Hey all. I’m liking the rhythm of a post at least once a week currently, I must say. However, in the lead up to a workshop on Holistic Decision Making in the middle of nowhere that started yesterday, I’m not going to be making the time to see through either of a few longer posts-in-preparation. I’ll instead keep the ball rolling by sharing a recent short video of a fun moment on a design consult with my clients-become-friends Luke, Christy and Tully who are developing their 30 acres in Clunes, Victoria with a bit of help here and there from myself.
I trust this won’t come across the wrong way, but an essential aspect of an living process where generative transformation is at play is that you thoroughly interview incoming ideas before you give them a role in the system being developed. Here is how Christopher Alexander puts it in Volume Two of his The Nature of Order series.
We should therefore be extremely skeptical about the first possibilities that present themselves to our minds. We should run through the possibilities first, and reject most of them. If we do accept it, reluctantly, only when we finally find something that for which no good reason presents itself to reject it, which appears genuinely wonderful to us, and which demonstrably makes the feeling of the whole become more profound.
But of course, if one merely jumps at the image that presents itself, and if one carries a self-deluded idea that it must be good because it came up in one’s own brain — the chances are good that this first or second, or third ‘inspiration’ is something not good, but more likely something bad (p. 258)
It was in this spirit that I tried to politely destroy Christy and Luke’s idea during this design session…
Okay, as promised, this post is my turn to complete the little exercise I invited others to complete in the last post. Mega thanks to Finn, Pete and Ryan who contributed their own take on this.
Mission 1.1: Where is Permaculture in General At?
When I do this exercise, as per the slightly disturbing above image, my little green smoothie blob lands here:1
Let me explain, taking the two axes one at a time. Let’s start with the x-axis which runs from fabricating (detailed master planning before implementing) through hybrid (concept planning before implementing) to generating (no up-front planning – concept and details emerge inside creating process).
Here I have permaculture’s centre of gravity in the fabricating space, with a little bloblet (my name for a pseudopod)) edging into hybrid. This is accurate to my previous in-depth inquiries into this very matter. In a previous post I shared this table, for instance, in which fabricating an up-front detailed master plan is very much the common theme.
As for the y axis, you’ll see from my perspective permaculture’s centre of gravity is in the assembling space but again with a little bloblet edging into partitioning. Again, I have gone deep into this previously where the idea of assembling or integrating elements into whole systems dominates most existing discussions I have seen or heard around the nuts and bolts (ha!) of permaculture design process.
Mission 1.2: Where is Permaculture’s Cutting Edge At?
Here I agree with Finn, Peter and Ryan in placing permaculture’s cutting edge up in the four spaces in the top-right of the chart.
As shown in posts such as this, there have been and continue to be a scattering of design process innovators out in the hybrid space or even edging into the generative space.2 My friend and colleague Meg McGowan just recently wrote on how she is arriving in the hybrid or concept design space as her happy place when supporting others to develop their properties.
I think Alexander’s concept is much closer to how permaculturists actually design, by starting with something that is already a whole and then differentiating and integrating additional factors into it. The issue is mostly that our language has not caught up to our practice… Thinking in terms of relationships and organic wholes rather than collections of parts is foreign to our culture and not easy for anyone from Western culture to do.
I think this is an important point. Any permaculture project that has been around for a while is in the transformation game, without exception. Regardless of what game the folk involved say they are in. You cannot get away with only assembly or partitioning without things falling over pretty quick. That said, my experience is that what is possible on the ground does shift to a different level in terms of the quality of outcomes when things are being explicitly approached through the frame of transformation. What I’m getting at is that I don’t think it is a matter of saying “oh well, if that is what we are doing anyway then who cares how we talk about it.” The way we frame things in our language matters (go listen to Carol Sanford on this point if you need convincing). So for me the cutting edge of permaculture design practice involves transformation both at the language/understanding and the practice levels.
These days I fairly regularly get emails from followers of this blog sharing their adventures in hybrid transformation and other of these top-right four spaces that are outside permaculture-in-general’s centre of gravity. Jason Gerhardt and Finn Weddle are two examples.
Mission 2: Where is Modern Culture At?
Like Finn, I see the centre of gravity of modern culture as a whole as hovering between the lower left corner and off the chart all together (or off the rails, as it were). Where things are either master planned (fabricated) as assemblies (A1) or things aren’t designed at all meaning they happen randomly, haphazardly, winging-it style.
Mission 3: Where is the Rest of Nature At?
What of the rest of the natural world we are inseparably embedded or enmeshed within? In which of the nine spaces does it play? For me there is nothing non-generative and nothing non-transformative in this domain. There are certainly no upfront plans,3 and it’s all the ongoing transformation of holons or whole-parts or nested wholes.
That said, Finn’s take on this really hits the spot (as well as tickles my funny bone) for me:
It’s like C3 (generative transformation) is this puny little window that nature explodes out of and blows to smithereens. Or better that C3 is this puny little window that gives us a tiny bit of insight into one tiny little aspect of nature’s modus operandi.
In contemplating Finn’s diagram this image emerged from some hidden recess in my mind. Yes it is a bit weird but it’s my blog so I’ll do what I like, you hear me?
Upshot is that Peter and Finn’s take correlates extremely highly with my own. Ryan’s to a slightly lesser extent but the gist is the same. Synchronisation exercise complete!
Position Aside, what direction are we heading? And at what velocity?
As discussed in my previous posts about process signatures (and anticipated by Finn in his chartings), position in the nine spaces is one thing. But even more interesting, perhaps, is a) what direction we are heading in and b) at what velocity?
