The issue of environmentalism from the reigning and emerging paradigm perspectives notes by Tony May

The Issue of Environmentalism from the Reigning and Emerging Paradigms Perspective [Notes] Reigning Paradigm: Brief Description. Fritjof Capra in 1997 wrote that, “The paradigm that is now receding has dominated our culture for several hundred years, during which it has shaped our modern Western society and has significantly influenced the rest of the world.”1 This paradigm has been described as a mechanistic worldview, with a rationalistic, reductionist, linear, and evolutionary philosophical outlooks, Capra (1981), Henderson (1996). This has led to a fragmentary and reductionist approach within most social sciences, such as economics, business, politics, sociology, and so on, and has also lead to compartmentalisation amongst disciplines and concepts, Capra (1981). An overemphasis on linear thinking has meant decisions take place without regard to their systemic effects. As a result we find business or economic decisions that fail to recognise ecological or social consequences. Economics under this paradigm attempts to understand everything in terms of production, distribution and consumption of wealth. In addition, it tries to quantify things by assigning them monetary weightings. Thus if a value can be ascribed to something then it is more valuable than a resource or activity that cannot be measured in money terms, such as natural resources, air we breath, biosphere, child rearing, housework, quality of life, and so on. This way of thinking has lead to our present materialist system. Capra (1981) recalls that E.F. Schumacher argued that our materialist system measures our ‘standard of living’ by the amount of annual consumption and GNP. As a result economics strives to maximise consumption along with an optimal pattern of production, Capra (1981), Schumacher (1975).

The dominant values of the reigning paradigm are those of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, such as, critical reasoning, empiricism, and individualism together with a secular and materialistic orientation. This provided the platform, argues Capra (1981), for the production of worldly goods and luxuries, and to the “manipulative mentality of the Industrial Age.” This gave birth to capitalism and the development of the capitalist mentality with its emphasis on growth, competition, making money, and Darwinian survival of the fittest mentality. Another significant phenomenon is the dependence on scientific reductionism and determinism that has led to technological progress, growth and optimism. In a similar vein, Capra (1996) asserts that the entrenched ideas and values of the reigning tradition views life in society as “a competitive struggle for existence,” and that it affirms a belief in “unlimited material progress to be achieved through economic and technological growth.” This has brought us numerous benefits on one hand and on the other through excessive technological growth it has caused environmental degradation and the creation of an unhealthy environment for life. However, the reigning tradition optimistically assumes and suggests that by developing and using more technology, based on thinking rooted in the reigning paradigm, humanity can rectify these negative environmental side effects.

A key characteristic of the reigning tradition is its foundation based on domination that manifests itself in many of our social and economic structures and uses of technology, which by their very nature are inherently anti-ecological, Capra (1997). This theme will be discussed in more detail in the next section. However, another facet of domination, worth mentioning [and pursuing in more detail later on in the research], is that it has made it a great virtue to value power and greed, and this has expressed itself in our modern age by the unique value we ascribed to money and how modern capitalism has made wealth the highest value. This is to such an extent that Walter Wink (1992) exclaims, “Our entire social system has become an economy”2; whereby profit has become the highest social good.

Emerging Paradigm: Brief Description What is it? Defining what new paradigm thinking means is problematic. It is difficult because there are many diverse elements that constitute the new social paradigm, which embraces an ecological worldview. Michael Ventura notes that the emerging paradigm is totally chaotic, but there appears to be a worldwide movement to form a new ‘faith’. Nevertheless this characteristic should not be surprising, as one of its priories is its reluctance to except a meta-narrative. Alternatively, its diverseness, it is argued, could be considered one of its traits. Out of this diversity, however, you can detect commonalties running throughout the communities or schools of thought that pertain to new paradigm thinking.

Fritjof Capra, however, tries to draw these commonalties together and attempts to describe the new paradigm thinking. He suggests that the new paradigm represent a shift in thinking from the old scientific paradigm of the Cartesian, Newtonian, or Baconian worldviews, and the patriarchal value system to a way of thinking that can be described as holistic, ecological or systemic. Further Capra, notes that the new paradigm represents a shift, which is more than a shift in worldviews, but one that also incorporates values and activities that are part of a social paradigm. In this 1 !

Fritjof Capra, “The Web of Life”, Flamingo An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, p. 6.

