Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate College 2014 Integral Agriculture: Taking seriously the mindset of the farmer, the interiority of the beings on the farm, and a metaphysics that connects them Travis E. B. Cox Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at:http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of theAgriculture Commons,Environmental Sciences Commons, and theMetaphysics Commons Recommended Citation Cox, Travis E. B., "Integral Agriculture: Taking seriously the mindset of the farmer, the interiority of the beings on the farm, and a metaphysics that connects them" (2014).Graduate Theses and Dissertations.Paper 14091. This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. For more information, please [email protected]. Integral agriculture: Taking seriously the mindset of the farmer, the interiority of the beings on the farm, and a metaphysics that connects them by Travis Cox A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Sustainable Agriculture Program of Study Committee: Kevin deLaplante, Co-Major Professor Fred Kirschenmann, Co-Major Professor Tara Lynn Clapp Betty Wells Clark Wolf John Ikerd Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2014 Copyright © Travis Cox, 2014. All rights reserved ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to all the beings whose relations have helped to create me and thereby this academic work: my mother and father, Ed and Betty; my wife, Chrissa, and my two daughters, Cora and Adeline; my sister, Amanda, and my niece, Lilly; my sister-in-law, Randee, and my niece, Grace; all my friends and family, both human and More than Human; and the Divine that runs through it all. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. vi ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 Dissertation Organization ............................................................................................... 4 Sustainable Agriculture .................................................................................................. 6 Process Metaphysics ...................................................................................................... 8 Power of Ideas .......................................................................................................... 10 Worldview ................................................................................................................ 11 Clarity and Order ...................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Philosophy ........................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 2. TRANSPERSONAL AGROECOLOGY: THE METAPHYSICS OF ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL THEORY ............................................................ 22 Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 22 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 22 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 23 Transpersonal Ecology ................................................................................................. 25 Transpersonal Agroecology ......................................................................................... 26 Transpersonal Agroecology: Opposition ..................................................................... 29 Productionist Mentality ............................................................................................ 29 Scientism .................................................................................................................. 30 Economism ............................................................................................................... 34 Transpersonal Agroecology: Subscription ................................................................... 38 Identification ............................................................................................................. 38 Process ...................................................................................................................... 41 Transpersonal Agroecology: Contribution ................................................................... 45 Values ....................................................................................................................... 46 Alternative Methodologies and Epistemologies ....................................................... 48 Spirit ......................................................................................................................... 53 iv Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 3. GRAFTING METAPHYSICS: HOW TRANSPERSONAL AGROECOLOGY BEARS FRUIT WITH PROCESS METAPHYSICS AS ITS ROOT.................................................................................................................. 60 Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 60 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 60 Process Metaphysics and Transpersonal Agroecology ................................................ 65 Similarities between PM and TPAE ......................................................................... 66 How Adjudication and Proper Valuing of Humans in PM Contribute to TPAE ..... 79 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 92 CHAPTER 4. CLUES THAT OUTLAST THE DECADES: CREATING AN INTEGRAL AGRICULTURE THROUGH TRANSPERSONAL AGROECOLOGY AND THE INTERIORITY OF THE MORE THAN HUMAN WORLD ...................... 95 Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 95 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 96 Survey of Contemporary Agricultural Theory ............................................................. 98 Problems with “Conventional,” “Modern,” and “Industrial” Agriculture ................ 99 Metaphysical Paradigms ......................................................................................... 102 Subtle Materialism .................................................................................................. 104 Interiority, Subjectivity, Awareness ....................................................................... 107 Transpersonal Agroecology, Interiority, and Integral Agriculture ............................ 112 TPAE and Interiority: Why? ................................................................................... 114 TPAE and Interiority: The Sacred as an Ordinary but Integral Way of Being that Leads to Action ....................................................................................................... 124 TPAE and Interiority: How?................................................................................... 131 Conclusion: Clues for a Future Integral Agriculture .................................................. 