It seems clear to me, as corroborated by Peter and Finn, that permaculture-in-general’s design process centre of gravity is moving upward and toward the right in the nine-space chart. Further, my sense is that this movement is slowly accelerating.
If so, this would mean permaculture is not only moving toward its cutting edge (which makes sense) but toward greater alignment and resonance with how the rest of nature rolls (which also makes sense). Not to mention moving directly away from the mainstream cultural process signature (to which permaculture as initially proposed was a radical alternative, let us not be forgetting).
In the next post, which will be the last of this little series on the chart, I’ll explain why this excites me. To give you a hint, it excites me because I believe it represents permaculture’s coming back home.
Here is the full text from Joel’s open letter to the permaculture movement (please share any thoughts you have about this or the episode in a comment – I always so appreciate hearing how this stuff is landing out there):
First of all, I want to thank you, not only for your good efforts, time, and energy but for your caring…your caring not only for this living earth but for the people and the beauty of life. Thank you.
Many of you may know of my work from the example of Flowering Tree in Toby Hemenway’s excellent book Gaia’s Garden and the video 30 Years of Greening the Desert, others from my regenerative community development work with Regenesis. In any case I know that you share my concerns for the degrading condition of the ecological and human communities of our biosphere and I am writing to you to ask for your help.
We are at a crisis point, a crossroads and if we are to turn the corner we need to use everything at our disposal to its greatest effect. My concern is that we are not using the very powerful perspective of permaculture to its greatest potential and that we need to up our game. We know that the living world is calling for this from us.
I often feel that permaculture design is like a fine Japanese chisel that is mostly used like a garden trowel, for transplanting seedlings. It can of course be used for this purpose, but is certainly not its highest use.
Permaculture Design has often been compared to a martial art such as Aikido because at its heart it is about observing the forces at play to find the “least change for the greatest effect”; a small move that changes entire systems. This is how nature works and is precisely the sort of shortcut we desperately need.
The lowest level of any martial art is learning to take a hit well. Yet this is where so much of our energy seems to be directed: setting ourselves and our communities up to be resilient in the face of the impacts of climate change and the breakdown of current food, water, energy, and financial systems.
The next level is to avoid the blow, either through dodging, blocking or redirecting it. Much of the carbon farming and other efforts directed toward pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and developing non-carbon sources of energy fall into this category.
At their highest expression practitioners track patterns to their source, shifting them before they take form, redirecting them in regenerative directions. This is what is behind principles like “obtain a yield” or “the problem is the solution” and the reason for protracted and thoughtful observation. We learn to read energies and to find the acupuncture-like inoculation or disturbance that changes the manifestation by changing the underlying pattern. Problems are turned into solutions and provide us with yields if we can stop trying to stop or block them. This is the pattern of Regeneration.
Every permaculture technique is a small disturbance that shifts the underlying pattern and hence the system. Water-harvesting structures, rotational grazing, chicken tractors, mulching, spreading seed-balls, setting cool ground fires in rank meadows or forests, transforming spoiling milk into creamy cheese, revolving loan funds, libraries, and even the design course itself all follow this pattern. The point is to disturb brittle senescent systems to allow the emergence of the next level of evolution, even if the system is our preconceptions and habits of thought. This is at the heart of self-organizing systems and the key to effective change efforts.
In a changing world it does no good to teach a man to fish. What happens when currents or climate or communities change? It is essential to teach how to think about fishing, whatever can be fished with whatever is at hand. This is why it is called permaculture DESIGN.
In its highest form permaculture is not about designing anything. It is a pattern-based approach to designing systemic change efforts. This is the point of the PDC as well as all that time spent in the forest or garden. It is to learn how living systems work and how to observe them to find the effective change so that we can apply those skills to shifting the living systems most in need of shifting: human systems including how we think about the world.
Changing paradigm tops systems thinker Donella Meadows list of the most effective places to intervene in systems. To effectively change the systems that are causing global degeneration we need to change the human paradigm and we need to start by shifting our paradigm of what permaculture is. If we do not shift these larger human systems our lovely gardens and beautiful hand built homes don’t have a chance.
Although the PDC contains many techniques and ways of doing, it is about changing how we think about the world primarily. It is meant to crack our certainties about everything from agriculture to economics and how the world works. This is why so many of the principles are like a whack on the side of the head. “What do you mean the problem is the solution? Or that yield is limited only by my mind?”
If the PDC is designed to shift our paradigm, then it shows us the pattern of shifting people’s paradigms. And this is the greatest use of our skills. Not to create gardens or to train gardeners, but to shift the thinking of folks who understand business and economics, laws and governance, so that they can all be re-thought and re-worked to follow the patterns of living systems.
We have been warned that “the map is not the territory” and then have mistaken the map of permaculture as the territory of permaculture. Living in a materialistic and mechanistic culture we have grabbed onto the stuff and mechanisms of permaculture rather than the essential patterns. Just because we learn about living systems through gardens, forests, and fields, does not mean that is where our art is most fruitfully applied.
So what am I asking of you? Please just think about this. Let it burn out the choked underbrush of your certainty. Watch how it effects how you think, and teach, design, and work. Let it open room to let something new emerge in the sunlit space. While cracks in structures need to be fixed, in nature from splitting seed coats, hatching chicks, or birthing babies or ideas, cracks are the doorways to new life.
Please forward this around your networks. Debate it. Trash it. Try it on and try it out. If you would like to know more or let me know your thoughts please go to patternmind.org.