! 2

Walter Wink, “Engaging the Powers”, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1992.

context Capra maintains that an individual may have a worldview, but a community shares a paradigm. In addition, Capra (1992) identifies five criteria, which constitutes the new paradigm thinking. The first two refer to our perceptions of nature, and the other three to our epistemology. In brief, the first two criteria represent a shift from the part to the whole, and the shift from structure to process. The remaining criterion, writes Capra, represents “the move from seeing science as objective to ‘Epistemic’; the metaphor of knowledge as building is being replaced by that of the network, and finally that there is a shift from truth to approximate description.”3

Ecological Dimension An important aspect of the new social paradigm is its ecological awareness and consciousness. A worldview that sees living organisms as being intrinsically dynamic and that the world is one fragile, interactive, interconnected and interdependent self-organising whole made up of nested hierarchies of self-organising wholes within wholes. The outlook is systemic rather than linear, having awareness, as Capra puts it “of the essential interrelatedness and interdependence of all phenomena - physical, biological, social, cultural and psychological.” Adding, “It transcends current disciplinary and conceptual boundaries.”4 The emerging worldview also places greater emphasis on an integrative approach over self-assertive tendencies. In terms of thinking it favours intuitiveness, synthesis, holistic or ecological, and nonliner approaches. In terms of values it favours conservation, co-operation, equality and partnership.

If we consider the ecological paradigm in more depth we would identify, along with Capra (1997) that there are three main schools of philosophical thought. These are deep ecology, social ecology and feminist ecology. They all address important aspects of the ecological paradigm, however, Capra argues that their approaches have not been integrated into a coherent ecological vision, something which he believes is essential in order to progress ecological thinking and practice. More will be said about the different schools later, however, it is instructive to give a brief resume of their contribution.

Spiritual Dimension Deep ecological awareness on one hand, according to Capra, provides an “ideal philosophical and spiritual basis for an ecological lifestyle and for environmental activism,” and on the other, social ecology provides a way of interpreting how the current ecological crisis has come about. This ecological paradigm, according to Capra, goes far beyond science. At the deepest level, Capra says, “it joins with religious awareness and religious experience,” adding that, “the notions of being embedded in the cosmos, and of belonging to the cosmos, are very similar.”

The New Age movement claims that that the current paradigm is predominantly spiritual and may be physical as well. Mark Phillips, summarises the New Age understanding as follows:

“In the fringe groups I briefly encountered in the mid-80s, New Agers saw radical changes on the horizon. These include changes in the fabric of society, the physical world, and mankind’s universal state of spiritual awareness. [The planet is emerging] into new age of light, life and love.”5

James Lovelock used the Greek term Gaia (the idea that the earth is a goddess and mother of the Titans) in an attempt to get people to consider the earth as a living organism or entity. Lovelock thus perceived humanity as an integral part of the web of life that makes the earth a unified living being. By understanding this perspective he hopes people will treat the earth with respect, otherwise it will either reject us as a disease or die due to our cancerous behaviour. The New Age movement in a way co-opted the term Gaia by mixing into it the idea of the personification and deification of nature, evolution, and spontaneous generation - something that Lovelock did not have in mind completely. As a result Phillips (1998) argues that some go as far to equate the elements of nature as our ancestors, truly making the earth our mother. Phillips explains that they see Mother Nature equated with Mother Earth equated with being our ‘Mother’, and thus she is considered a goddess6. In addition, they argue along with Lovelock that you cannot continue to chop down tropical forests – wrenching out the very lungs of ‘mother earth’ – without compromising our ability to survive, let alone countless other species. Their process of personification may be disputed but their analysis is spot on.

Science Dimension The new paradigm also recognises that science is pursued within the frame of reference of the larger culture or paradigm and its inherent values and beliefs, Wilkins and Dyer (1989). This phenomenon has great similarities to what Peter Berger calls a “plausibility structure”, which is a structure of assumptions and practices, or in other words patterns 3 !

Fritjof Capra, “The Turning Point”, Wildwood House, 1982.

4 !

Ibid.

5 !

Mark Philips, “Truth Seeker: A New Age Journey into God, IVP, 1998, p. 183.

! 6

Ibid., p.180.

of belief and practice accepted within a given society that determine what beliefs are plausible and what are not, Newbigin (1992). These plausibility structures are, to reiterate an earlier point, different at different times and places. This phenomenon is significant and important, giving us an insight into how and why we pursue and solve issues in a certain way as well as comprehending their consequences, particularly in science. For example, the plausibility structure of a society determines what kind of a science a society will pursue and what information will be perceive as scientific fact. In other words, as Capra (1992), argues the “scientific paradigm is embedded in the social paradigm.” The consequence of this thinking highlights the potential of one or a number of culture(s) to pursue scientific activities that are ecologically disastrous. Whereas in another culture it could be possible that its’ values and beliefs would not allow any activity to be pursued or even thought-of that would lead to environmental damage.