135 GENERAL CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 138 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 145 v LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: The Shared Philosophical and Ideological Aspects of Industrial Agriculture.............………………..………………………… 100 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iowa State University: My committee, co-major professors Dr. Kevin deLaplante and Dr. Fred Kirschenmann, and Dr. Tara Lynne Clapp, Dr. John Ikerd, Dr. Betty Wells, Dr. Clark Wolf, Gretchen Zdorkowski; the GPSA (especially Charles Sauer, Dr. Mary Wiedenhoeft, Dr. Mark Gleason, and Angela Stone; Convivium (especially Dr. Devan McGranahan, Stefans Gailans, and Dr. Dave Correll); Political Science; Center for Arts and Humanities (especially Sandra Norvell); Creative Writing and the Environment (especially Mary Swander); Philosophy Department; Leopold Center, and Dr. Nana Osei-Kofi Maharishi University of Management: Sustainable Living staff, students, and faculty (especially Lonnie Gamble and Dr. David Fisher), administration (especially Dr. Cathy Gorini and Dr. Craig Pearson), staff and students Central College professors and friends, especially Dr. Chad Ray and Dr. Mary Jo Sodd The editors who formatted my three chapters and final dissertation: Jocelyn Engman, Barbara Allen, and Kari Kapadia Risher vii ABSTRACT With the steady increase in the market share of organic food over the last 30 years, some farmers have switched from “conventional” to “sustainable” agricultural practices in order to capitalize on those new markets. Are the practices the only things that need to change? Building off of Warwick Fox’s conception of “transpersonal ecology,” transpersonal agroecology (TPAE) is the name given to a proposed alternative mindset of the farmer derived from various alternative agricultural theorists of the last 100 years. These writers oppose the scientism and economism that typify industrial agriculture, subscribe to the notion that experiences of "identification" between the farmer and the beings on the farm are an important component of a truly sustainable agriculture, and suggest that a truly sustainable agriculture requires a radical critique of the metaphysical assumptions that underlie modern agricultural practices. A case is made that a process metaphysics (based on the philosophy of A.N. Whitehead) can productively support a transpersonal agroecological way of being on the farm with its requisite sustainable agricultural practices. Finally, though many theorists have analyzed both industrial and sustainable agriculture from an ideological perspective, most of them partake of a subtle form of materialism, recapitulating the belief that relationships among beings are exclusively external. This subtle materialism precludes the farmer from ascribing interiority to the majority of the beings she is in relationship with. Revisiting transpersonal agroecology, with an understanding of interiority, yields a truly holistic, integral agriculture that takes seriously the mindset of the farmer and the interiority of the beings on the farm. 1 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION Agriculture will remain a tragedy so long as it is kept separate from the problem of the human condition. And the human condition will remain a tragic problem as long as it is kept separate from the problem of agriculture. (Jackson, 1984, p. 161) What does philosophy have to do with sustainable agriculture? I’ve faced this question, in various forms, many times throughout my career here at Iowa State University. 1 For instance, after taking a course entitled “Pedagogies of Dissent,” which was offered by the Educational and Leadership Policy Studies department, I was compelled to bring the knowledge of critical theory to my fellow students. I was afforded the opportunity at one of our “Conviviums,” a weekly student social gathering that follows our Graduate Program in Sustainable Agriculture seminar (“Colloquium”) every Wednesday. I had a formal presentation planned, along with a handout, but afterward I noticed that most of the people assembled were confused at best. “What does social justice have to do with raising pigs?” asked one of my classmates. Another example comes from a student screening of the documentary To Patent a Pig. In our discussion afterward, I noted that “my heart hurt”, which was an attempt to 1 The tone of the introduction and conclusion of this dissertation differs significantly from the chapters contained herein. Let the reader be assured that this is purposeful. This introduction, along with the conclusion, has afforded me the opportunity to make an autoethnographic attempt at scholarship (Spry 2001). 2 express my (at that time) unstructured moral discomfort with what I perceived to be the numerous instances of unethical human behavior exhibited in the film. Again, this level of inquiry was greeted by apathy, and the closest thing I got to a positive response was from a student colleague who, throughout the rest of our time in GPSA, referenced my comment as an example of the necessity of multiple perspectives for the project of sustainable agriculture, even if no one really seemed to know what that meant. One final example will segue to this dissertation. “Foundations of Sustainable Agriculture” is the one theory class we students in GPSA are required to take. In this class, the instructors attempt to introduce as many of the philosophical implications of sustainable agriculture as possible. As noted by Teresa Opheim, executive director of Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), in our bi-annual program retreat, this is an especially difficult task because we, as a program, are not only focused on “agroecology,” which seems to have fewer implications, but are instead focused on “sustainable agriculture”, which has overt political and social implications, even in the name alone. Studying “sustainable” agriculture necessitates the existence of an “unsustainable” agriculture, thus pitting “us” against “them.” In their effort to educate GPSA students on the full spectrum of implications, the instructors of “Foundations” directed our attention to the concept of “positivism” in the philosophy of science. To my astonishment (and, to be honest, my horror), there were students in the course, graduate students who were actively involved in research at ISU, who couldn’t differentiate between the work that they did as scientists and the concept of “positivism,” the now debunked belief that science is capable of delivering “value- free” and “objective” “facts” about reality. This experience, coupled with the textbook