Many thanks for your open hearts and minds,
Want to make Making Permaculture Stronger stronger? Learn how to become a patron here.
Hey all. This post shares the several submissions I’ve been delighted to have land on my desk after Part Seven’s request for reader input. First though, here’s the original chart as a reference point:
(Joshua) Finn Weddle (UK)
Finn (who featured in another recent post) has gone beyond the call of duty and not only given a process signature centre of gravity for the four things I asked about, but also had a crack at their trajectories inside and in two cases outside the chart. I also love that he got there through feeling, or as he put it:
Fun exercise, although admittedly I did it entirely from intuition and gut and not by reviewing others’ designs and thinking from head.
Peter Kopp (Australia)
I was delighted to hear from Pete who has been following MPS where it took this request to flush him out of the underbrush :-). Speaking to how he approached the exercise, Pete explained:
I deliberately didn’t think much about the placement of each point, rather I just went with my gut feel/first thought as I read the directions. The result seems fairly predictable – I will be interested to see the combined result.
An interesting aspect of my perception is that the centre of gravity of Permaculture is closer to that of the mainstream than to its cutting edge. That could indicate an upturn of interest in Permaculture, with a resultant large number of relatively new people in the mix who are only just beginning their progression along the ‘life line’. It could also be indicative of a general stagnation within Permaculture, which is guess is what you are trying to shake up and acupuncture out with your project. Or it could be that it’s just bloody difficult for many of us the break free of the way we have been conditioned to think. I think the proximity of Permaculture’s COG to the mainstream – if it is real – makes Permaculture vulnerable to being co-opted by mainstream forces looking to make a buck. Actually I think this is virtually inevitable – if it hasn’t happened already – once Permaculture reaches a critical mass and becomes a big enough market for the mainstream to exploit. Mainstream infiltration, coupled with frustration at the cutting edge of Permaculture that the rest aren’t following as quickly as they might, can cause those at the cutting edge to cease to identify with Permaculture – but continue to pursue the ideal under a different banner. I think this ‘breakaway’ at the cutting edge has definitely already happened with some, and others – maybe including you? – have grappled with the issue but decided to remain. Anyway, that’s probably enough of me rambling about what might be the meaning of what might be in the data. I’m looking forward to seeing the collective result.
These brilliant insights fully resonate with me – what about you? Anyway, here’s Pete’s diagram:
It’s funny as Ryan doesn’t come across as someone who takes acid when you meet him :-). So let’s move right along to his much clearer second take:
Thanks Ryan and thanks to the three of you. Anyone else who wants to chime in don’t be shy – I’ll add any additional submissions as updates to this page as they land. Then, in the next post in this series I’ll share my own take before bringing things to a close so as to make space for all the exciting stuff that will then be ready to kick off. Cheers all and you have yourself a lovely day and oh yes – don’t miss the Carol Sanford interview if you haven’t heard it – it’s pretty wild and it rocked my world.
The creation of this episode was an incredible experience. Carol is shockingly sharp, disruptive beyond belief, and an absolute thrill to be in a conversation with. This episode is dripping with rich insights into regenerative and living systems thinking and I know you’re going to love it.
Here are the Deep Pacific online workshops. Carol asked me to “Let your listeners know they are welcome. All recorded. No beginning or end. You begin when you Step on the Mat, like I learned in Aikido, and practice with all levels of experience.” I (Dan) am signing up so maybe I’ll see you there.
In this post I want to zoom out. I want to show how we can use the chart to map the process signature of larger things. Things like permaculture itself as a global body of theory and practice. Things like modern culture itself as a global body of theory and practice (that permaculture is nested within). Heck, things like the entire rest of nature herself (which modern culture is nested within).
I am excited about where this exercise might lead us. While I have an inkling of what ballpark that might be, I’m so open to surprises along the way. This is where you come in. For here’s what I suggest. Before I share my attempt to locate the process signature of these three things on the chart based on my (limited/partial) perspective, I’m going to invite you to have a go based on yours. Yes you, you reading this. I invite you to go through the below exercise then to publicly or privately reach out and let me know your results. Come on people, let’s do this! Let’s get excited about some globally distributed on-and-offline permaculture design process participatory research!
Your Mission (if you choose to accept it)
Your mission has three tasks. The first task has two sub-tasks. So that’s four tasks you just signed up for by starting to read this paragraph. Thanks. Now I invite you to read on and to do exactly what I say :-).
Start by getting yourself a version of this chart you can make marks on. Maybe copy it onto some notepaper or something:
Mission 1.1: Where is Permaculture in General At?
Here I invite you to consider the design process signature of permaculture itself and then to place your mark on the chart. Here by permaculture I mean permaculture in general. I mean taking all the permaculture design process descriptions, definitions, demonstrations, examples, experiences you have ever encountered, seen, read about, heard about. Ones you may have personally participated in, for sure. But as importantly all those you’ve read about, seen online, heard about, one way or another are aware of. Imagine gathering them up into one big basket.
Great, now imagine cramming them all into a giant pedal-powered blender. Now imagine yourselves jumping on the bike and pedalling. Really go for it! Whiz those suckers to a paste. Blend all the different process examples, whether one, ten or a thousand, into a smoothie. I’m hoping it will come out something like chlorophyl green, but let it be whatever colour it is. Don’t argue with it or try to tamper with the result in any way. Let it be exactly what it is.
