Critique of Adam Curtis contribution -- Aurora 13:40, 14 June 2011 (PDT)
I watched the video version and also listened to the radio version here and I found this compared to other contributions of Adam Curtis not convincing in all points. I am also not sure what his point in this one is, the interview helped clear up a bit of it but still I find some things puzzling. Despite that, I want to point to something regarding the moderators reply to the Adam Curtis theories. The moderator pointed towards permaculture as a model for the future as a result of accepting Adam Curtis premises in this show. I want to point towards that permaculture is to a large degree a concept that uses the very concepts of ecosystems as a basis for its work. The book "Gaia's Garden" speaks literally of constructing ecosystems, points towards the shuttling of nutrients, of creating a small scale ecosystem with "nodes" and "pathways". It basically is largely the application of ecosystems theory to a created physical reality. I still think that this can be a valid way and this is part of why I am a bit unconvinced about this episode from Curtis.
What I think Curtis misunderstood is that ecosystem science while looking at ecologies - as all natural sciences - in a mechanistic way, the assumption that a "balance of nature" somehow means that there should be a static stability is one that probably only some people in the 1960s believed. The "fox and rabbit" cycle, climate fluctuations, ice ages and all that are clear examples that ecosystems are not statically stable, but highly dynamic - but not instable. And I do not think any ecologists of the 1990ies and later thought of ecosystems as a static thing. But this seems to be the major criticism Curtis has against ecosystem theory and this is what I do not accept - and thus a number of his conclusions do not convince me. I'd like to hear more from the moderators of the show and other listeners on this topic, also because Adam Curtis seems to attack the concept of nonhierarchical societies - something the listeners of this show seem to believe strongly in. On that note, Curtis also only looks at communes that have failed for examples, overlooking successful communes that still exist and obviously found ways to deal with the problems - and he does not look for indigenous peoples or other societies that are at times organized much less hierarchically or even non hierarchically.
Re: Critique of Adam Curtis contribution -- Robin 20:15, 15 June 2011 (PDT)
- I've just uploaded the Curtis interview, which is certainly worth listening to in its entirety. Curtis explains that it is a rather experimental set of films, mixing up narratives of personal lives and social development. Where I felt the Curtis film was strongest was on the attempts by top leaders to, under the metaphor of the static 'ecosystem', justify managing and controlling everything with a complex model, without addressing the real world addressing anticipating any systemic change - an all too familiar kind of late 20th century hubris that many political leaders seem to want to extend into the 21st.
- Curtis' choosing not to look at any successful communes is indeed revealing. I too am unconvinced by his citing the communes and soviet state revolutions as reason to dismiss self-organising systems. Even overlooking the unexplored corners (e.g. Russian goons and successful communes) this is a sweeping assertion, one perhaps designed to tie up loose ends and smooth the transition into part 3 of the series.
- I appreciate your point about permaculture. For me, it starts with observing the world and trying to understand it. The world is essentially chaotic (how did Curtis avoid using and explaining this idea??) and so the idea of completely predictable systems doesn't fit, but the idea of nutrients cycle etc. is helpful to understand how things keep running smoothly. This is something of a contradiction. The difference might be that of humans expecting to organise things for chickens and plants, arranging things for them (fair enough) and humans arranging things for other humans (inherently problematic).