Who is in the room, whose language are we using, who is making the money - and more questions we have to keep asking

Permaculture lead me to many things. It lead me away from many things too. It drew me into an awareness of my own indoctrination, how much I value certain aspects of the world and not others. However, one of the realities we must face as permaculturalists is that permaculture as a concept was developed by two white guys while inside a white educational institution. The fact that these men question the value of educational institutions is important, however it is also a pertinent question to ask: would they have been questioning these institutions if they had not been educated inside them? Part of the role of university education is the focus on critical interrogation (though only of certain things and assuming other knowledges).

The reality is that as permaculture as a general way of thinking and doing is adopted, the cultural assumptions of those who are adopting it, is often inevitablly merged with the permaculture perspective. There is often still a worshipping of white concepts of "natural systems" or "wild spaces" as ideal, a fixation on human needs as being more important than the needs of other living beings and often a fixation on ideas that are often only accessible with privilege. Ideas like: 

Localise food systesms

While patently ignoring the fact that colonisation has pushed people of colour to the edges of our society, into spaces where land is often poisoned by our industrial systems, where soil is poor and not easily arable, where the climate is so drastically different from the spaces that the ancestors of first nations people lived that knowledges do not apply and ancestoral seeds do not grow. We ignore concepts like "food apartheid" (or food deserts) an issue that disproportionally affects people of colour, disabled people and single parents. The fixation that many permaculturalists have on localised food systems can serve to reinforce the idea that we should only focus on the problems in "our own backyard" while neglecting to recognise how the access to our own backyard has been enabled by a history of violent colonialism and genocide. And without a conciousness of our responsibility to support the dismantling of this inequity. 

In addition to this first layer of issues, the issues become more complex as we attempt to rectify the inequities. Many white people don the cloak of the white saviour, painting themselves as some kind of hero, focusing in "hand outs" and "educating" people of social disadvantage, without seeking consent, or acknowledging that endlessly "giving" to "help" groups of "people less fortunate" (have a think about that phrase) is not a sustainable system either, as it continues to place marginalised groups in a lower power position, it also means that if the "givers" are somehow unable to provide assistance at any time, the first people to suffer are the margianlised, they will miss out first. It also, once again centres the people who are in the more powerful position, it doesn't bring marginalised people to the table, or even more significantly, allow them to build their own table, at which we might be invited occasionally to support, it makes sure that they know they are guests and only welcomed when the people with power decide it's okay.

 There are more issues beyond this. It doesn't mean that localising food systems doesn't have value. Rather, it interrogates the way we engage in ideas like this and illustrates how much further there is to go as a whole society. How important empowering and listening to marginalised voices is towards creating greater food securiity. How important is is for white people to shut the fuck up when questions around food security are raised, rather than feeling like they have the solutions and the right to impose them.

Zero Waste/ just try harder

Once again, this solution focuses on the individual, and/or local access to choices. Often, when watching "zero waste influencers" they present zero waste options as if they are "easy" and that people who are intentionally not making these choices are morally bankrupt (by the way pay attention to who these people are, what is their skin colour, what is their familial financial background, what languages are they talking/writing in). However, access to zero waste options is a privilege. A lot of the time when I hear people talk about these sorts of issues (not only zero waste, but also many other pemacuture related "solutions") the idea is presented that this "isn't expensive" or that "anyone can do it." This silences so many groups of marginalised voices. It ignores real world problems that are faced by real people. What I am about to say could be applied to so many habits: veganism, eating healthily, cute visible mending, foraging, growing your own food, saving seeds, spending valuable time with your children etc etc.

Here it is: It is expensive to do these things. Maybe not necessarily in terms of money, though it can be. The reality is that if one of these things ISN'T expensive in money, it's going to be expensive in at least one, probably more of the following things: time, energy, knowledge/experience, interaction with others, access and infrastructure, physical ability. These things ALL come with privilege. Having time and energy, access to local community members with experience/knowledge, money and the confidence that when that money is spent it will provide for the same needs quickly enough, as if the money was spent at a fast food outlet, or a supermarket, the proximity of shops that sell wholefoods, low waste options and the accessibility of the prices at these kind of places - these are all considerations that many people face when attempting to live in a more "ethical" way. 

Here are some questions to consider, to help picture some of the impediments people may face accessing a zero waste/more "ethical" lifestyle:

Can someone without much money afford to fail to grow their own vegetables this season while they gain the experience of "learning how to do it well" by failing?

If it is as simple as someone "looking it up online" how much of the information in these online videos requires access to certain items, people, energy etc. And how often is this information presented by a white, able bodied, middle class person in English?