Now imagine tipping a teaspoon or so of smoothie onto this here chart where ever it best belongs:
In other words, I’m asking you to take the average of all the permaculture design process descriptions, definitions, demonstrations, examples, experiences etc. you are aware of and to place that average on this particular map. It may be a weird shape. It may be inside one square or spread out over a bunch of squares. It may be round and fat. It may be a long thin curving shape. It may have vague boundaries. Whatever. So long is there some kind of blob or smearing of smoothie on the chart I’m happy and you’re done.
Now. For the next step.
Mission 1.2: Where is Permaculture’s Cutting Edge At?
Your next task is to make another smoothie. This time I want you to move your ingredient list from permaculture design process stuff in general to the subset you personally consider to represent permaculture’s cutting edge (as far as design process goes). The stuff that resonates most deeply with you. The stuff that in your experience leads to the outcomes you feel best represent whatever you feel that permaculture is really about. The books about permaculture design process that excite you the most. The permaculture designers you most deeply respect, perhaps those that have been living and breathing and practicing permaculture for the longest. That sort of thing. And regardless what the domain of application is.
Okay you know what happens next. Rinse out the blender and make another smoothie. Again, tip a bit on the chart and see where it ends up. Make your mark. It may overlap with your prior mark, it may not. Now wash the blender out again (if I would you I’d drink the remainder of the contents first). Onward.
Mission 2: Where is Modern Culture At?
Forget about permaculture for a moment. Zoom your focus out to modern culture as a whole.
Now same deal. Pedal, smoothie, blob, map. On average, in general, where on the map do the dominant or default creation processes in daily use in modern culture sit? How are buildings, bathrooms, parks, roads, school curriculums, websites and whatever else created in general in modern culture terms of the chart? Make your third mark.
Onward. One more smoothie to make then you are off the hook (and it’s my turn).
Mission 3: Where is the Rest of Nature At?
Alrighty, one more zoom out. Or zoom in, or zoom sideways. No matter which you’ll soon find the rest of nature there waiting. I want you to take the rest of nature as a whole. Waves, starfish, mountains, frogs, forests, fungi, fingers. All of her.
Through the lens of the chart, how do they get created in general? As you understand it, are frogs fabricated or generated? Are apples assembled or partitioned or transformed into existence? Make your fourth mark on the map. Make sure you colour or label them so you don’t get mixed up later.
Thanks in advance for your work. I look forward to receiving your emails and comments and to collating and feeding back the results in the next post. Frankly given this blog is not exactly mainstream if I even get one or two responses I’ll be happy enough. You could either send through a photo of your marked chart or send it through as A2, B3, etc. If you’d like your input to be anonymous that’s fine – send it through and let me know you’d like to remain unnamed. You have two weeks.
For the public record Making Permaculture Stronger now has a patreon page you can hear/read about here.
Hey all. So back in April, MPS follower (and as of yesterday patron!) Finn Weddle sent me a message, in which he very kindly took the time to share that:
your podcasts have been a huge contributor to my newly gained confidence to actually design! I have done a few ‘soft’ designs, both in the sense of not being fully written up and in the sense of people social permaculture designs (one design for a community of interest hub, one for a lesson plan), but never had much of a chance to apply myself to a ‘hard’ design. One of the many factors to this has been my tendency towards analysis till paralysis, and the culmination of your inquiry as ‘generative transformation’ has really allowed me to open up my design work much more. I am only half way through, but my ‘client’/sister is bowled away by how adaptive and personalised my plan for her garden is and is singing high praise, so it’s going well. Also of note is that I’ve had a great many eureka moments for this specific project whilst listening to your podcast, so perhaps beyond all the intellectual stuff there’s a hidden truth that just listening to conversations about design process, whilst designing, is the best design process there is? Fractaaaal……
Here’s his query, which he kindly agreed to let me share here (perhaps because I implied that was the only way he’d get a decent response out of me :-)):
About the A1-C3 chart, I’m a little bit stuck though. The x-axis is crystal clear to me, and I am very confident in what you call generative design. (With my sister I’m having to use a hybrid, as she lives some 400+ miles from me, and I’m actually marketing it as the ‘least best design’ possible – it is presented as a masterplan, with 5 phases covering 3 years in the garden, and is the best I can do using the concepts and methods I have. BUT I am clear that it is only the best I can do from where I’m standing now and a version of me (or the client) in the future would make a much better design. So Phase 1 is 100% spot on, Phase 2 is very soon after so is 95% spot on, Phase 3 is not for 9 months and much could change by then, including the way in which Phase 1 and 2 were implemented, so actually around 80% spot on. After that it’s barely 50% accuracy i.e. so much could have changed from present day to the end of the project that it’s meaningless for me to go into much detail, but I can explain the concepts/patterns going forward for the client to apply themselves.) However, I’m struggling to get a clear idea of what you describe by ‘transformation’. I can see the clear difference between assembling and partitioning, and I can see that they’re both very useful for different design contexts or even different elements within a particular design, but I can’t find a clear and meaningful definition of what you call Row 3. Would it be right to summarise the y-axis as: Row 1 detail-work, Row 2 pattern-work, Row 3 the ping-pong match between patterns and details?
All the best pal, Finn
First up I have to say I am delighted to hear that the blog and podcast have had a clarifying and opening impact on your design process experiments and adventures Finn – hooray!
Now to the query, which I so appreciate you grappling with. First I’ll say that I continue to grapple with this also. In a real sense this whole blog is me trying to figure stuff like this out in the process of writing and talking about it. So rather than having some perfect answer for you I’m grateful for this opportunity to strive for greater clarity. Given I am quite sure there is a useful distinction to be had here.