Change and Transformation Dimension The emerging paradigm adopts two models of change and growth from nature. Hazel Henderson describes these two models accordingly: “Nonliving and some living systems can be homeostatic and kept in a steady state and structure (morphostatic) [1], like the temperature in a house governed by a thermostat; or living systems that can grow and change shape (morphogenesis) [2], like children or human cities. These two processes are governed by feedback loops damping the effects of change and maintaining stability, and in case of number two are positive feedback loops amplifying themselves and their cross-impacts, and pushing the system into new structural forms.”7

STABLE, EQUILIBRIATING SYSTEM – (Morphostatic – Structurally stable) For example, thermostat-controlled mechanical system, early agrarian or small scale production economies (as conceived in market equilibrium supply-demand theories), reversible components and decisions.

Systems internally dynamic, but stable structure maintained and governed by negative feedback loops.

Henderson provides the following diagrammatic representations of the above two cybernetic systems:

!! !! !! !

!! !! !! ! 7

UNSTABLE, DIS-EQUILIBRIUM SYSTEM (Morphogenetic – Evolving new structure)

For example, living, biological systems, human systems, human societies; large-scale socio-technical economic systems; rapid innovation and evolving structurally; many irreversible components and decisions

This system is both internally dynamic and structurally dynamic, governed by positive feedback loops, which can amplify small initial deviations into unpredictably large deviations, which sometimes break through thresholds and

Hazel Henderson, “Building a Win-Win World: Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare”, Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, 1996, p. 13.

!! !! !! !! Interdependence and Sustainability Dimension The emerging paradigm’s deep ecological awareness, Capra notes, “recognises the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and the fact that, as individuals and societies, we are all embedded in (and ultimately dependent on) the cyclical processes of nature.”8 As a result of this cyclic process and the propensity of the reigning paradigm to ignore the ecological dimension as well as its failure to recognise how its solutions affect future generations, the concept of sustainability has become a key and crucial concept in the ecology movement. Lester Brown (1981) of the Worldwatch Institute provides a good, clear and simple definition9 of sustainability: “A sustainable society is one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations.” 10

Integration Dimension It is worth noting, and as Capra (1997) advocates, that the emerging paradigm places an emphasis on integration in order to counteract the over emphasis on self-assertive tendencies of the reigning paradigm. For both, maintains Capra (1982), are essential aspects of living systems. Adding that

“Neither of them is intrinsically good or bad. What is good, or healthy, is a dynamic balance; what is bad, or unhealthy, is imbalance – over emphasis of one tendency and neglect of the other. If we now look at our Western industrial culture, we see that we have over-emphasised the self-assertive and neglected the integrative tendencies.”11

In a similar vein Wink (1992) argues that you need a tension between opposites to prevent problems. This is successfully achieved in his view within God’s rein. For example, Wink argues that “Masculine would not be androcratic and feminine normative; rather, they would coexist and compliment each other in an egalitarian order.”12 Adding that “God as Mother needs to be supplemented with the positive qualities of God as Father;” and, “Negative father qualities must be expunged from our God-image, and perhaps negative mother qualities as well.” Adding, “What we need are images that encompass the positive aspects of both… Nothing is more crucial, because our images of God create us.”13

Peter Davies (1997) when presenting his different perspective of business philosophy also notes that each of his perspectives: A western Christian Theological Perspective; An (Industrial) Democracy Perspective; An (Eco)Systems Perspective; A Friedmanite, 'The Business of Business is Business', perspective, and A virtues Perspective, are all elements of business that need to be held in balance. Over-emphasising one or more at the exclusion of others needs to be address. Davies concludes: "The five preceding perspectives have, in turn, pointed towards the meaning and purpose of business as essentially being a God-ordained vocation; a crucial element in democracy; a key element in the planetary ecosystem; a financial wealth creator, and a forum to develop people. Are these perspectives mutually exclusive? I think not; one can see elements of all of them in most businesses, but at various times in history, and in various geo-political contexts, one perspective may become over-emphasised and hence other perspectives have to be championed in order for them to be put on the agenda at all."14

8 !

Fritjof Capra, “The Web of Life”, Flamingo An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, p. 6.

9 !

However, providing an adequate definition is a contentious one because of the diverse definitions being applied to it by different camps of thought. This is an issue that could be explored in more detail at a later stage. However, the definition given in this report is generally accepted and considered to be both clear and simple. ! 10

Lester Brown, “Building a Sustainable Society”, Norton: New York, 1981.

