less commonly acknowledged (von Diest,
2019).
In explaining how human cognition deals with information, social and cognitive neuroscience,
psychology and related felds select just two of Jung’s four basic functions: intuition and thinking,
to describe a dual-processing model. Here, the process of intuition is characterised as being fast,
automatic, effortless, affectively charged (infuenced by mood), associative (through pattern recognition) and not easily verbalised. This intuitive process runs simultaneously with the analytical or