First up the answer to the specific question you end with is yes, I see it as very much something like that. To flesh it out a bit I’d say that assembly is details to patterns work, partitioning is patterns to details work, and transformation is both at the same time (the ping pong thing).
As a complement to my previously penned thoughts on this, I’ll have a go at describing it freshly and with the addition of some more recent developments. Okay, I’m taking a deep breath before I discover how this is going to come out :-)…
Assembly starts with parts and strives to achieve wholes by bringing parts together into meaningful configurations. Here the parts come first and the whole comes second. In the Designer’s Manual, Bill Mollison was speaking from an assembly perspective when he said “For the final act of the designer, once components have been assembled, is to make a sensible pattern assembly of the whole.” (p. 70, bold mine). I sometimes refer to assembly as partism, in the sense that the parts are primary, the whole secondary.
What I’m calling partitioning is a reaction to the limitations of assembly/partism (which is not to say it isn’t useful!). Recently I realised that what I call partitioning is what is sometimes referred to with the word holism. In this sense, holism turns partism on its head. Here the whole becomes primary, the parts secondary. We start with a whole then sort of tickle the whole into birthing the parts. It was Arthur Koestler in his phenomenally influential book The Ghost in the Machine that alerted me to this connection between partitioning and holism. Indeed, he invented the concept of a holon (part-whole) to try and resolve the conflict between partism and holism.
For me, having designed by assembly for some years, it felt like an exciting advance to move to starting with the pre-existing whole place or space or whatever and then divide, distinguish, partition it up from there. The outcomes were certainly more adapted, more integrated, and more honouring and enhancing of what was already there. I have shared a few examples of designing in this way here and here.
Enter transformation. Here, any debate between whether it is better to move from parts to whole or from whole to parts becomes completely redundant. Transformation transcends and includes partism and holism by accepting that everywhere and always we are only ever encountering and, if we deem appropriate, transforming an already existing whole-that-already-has-parts. So at the begining there is a whole-with-its-parts. After step one there is a (slightly different) whole-with-its-parts. After step two there is a (slightly different) whole-with-its-parts. And so on, forever. There is never a whole minus parts. There is never a part minus a whole. It is simply nonsense to try and treat them as if the one could somehow exist, even for a moment, without the other.1
Thanks in large part to all the discussions and lines of thought this article has catalysed (many of them ongoing, as in the case of your comment), as well as my own experiments in applying these ideas, I’ve come to an updated understanding that works for me (for now) and resonates with much of what you say. Two key steps for me have been realising that assembly and differentiation are different logical types and that neither are committed to either the bottom-up or top-down direction of movement.
Here, I’ll put it into words (for the first time – thanks for the prompt!)
Differentiation just means to make different. Whether you use the word differentiate, transform, make different, change, modify, reconfigure, etc etc, the upshot is any process of design and/or creation is a sequence of [insert your preferred word here]. Each of these changes might involve addition (I bring home an apple tree to plant), multiplication (I decide to times that by ten), subtraction (I get rid of the rose bush), division (I partition the yard into two terraces), or morphing or merging or otherwise rearranging what is already there, or any number of other change types. In all cases you have differentiated the whole you are working with. You have made it different. In most cases, each change or differentiation simultaneously involves many of these things. I divide a room in two by adding and assembling some bits of wood and screws. And so on. The take away point is that we tend in our culture to display an unconscious bias in our designing and creating toward adding/assembly, when this is not only missing most of the tool box, but it is out of alignment with the fact that in nature things tend to grow where addition/assembly is an underling of division (e.g., in order for a cell to divide various molecules etc must come in from outside the system, and, sure, if you like, be assembled). It is also going to get harder and harder to do in an energy decent future. But most importantly, it is not the whole shebang. Hopefully over time we’ll all enlarge the vocabulary with which we describe the changes going on inside permaculture design process (where a problematically strong bias toward addition/assembly has been evident).
The second part of it for me is that if we more accurately contrast assembly (or adding) with division or delineation (instead of differentiation which we’ve just seen is more general of a concept) then neither of these contain any inherent directional commitment in terms of up or down in the holarchy. You might import a whole portable house to your place then bring in and layout kitchen counters and cupboards then move to select, import and assemble your knifes and forks. You are assembling from patterns to details. You might delineate a little pond in the middle of your place, then delineate a wetland it’ll sit within, and so on. You are delineating from details to patterns. Permaculturalists agree that an overall motion from patterns toward details is a good idea. So in light of the above the idea is that you gradually and sequentially differentiate a space, using many different kinds of differentiation (including but very much not limited to assembly and I note sometimes not involving any assembly whatsoever), moving upwards, downwards, and sideways, but with an overall movement downwards, from patterns toward details.
So I think as you do any either-or argument between addition/assembly and division/delineation is not a fruitful use of time (in spite of my having started a bout of just such arguments – oh well -you live and learn ;-)). My focus is now moving to the question of where are we aiming with these sequences of changes we make? What is the point and purpose and overall destination? How do we know if we’re on track? How do we so often get off track? And what is the most appropriate way of understanding the relation of designing and implementing inside this sequence?
Now I’m sorry Finn but I cannot resist in closing mentioning one little thing that might mess with your mind, as it continues to mess with mine. Transformation is not just ping pong. It is not just assembly then partitioning then assembly, back and forward. Patterns to details to patterns to details to patterns. Yes, this is part of it. But there is this other weird thing going on. You see we tend to think that as we move toward the parts we are moving away from the whole, and vice versa. For they are in different directions, right? Isn’t that the whole point of the distinction between wholes and parts – that one is up here and one is down there? For me, if I am honest with what I observe when I observe my self in process, it just ain’t that simple.