11 !

Fritjof Capra, “The Web of Life”, Flamingo An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, p. 9.

12 !

Walter Wink, “Engaging the Powers”, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1992, p. 47.

13 !

Ibid., P.48.

! 14

Ed. Peter W.F. Davies, “Current Issues in Business Ethics”, London and New York: Routledge, 1997, p.22.

Comparison of Reigning and Emerging Paradigms In the conclusion of this brief description of the two worldviews it is very instructive to see the opposite tendencies side by side, as outlined by Capra (1997) (Table [2]) and Wink (1992) (Table [3]), because they help us clarify the differences.

Table [2] THINKING

VALUES

self-assertive

Integrative

self-assertive

Integrative

Rational Analysis Reductionist Linear

Intuitive Synthesis Holistic Nonlinear

Expansion Competition Quantity Domination

Conservation Co-operation Quality Partnership Source: Capra (1997)

! Table [3]

SOCIETAL MODE Gender differences

THE DOMINATION SYSTEM The Reigning Paradigm Patriarchal; difference implies superiority/ inferiority

GOD’S DOMINATION-FREE ORDER Ecological Paradigm

Power

Equality of sexes; Differences may lead to specialisation but not ranking and seen as complementary Power over; power to take life, control, destroy Power with; power to give, support, nurture Win-lose life Domination Win-win Hierarchies Partnership Competition Networks Competition/ Co-operation Conquest Diplomacy Autocracy Democracy Authoritarian Enabling Bureaucratic Decentralised Exploitation, greed, privilege, inequality Sharing, sufficiency, responsibility, equality

! Politics Economics Religion

Logic

Suppression of conflict Exploitation, control,  contempt Either/ or analytic

Inclusive God-images – Mother/ Father, Loving/ Judging. Compassionate/ severe Merciful/ demanding Linking  Actualisation hierarchies  Equality of opportunity  We/ we  Flexibility Nonviolent confrontation, negotiation, inclusiveness  Nonviolent conflict resolution Harmony, co-operation,  respect Both/ and, analytic/ synthetic

Role of ego

Self-centred

Affiliation-orientated

Education

Indoctrinating

Enabling

Sexual responsibility

Subordination of women’s reproductive capacities and sexual expression to male control Status quo, holding and keeping power; “this world,” “this evil aeon”

Control of sexuality by individuals in the light of community values

Eternity in the future,  injustice in the present

Eternity in the present,  justice in the future

Male God – jealous, wrathful, punishing, lawgiving

Relationships

Ranking Domination hierarchies Slavery, classism, racism We/ they Rigidity Violence, force, war

Transformative mode Ecological stance

Eschatology

Cultural transformation, the reign of God, the coming aeon

Source: Wink (1992)

Environmental Problem

The emerging paradigm asserts that the activities of business and Western lifestyles are severely dysfunctional and threatens the survival of the human race and countless other species, Davies (1997), Fritjof Capra (1986). Paul Hawken (1994) maintains that the problem is global, but it is only a symptom of local problems with roots in reductionist thinking that arises out of the scientific revolution and the beginnings of industrialism. Thus numerous problems arise as a result of the reigning paradigm seeing the world as a dissociated collection of parts rather than as an integrated whole, Capra (1997). Further, the origins of the ecological and social crisis, argues Hawken, “lie deep within the assumptions of our commercial and economic systems.”15 This operates on the basis that our world and its resources are to be dominated, managed and maximised for short-term profits, without respect for living systems, nor the harmonious development of different cultures, Hawken (1994). In effect capitalist activity is perceived to be a detrimental organism more like a cancer than a parasite, devouring its host so that death is imminent, Davies (1997),

! 15

Paul Hawken, “The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability”, Phoenix, 1994, p.201.