In order to get hold of the items involved is the person going to have to enter spaces they might not be safe/welcome in - is a gay person going to have to go to an agricultural supplies store in their small country town to access materials - where they aren't sure they'll be safe or welcome?  Is a person of colour going to have to go to a wealthier, mostly white suburb to go to a wholefoods store? Does accessing fresh food involved travelling outside of a walkable distance for someone? Is a disabled person going to have to travel for several hours on public transport to access supplies? Is a single parent going to have to choose between buying 4 litres of cheap milk in plastic and 770ml of the milk that is locally produced and comes in glass? Is someone going to have to spend 4 hours learning about how to compost online, because everyone keeps telling them different recipes/information and realise that every single one requires access to materials they don't have? Is a disabled person going to have to deal with people shaming them for having to use plastic straws before they can even start to access any kind of information? Is it safe for a person of colour to dumpster dive? Do black people foraging get treated the same way as white people? Does this "how to video" have closed captions? Is this information being presented in a way that makes it accessible to neurodivergent people?

What language is this information being presented in? What colour is the people's the people's skin presenting? Does this representation help a marginalised person imagining themselves doing this? Who is making money from this information being presented?

Grow your own!

Access is the biggest issue that most marginalised groups face in relation to the "just grow your own food" idea.  Access to arable land, access to reliable knowledge sources during learning, access to good quality, locally acclimatised, open pollinated seeds, physical access (can someone with a disability do it, get into the community garden, get there in the first place? Access to the financial ability to purchase the initial items necessary (when often the choice is between that and groceries, that and the fortnight's bus tickets), access access access. I'm not going to expand on this too much more beause many of the issues embedded in this idea should be clear based on the above discussion.

These are just a few of the ways that privilege influences many of the solutions routinely offered in permaculture spaces/discussions. Often it isn't only that these solutions are offered, it is the way they are offered, as if they are easy, as if people who aren't doing this are naive, ignorant or lazy. Why would a marginalised person willingly enter this space, think of the amount of explaining and justifying they'd have to do just to get through the door. 

On top of this, there is the fact that many of the ways of thinking reflect our cultural norms, with assumptions about what matters, where our focus should be and how things should be implemented. Diverse voices are an imperative inclusion in discussions about the many issues we face. Acknowledgement must be given that these problems almost exclusively exist because of colonisation. This is not a problem created by "people" this is a problem created by culture, the culture of commodification, colonisation, consumption, extraction and the perception of human needs as superior to the needs of all other ecosystem members. Oftentimes when marginalised voices come into spaces where issues are discussed, these voices express concern about quite different issues than the ones prioritised by people with privilege. They also often make people with privilege uncomfortable. That discomfort is important, it shouldn't be waved away because it doesn't sit nicely. We don't get to decide that it isn't true because it's not our lived experience (this idea by the way is discrimination, the privileging of one's own lived experience as more valid than someone else's voiced one...)

The final question that we need to keep asking is: who is benefiting from the way this information is being spread/talked about? This could be financial (who wrote the book/made the film, who owns the shop that you're buying things from), it could be about cultural reinforcement (does the same idea of ableism, white superiority, patriarchy, colonialism, extractivism, human beings more important than other beings continue to be reinforced?)

If we want to dismantle the problems that exist in our world, we have to acknowledge our own blind spots in these problems. Permaculture presents many excellent solutions to the issues in our world, but as we implement it, we need to continue to ask difficult questions of ourselves. Questions like: Whose cultural knowledges are being privileged here? Is the person presenting diverse cultural/perspective knowledge black/queer/disabled/indigenous, or is their knowledge being summarised and presented by a white, able bodied, middle class person? If a marginalised person is being asked to share their knowledge, are they being compensated for their work or being asked to do it "out of the goodness of the hearts?" Who is welcome in this space/discussion? Do they know they are welcome? Are they really welcome, given they are likely to question your ideas? Can they get to the spaces (literal, virtual or figurative) easily? Are marginalised perspectives being heard? Are marginalised groups being enabled to take action and make changes or are solutions being forced on them? Was this interaction/solution/advice consensual? Does this discussion centre on human needs and wants, rather than human responsibilities to wider ecosystems and communtiies?

There are more, and I might keep adding them, feel free to add your own in the comments?

And yes, I know I'm a white middle class, able bodied person raising these issues. Actually, that's the role of  a good ally. I would never dream of speaking for marginalised groups, however, doing the work of raising these issues in permaculture (and other white dominated) spaces is important. We should not require marginalised people to continue to do this emotional labour for us. We can figure this part out for ourselves, the next part is how we change our actions, how we begin to create more equitable systems, with fair distribution of resources and more listening, less assuming and less judgment. 

Some useful further reading that might make you uncomfortable  (I really recommend reading the comments to understand how much people refuse to acknowledge their privilege):

White Washed Hope 

Being Black and Zero Waste-ish

Everything I Want to do is Racist

Some useful further reading to help understand diverse perspectives:

Growing Up Disabled in Australia

Braiding Sweetgrass

Sandtalk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World

Farming While Black

Alexis Nikole's tiktok account