For me, the way I get closer to the whole is not up and away from the parts but is literally by going further into the parts. Indeed, the only place the whole can be found, if I’m honest to my experience (and not my unconsciously imbibed theories about how the world works), is in the parts! I know, I know – WTF right? Everyone knows that parts are inside wholes and that is how it is. But what I’ve been experimenting and dancing with is the irrefutable fact that it is at least as true, if not more true, that the whole is inside the parts.2 For me, even though logically it is something of a mind f%^&, this has been a beautiful realisation. So I’ll be curious to see what you and others make of it!
Over and out and I hope at least some of this was helpful Finn in feeding into your own sense-making and experience-noticing around this stuff. I believe this topic is a critical stepping stone on permaculture’s path toward a deep and shared understanding of an authentically nature-honouring creation process.
Bortoft, Henri. The Wholeness of Nature : Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature. Lindisfarne, 1996.
Mollison, Bill. Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual. Tagari, 1988.
Koestler, Arthur. The Ghost in the Machine. Penguin Group, 1967.
I’m a fan of the concept plan. Complete your sector and site analysis, establish your clients’ goals, priorities and vision, and play with all that information using design tools until you’ve come up with some broad brushstrokes across the site. These are sometimes called ‘bubble plans’ because you outline areas where different things will happen within the design but without going into specifics. Sometimes these are zones, and sometimes they are functional areas, like a chicken coop or a wildlife corridor.
Typically, this is the stage that you return to the client to flesh out the details. Then it’s several weeks of detailed drafting, plant lists, costings and recommendations to produce a finished plan. This is what permaculture certificate or degree teaches designers to do. It’s very similar to the process taught to landscape architects. The most notable difference is that a permaculture design incorporates the ethics and principles of the permaculture model. The drafting conventions are the same.
When we teach a permaculture design course (PDC), students are typically asked to produce one individual plan and one group plan. Some courses now include a social permaculture plan as either an alternative or additional project. I don’t require students to go beyond a concept plan. Here’s why:
Most students will not become professional designers
At the PDC level the majority of students will be designing for themselves. Their individual plan will be their own site. The real challenge is to get these students to start implementing permaculture on the ground. I consider this my primary goal. The plans are a means to an end.
A concept plan helps them to design the macro pattern for their site and gives them a clear understanding of how it’s an expression of the permaculture ethics and principles. It divides the site into manageable chunks in a way that a detailed plan often doesn’t.
For those wishing to become professional designers there is a compelling reason to learn detailed drafting. You will probably be dealing with other industry professionals and your plans will need to be accurately costed. They will also need to be read and understood by anyone the client contracts to implement the plan. Detailed plans are essential when dealing with government bodies or groups.
Detailed plans are a valuable communication tool for those that want to discuss a design with professionals, but for someone just starting out in permaculture they can seem overwhelming. Where to start? How to start? Do we wait until we can realise the whole plan in one go or do we randomly select a starting point. I have seen many beautiful plans presented in PDC’s but I’d estimate that less than 10% of them are ever realised. That’s a terrible waste of energy. I also suspect that the expectation to produce detailed plans might discourage some people from ever designing again.
I have commented before that implementation is one of the missing components of many PDCs but that’s a whole other subject. For today’s post it’s enough to say that if our goal is to get more permaculture happening then I fear that a course requirement for detailed plans might actually work against that goal.
If you’re never going to design for other people then a concept plan is likely to be a much better tool. It will help you to keep the pattern of your site in mind as you develop it. When you make changes, a concept plan will help you to stay aligned with the ethics and the principles because it shows you the pattern rather than the detail. I have seen many beautiful plans fall over at the implementation stage because clients didn’t appreciate the underlying pattern, or because the well-intentioned sales rep at the giant hardware store recommended what was ‘fashionable’.
“Nah, luv, you don’t want light pavers. Everyone’s putting in dark pavers this season….”
Student designs are typically implemented over time
While professional designers are usually working to a time frame and a budget, this is not the case for students implementing their own designs. Typically they will be incrementally making their permaculture dreams come true as time and budget allow. In the course of getting things done they will be learning. They will want to change their minds and their plans based on the feedback they receive from the site and from other members of their family or household. As their permaculture knowledge grows they will revise and improve their original ideas.
The trouble with detailed plans is that they are a snapshot in time, and not even an accurate snapshot. In my experience, there is no point in time when the property and the plan with match. There will always be deviation. So why invest all of that energy in a detailed plan in the first place? So much better to encourage students to invest their energy into getting stuck in.
We all know that the minute we break ground the plan is likely to be changed. We discover that the soil has bedrock just below the surface or that the map of the utilities was incorrect. We discover that our soil samples indicate some kind of contamination exactly at the spot we were going to put a food garden. The map is not the territory! Personal plans need to be flexible, so why do we make them detailed in the first place?
Much better to teach to this reality, and to make it safe for students to experiment, make mistakes and make changes. A concept plan invites flexibility and creativity. A detailed plan feels more permanent and changes are more difficult to make. Students might be reluctant to ‘ruin’ a finished plan and more likely to play with a concept plan. A concept plan is also more inclusive of other family members. Nick Ritar from Milkwood once commented that “the permaculture divorce is a thing” and who wouldn’t be put off by a fully realised plan with no opportunity for discussion or change. Okay, sure, you can say that you’re open to changing it, but there is a permanency about a detailed plan that makes others feel excluded, whereas a concept plan says, “Let’s work out the details together!”
