Convivial Conservation: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The front page of the official Convivial Conservation page reads: <br> "Convivial (literally: ‘living with’) conservation offers a new and integrated approach to understanding and practicing environmental conservation. It is a Whole Earth vision that responds to the major ecological, social and political-economic challenges facing people and biodiversity in the 21st century."<Ref>https://convivialconservation.com/</Ref> = Sources =") |
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The front page of the official Convivial Conservation page reads: <br> | The front page of the official Convivial Conservation page reads: <br> | ||
"Convivial (literally: ‘living with’) conservation offers a new and integrated approach to understanding and practicing environmental conservation. It is a Whole Earth vision that responds to the major ecological, social and political-economic challenges facing people and biodiversity in the 21st century."<Ref>https://convivialconservation.com | "Convivial (literally: ‘living with’) conservation offers a new and integrated approach to understanding and practicing environmental conservation. It is a Whole Earth vision that responds to the major ecological, social and political-economic challenges facing people and biodiversity in the 21st century. ..." <br><br>"Convivial conservation is inspired by many collectives and individuals doing conservation differently and holistically. Several research projects are ongoing to learn from their practices and to support them by providing a vision that unites different struggles in pursuit of a socially and ecologically just conservation. The idea is to build on promising examples to develop a general conservation model embodying more convivial principles both within these sites and elsewhere."<Ref>https://convivialconservation.com</Ref> | ||
= Foundation = | |||
<Blockquote>In 1973, in his influential book Tools for Conviviality, Ivan Illich formulated an explicit vision of a convivial society, i.e., one built on ‘individual freedom realized in personal interdependence’. Alongside survival and the control of work as key conditions for conviviality, Illich names justice, which is commonly ‘debased to mean the equal distribution of institutional wares’, but in fact needs to be both distributive and participatory. Rather than equality being in the possession of industrial goods, justice to Illich emphasizes participation in decision-making and creating new images of the future that are not contingent on another person’s enforced labor, learning or consumption.<Ref>https://mayflybooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Convivial_Conservation_Book_ONLINE.pdf</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
<Blockquote>Conviviality, which Illich sees explicitly as the opposite of industrial productivity, is ‘autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the persons with their environment’. The only limit on freedom is to guarantee another’s equal freedoms. It is important to note, however, that freedom for Illich is not understood as maximally free markets in the sense of laissez-faire-economics, but as freedom in responsible interdependence. His thinking rejects ‘tools’ (understood as all instruments and mechanisms of material and consultative production) being hijacked by elites and experts to reinforce hierarchies and decision-making by the few. Instead, Illich emphasizes the significance of broad-based participatory processes: for safeguarding individuals’ access to communal tools, and for reaching social agreements. In short, conviviality is a passionate appeal not to cede control of society to the few, but to encourage the many to reach agreements that enhance individual freedom cognizant of interdependencies between people, but also with the environment and planetary limits. To Illich, this convivial vision was not only a line of thinking, but a vocation. It incorporated inclusive, broad-based decision-making, justice considering all human and environmental interdependencies, and curtailed resource consumption by the rich. This strength of conviction may account for why his ideas inspire scholars to this day, to build transformative visions.<Ref>https://mayflybooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Convivial_Conservation_Book_ONLINE.pdf</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
= Implementation = | |||
= Decolonization = | |||
<Blockquote>Different authors have traced the links between Illich’s thinking and two much-discussed philosophies in the decolonial space: buen vivir and Ubuntu. Albó (2011) illustrates that the Aymara notion of suma qamaña or vivir bien/buen vivir, means to live, dwell, rest and care for others in a good, generous manner. A second, important pillar is living well with nature, Mother Earth or Pacha Mama. In combination, the two mandate that the world should not revolve around economic growth, but around human growth, and that humans should accept a strong sense of reciprocity with and be a harmonious part of Pacha Mama. This is while recognizing that economic, political and social power structures are significant barriers to the implementation of these principles. The idea of suma qamaña is thus embedded within intense convivial reciprocity between people and nature, going far beyond material connections. This extends equally to the notion of just resource extraction limits, and the prioritization of ethical values over economic values, both of which parallel Illich. Equally, there are parallels between conviviality and Ubuntu, which Chemhuru (2019b) defines as a philosophy from southern Africa that, unlike much Western thought, starts with communities and their interconnectedness rather than the individual. ‘Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu’, derived from the Nguni people— Xhosa, Ndebele and Zulu—is understood to be its quintessence, meaning a person is a person through another person. A person is understood through the triad between those who have passed, those who are alive, and those who are yet to come. This ethic of care extends beyond humans towards the physical and natural world, which constitutes a key parallel to Illich’s conviviality. Scholars including Naicker (2011) and Terblanché-Greeff (2019) emphasize that Ubuntu, given its inclusive, interdependent premise, is well-suited to capture and promote the voices of under-heard communities in global discussions around environmental change. This parallels Illich’s emphasis on giving a voice to all, including the least heard. Illich’s understanding of conviviality thus converges with buen vivir and Ubuntu on resource consumption limits for the rich, as well as principles of joint, participatory decision-making as part of a commitment to responsible, just interdependence with humans and the environment.<Ref>https://mayflybooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Convivial_Conservation_Book_ONLINE.pdf</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
= Sources = | = Sources = | ||
Latest revision as of 01:10, 21 May 2023
The front page of the official Convivial Conservation page reads:
"Convivial (literally: ‘living with’) conservation offers a new and integrated approach to understanding and practicing environmental conservation. It is a Whole Earth vision that responds to the major ecological, social and political-economic challenges facing people and biodiversity in the 21st century. ..."