We are not all artists
Drafting skills and artistic ability vary among students and the requirement for a detailed plan can leave some feeling embarrassed or incompetent. No matter how many reassurances you give students, there’s a pervading mood of inadequacy when the more creative students unveil their gorgeously presented plans. There’s a natural tendency to equate beauty with qualityeven though we know that a poorly drawn plan might actually be the more closely aligned with the ethics and principles.
There is insufficient time within a PDC to teach professional drafting skills so plans usually reflect the existing skill level of the student. These vary widely. I worry that the less beautiful plans are tucked into bottom draws or consigned to compost heaps with some embarrassment. A concept plan is much easier to draw and allows all students to feel competent in their designing. The pattern is the priority and not the aesthetics.
I also encourage students to include whatever they need to communicate their ideas. Photos with overlays, lists of elements, strategies or goals, pictures of things that have inspired them and even vision boards or pinterest collections. I want students to feel both excited about their designs and capable of achieving them. The plan is not the goal. The creation of a system that meets human needs while increasing ecological health is the goal.
I’m particularly fond of an observation journal where students keep records about their site, ideas for what they are doing and, perhaps most importantly, progress reports on what they have done. I teach part time (typically one day a fortnight) so that there’s plenty of time for students to start doing. This also reflects best practice in adult education; what we don’t use we lose! Theoretical knowledge gets forgotten within a few months if adult students don’t apply it practically. Waiting until a detailed plan is finished before doing anything works against this.
Not everyone understands a two dimensional plan
Plans are a kind of code. We agree that certain types of lines and shapes will represent certain types of things, but not everyone has the ability to imagine what a two dimensional plan will look like in a three dimensional space. It’s like the way a musician can make sense of musical notation, but if you’re a person that doesn’t know musical notation it’s just so many marks on a page.
Students shouldn’t be prevented from designing a permaculture system just because they don’t understand a two dimensional plan. In many parts of the world the only option is to design on the site because they don’t have the luxury of paper and pencils. I’m inspired by Rosemary Morrow’s experiences in some of the harshest environments on earth where people use whatever is at hand to mark out a site. The scale of these designs is 1:1 and they are three dimensional. They are no less a permaculture design than something conceived on paper. Arguably, these designs are superior. They are more likely to intuitively include elements that a paper design can get wrong, like incorporating desirable views, shadow patterns, ergonomics and water flows.
I’m impressed by Dan Palmer’s recent video showing how he marks out a driveway on a property using hay bales. Only on site is it possible to determine that the line of sight from the house makes the old access road unsuitable. It probably looked like a reasonable option drawn on paper. Dan also talks about the benefits of starting with a macro pattern and developing the micro components on site. This seems like a much better use of human energy and has the advantage of engaging clients in a way that a paper plan never will.
The pattern is the design challenge
To my mind, a concept plan tells me everything I need to know as a trainer. It allows students to demonstrate to me that they understand the ethics and principles of permaculture and that they can apply them to designing. Learning outcomes achieved!
I can see the area they have set aside for wild things and they can tell me why it’s critical, but I don’t need to know which native species will grow here. They can show me an appreciation of value and the patterns of trees, with deciduous plants on the sunward side and nitrogen fixing species interplanted with food producing species. Do I need the specifics? Does it impact the quality of the plan if the food tree is a macadamia or a walnut? Or does the detail make it harder for me to assess their pattern?
I want to see a pattern for catching, storing, sinking, slowing and cleaning water before it leaves the site but I don’t need their first idea to be so carefully rendered that they won’t feel empowered to change it if they have a better idea in twelve months time. Students need to be able to answer questions about nutrient cycling, food production and animal systems (where they have them) but it’s their understanding of the functional aspects that matters and not their ability to draw them.
I am interested in seeing the overlays or any other information they collected in their sector and site analysis. I want to know how they got from there to their concept design. This process is the other important pattern, the design pattern, that I will encourage them to use every time they want to apply permaculture ethics and principles to a design task. Knowing this pattern is critical.
As teachers we need evidence of learning. It’s not enough that we are sure we told them. We need proof that our learning was effective. For me, a concept plan provides the best means for students to demonstrate this knowledge. It also makes it much safer for me to ask questions that might result in changes; altering a concept plan is not a big deal but ask “Where is your zone five” of a detailed, hand-painted, beautifully rendered design and you’ve got probably got a resentful student on your hands.
Concept plans might just be the way of the future
I used to do detailed plans for clients. Not so much these days. Permaculture challenges me to keep redesigning my life to bring it into better alignment with the ethics and principles. I made the observation that most of the people I know with established permaculture systems never drew a plan.
I didn’t. I started on a three and a half acre property over 20 years ago and knew that the front acre was going to be restored to zone five and that the house would sit in the middle of the large, bare horse paddock where the least cut-and-fill would give us a sunward aspect. That was enough to start with. We soon added a well positioned access road and used the car to mark it out so that there were no sharp bends or uncomfortable manoeuvres. We thought about water, installed tanks and cut swales.
Over 20 years later we are still making changes. Most of us know that our needs and wishes change over time. The permaculture system I imagined I needed in my twenties is not the permaculture system I imagine I need in my sixties and beyond. Today’s system is both an expression of my growing knowledge and an appreciation of my increasing physical limitations as I age. Both the system and me are dynamic. I once drew a plan of this property as part of a PDC. The current system only resembles it. We’ve made many changes since then.
I realised that most of my friends in permaculture did the same. They started at their back door with herbs and annuals and worked outwards. They started at their boundaries with fire breaks and wind breaks and worked inwards. It seemed a natural pattern; spiral outwards and spiral inwards.
So why have I spent so many hours preparing detailed plans for clients? It’s a case of adopting the existing pattern, as we so often do. Only when we have lived the pattern for a while does it occur to us to check it against the ethics and principles to see how it stacks up. These days I’m much more inclined to provide clients with a concept plan and to coach them on site to make it happen, or even (shock horror!) to just start on the site and help them create their designs without a paper plan.
Most designers have had the experience of clients staring blankly at a two dimensional plan and asking for something obvious to be explained. “So is this the garage?” they say, clearly indicating that the two dimensional plan is not the best way to communicate with them. I’m not seeing this with concept plans. They are easier to read, easier for clients to understand and on that basis, much more likely to result in permaculture actually happening on site.
One of the great benefits of a concept plans is that it allows the clients to be part of the evolution of the system. The implementation phase is like the pattern of succession. Clients start small, improving their knowledge and skills, and then slowly increase complexity. They save energy by making mistakes early and learning from them. It would be a disaster to put a fully ‘blitzed’ permaculture system into the hands of an inexperienced client. We need to make sure that clients are an integral part of their system and that they grow with it.
A concept plan helps clients to design from the macro to the micro. Once they understand the thinking behind the pattern they will be less likely to make expensive mistakes or to swap out elements for something not aligned to permaculture ethics and principles. They are now my preferred service. Clients can always request more detail for a particular area or for the whole site, but in my experience a concept plan encourages them to get out there and start implementing while a detailed plan is often overwhelming.
I like to give clients a blank sheet of tracing paper with their plan. It’s a way to encourage them to interact with it, to play with it and to fill in their own details. I think concept plans are the way of the future for most clients. The results speak for themselves. Typically clients can’t wait to get started.
This means that even for those students that want to design for other people, learning to prepare a concept plan might just be the core skill. It gives clients the pattern for their site in a way that is easy to understand and that means we have helped them to improve their chances for success. Sounds like people care to me.
Jason recently contributed this guest post to Making Permaculture Stronger, this post shared a snippet from our conversation in the comments of the current inquiry and this one included a diagram sharing the history of Jason’s permaculture design process signature.
In the closing comments to this episode I mention an experiment I’m currently conducting where I want to find out if the universe in general, and perhaps even you in particular, feel moved to give this project a tiny drip of financial support to unleash unimaginably exciting new levels of blog, podcast, video and book action. Only if you’d like, you can read more about this here.
Greetings all. This week I personally revisited and then thought to share some words spoken a little over a year ago by David Holmgren at the close of the 14th Australasian Permaculture Convergence on April 9th, 2018.
Rereading these words helped remind and energise me about why I’m doing what I’m doing. So I thought I’d share them with you too. May that more of us get energised and continue to collaborate on this work of exploring and evolving our shared understandings of what permaculture design is, and could be.
After speaking to several other aspects of the convergence,1 David explained:
Another thing that for me was quite strong was the focus on social permaculture, indigenous connections, and design process at this convergence – were just strong themes that came out.
The last thing I wanted to mention is the disturbance of Dan Palmer’s work which I definitely appreciate, even though there’s aspects of it that I understand might not seem useful to some people. I think that going back to the design process and trying to work on that concept of the weak link in permaculture – and it’s not just permaculture of course, design process is really a mystery. Design education – trying to communicate stuff, you could say has been a global failure. And it’s a bit related to the troubles that I’ve had in the early stages of how do you teach people to read landscape. I’ve been trying for decades – it’s really complex, and just have to say that after trying to understand this process in myself of reading landscape and then how to communicate it and the struggles I’ve had with that it was going out with Dan on a property and him watching me read landscape that gave me more insight into what I was doing, that I hadn’t fully grasped before.
So this thing of actually trying to see what we are doing is very complex.
He then invited a few questions. The first was from Australian permaculture elder and social permaculture pioneer Robyn Clayfield, who asked about how important reading people and the social landscape was relative to reading the physical landscape. David replied:
Equally important to reading landscape. Because Dan and I have been working on a couple of courses now where the primary process is me teaching reading landscape and him teaching reading people. I would say that the teaching of reading people, that looks like it’s about as a designer, as a facilitator, is partially useful as an externalisation so you can actually learn to look the other way and look inside too. So yeah what I’m finding from the process is that they’re not just of equal importance but they are actually similar methods.
Another question, possibly the last, was:
David what is the most important question you think permaculture should be asking itself over the next few years?
Well in that most general sense, in the sense of what is universal – what should permaculture collectively be asking – I think it is a deeper and hopefully more shared understanding of design process. Not in the sense of a narrowing down, or agreement but a deeper exploration of that because that’s what we say we’re doing all the time, everywhere in relation to everything and it’s not the outcomes and the sources it’s what is the actual process we’re using or is that a complete mystery and it doesn’t matter?
So just reflecting on that, exploring that I think is really important because otherwise a lot of the contributions we talk about whether it’s within regenerative agriculture, or community development, or small-scale, is once those things become adopted in society, the label permaculture falls away. Whether it’s rainwater harvesting, or sheet mulching, or whatever. Those become adopted. What do we get left with? We get left with going back out to the fringe and finding the next interesting thing and a baggage of things that didn’t work. That society didn’t adopt.
So, the core thing that the whole society is having trouble with is design process. The design professions are in as bad a situation, you could say worse, than permaculture. We don’t really know what we are doing. And getting a closer sense of that, gives us a very powerful contribution.