"Convivial conservation is inspired by many collectives and individuals doing conservation differently and holistically. Several research projects are ongoing to learn from their practices and to support them by providing a vision that unites different struggles in pursuit of a socially and ecologically just conservation. The idea is to build on promising examples to develop a general conservation model embodying more convivial principles both within these sites and elsewhere."[1]
Foundation
In 1973, in his influential book Tools for Conviviality, Ivan Illich formulated an explicit vision of a convivial society, i.e., one built on ‘individual freedom realized in personal interdependence’. Alongside survival and the control of work as key conditions for conviviality, Illich names justice, which is commonly ‘debased to mean the equal distribution of institutional wares’, but in fact needs to be both distributive and participatory. Rather than equality being in the possession of industrial goods, justice to Illich emphasizes participation in decision-making and creating new images of the future that are not contingent on another person’s enforced labor, learning or consumption.[2]
Conviviality, which Illich sees explicitly as the opposite of industrial productivity, is ‘autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the persons with their environment’. The only limit on freedom is to guarantee another’s equal freedoms. It is important to note, however, that freedom for Illich is not understood as maximally free markets in the sense of laissez-faire-economics, but as freedom in responsible interdependence. His thinking rejects ‘tools’ (understood as all instruments and mechanisms of material and consultative production) being hijacked by elites and experts to reinforce hierarchies and decision-making by the few. Instead, Illich emphasizes the significance of broad-based participatory processes: for safeguarding individuals’ access to communal tools, and for reaching social agreements. In short, conviviality is a passionate appeal not to cede control of society to the few, but to encourage the many to reach agreements that enhance individual freedom cognizant of interdependencies between people, but also with the environment and planetary limits. To Illich, this convivial vision was not only a line of thinking, but a vocation. It incorporated inclusive, broad-based decision-making, justice considering all human and environmental interdependencies, and curtailed resource consumption by the rich. This strength of conviction may account for why his ideas inspire scholars to this day, to build transformative visions.[3]
Implementation
Decolonization
Different authors have traced the links between Illich’s thinking and two much-discussed philosophies in the decolonial space: buen vivir and Ubuntu. Albó (2011) illustrates that the Aymara notion of suma qamaña or vivir bien/buen vivir, means to live, dwell, rest and care for others in a good, generous manner. A second, important pillar is living well with nature, Mother Earth or Pacha Mama. In combination, the two mandate that the world should not revolve around economic growth, but around human growth, and that humans should accept a strong sense of reciprocity with and be a harmonious part of Pacha Mama. This is while recognizing that economic, political and social power structures are significant barriers to the implementation of these principles. The idea of suma qamaña is thus embedded within intense convivial reciprocity between people and nature, going far beyond material connections. This extends equally to the notion of just resource extraction limits, and the prioritization of ethical values over economic values, both of which parallel Illich. Equally, there are parallels between conviviality and Ubuntu, which Chemhuru (2019b) defines as a philosophy from southern Africa that, unlike much Western thought, starts with communities and their interconnectedness rather than the individual. ‘Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu’, derived from the Nguni people— Xhosa, Ndebele and Zulu—is understood to be its quintessence, meaning a person is a person through another person. A person is understood through the triad between those who have passed, those who are alive, and those who are yet to come. This ethic of care extends beyond humans towards the physical and natural world, which constitutes a key parallel to Illich’s conviviality. Scholars including Naicker (2011) and Terblanché-Greeff (2019) emphasize that Ubuntu, given its inclusive, interdependent premise, is well-suited to capture and promote the voices of under-heard communities in global discussions around environmental change. This parallels Illich’s emphasis on giving a voice to all, including the least heard. Illich’s understanding of conviviality thus converges with buen vivir and Ubuntu on resource consumption limits for the rich, as well as principles of joint, participatory decision-making as part of a commitment to responsible, just interdependence with humans and the environment.[4]
Sources
- ↑ https://convivialconservation.com
- ↑ https://mayflybooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Convivial_Conservation_Book_ONLINE.pdf
- ↑ https://mayflybooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Convivial_Conservation_Book_ONLINE.pdf
- ↑ https://mayflybooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Convivial_Conservation_Book_ONLINE.pdf