Hawken (1994), Korten (1995/9). Thus, as Davies (1997) concludes, “the industrial system (in its present form) has come up hard against the ecological system, and both cannot win.”16

Response to the Environmental Problem This view is gradually being accepted, with very few today, except for a small group of writers, and journalist, perceiving that it is all a hoax. In 1992 there was the Rio Earth Summit and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which drew up the global Agenda 21, with the aims to ensure environmental and social sustainability. This process saw the Leaders of over 170 nations agreed to produce and implement Agenda 21. Thus governmental and non-governmental organisations are recognising the environmental crisis and seeking ways to curb unsustainable activities and development. Likewise, businesses are also seeing the light, fuelled by increasing public awareness of social and environmental issues. However, they are still in the main very resistant. Both Raff Carmen & Mark Lubelski (1997) remark, that traditionally business is, “the last to respond to issues of this nature (due most probably to its being the first to be implicated in their causes).”17

On a positive note Schwartz & Gibb (1999) assert that there is now a growing number of executives who acknowledge/ recognise “that destructive environmental policies [and activity], even if they appear efficient and cost-effective in the short run, are literally not sustainable in the long run.”18 Additionally, Andrew Wilson maintains, “there is widespread acceptance of the view that, if business is to prosper, the environment in which it operates must prosper too.”19 In support Wilson (1997) notes that a 1995 publication of the Royal Society of Art's ‘Tomorrow's Company’ report, a business-led inquiry aimed at identifying sources of sustainable success, called for an 'inclusive approach' to business, one in which companies see themselves ‘as part of a wider system’.20 This way of thinking enables businesses to realise their importance in helping to create a sustainable, in their words, “standard of living and quality of life to which society aspires”. Carmen & Lubelski (1997) in their summation comment that

"The business sector… has begun to register a certain willingness to come to grips with the personal and professional implications of those developments in the destruction of the social and natural environment. International initiatives, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)’s Commission on the Environment ‘Business Approach to Sustainable Development’,21 and the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD)’s ‘Changing Course’,22 have indicated an attempt to show that economic development and environmental sustainability can be integrated to ensure ‘quality of life’ through a voluntary approach to corporate good practice. More recently, in an obvious sequel to the Club of Rome’s ‘Limits to Growth’,23 eighteen intellectuals and researchers from Europe, North America and Japan, known as ‘the group of Lisbon’, under the direction of Riccardo Petrella, warn against the globalisation (‘triadisation’, i.e. North America, Europe and Japan) of business and trade,24 putting into question the ‘gospel of Competition’)25. This dogma of competition, having pervaded all spheres of life and not just the world of business alone, makes no economic, ecological, social nor, ultimately, ethical ‘sense’, and is ill-equipped to act as a universal principle to rule the planet."26

16 !

Ed. Peter W.F. Davies, “Current Issues in Business Ethics”, London and New York: Routledge, 1997, p.20.

17 !

Raff Carmen & Marek Lubelski, "Whose Business is it Anyway: The Question of Sustainability", in Peter W.F. Davies (ed), “Current Issues in Business Ethics”, London and New York: Routledge, 1997, p.29. ! 18

Schwartz & Gibb concur that the environmental movement exemplifies the evolution of a conflict. They quote, in there support, the words of one nameless CEO, who described the process of coming to terms with environmentalism as: “Thirty years ago we objected; twenty years ago we started to accept it, ten years ago we started to move.” Interestingly they argue that according to some executives certain issues of social responsibility (such as human rights, for example) are at the beginning stages of this same process. ! 19

Ed. Peter W.F. Davies, “Current Issues in Business Ethics”, London and New York: Routledge, 1997, p.50.

! 20

RSA "Tomorrow's Company Inquiry Report, London: RSA; mentioned in Chapter 4 by Andrew Wilson, ed. Peter W.F. Davies, “Current Issues in Business Ethics”, London and New York: Routledge, 1997, p.50. ! 21

ICC (1989), in Development, Journal of SID, 2(2), p.37.

! 22

BCSD (1992) Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

23 !

Meadows, D (1972) "The Limits to Growth: a Report of the Club of Rome, New York: Universe Books.

24 !

Group of Lisbon (Petrella, Riccardo) (1995) "Limits to Competition", Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

25 !

Petrella, Riccardo (1991) L’Evangile de Ia Compétivité: malheur aux faibles et aux exclus (The gospel of competition: woe unto the weak and the excluded), in Le Monde Diplomatique, Paris: Sept. ! 26

A small number of business people are adopting an environmental ethic because of their principles, recognising the necessity and the long-term benefits that would inevitably accrue. Others recognise that they cannot afford to ignore their company’s impact on the environment, because it may well turn out to be costly to the organisation and disastrous for it’s’ reputation; if they have one to protect. For example, companies that behaves at home but acts appalling elsewhere in the world are now being sued at home for these perverse activities. This approach, compared to a principle and value led one, is more about ensuring company survival and damage limitation than meeting the needs of people and the planet, Carmen & Lubleski (1997). Change in business attitudes here is not based on, in the words of Peter Utting, “A new found ethical concern among corporate executives for the environment and social condition of the planet,” but instead is a result of reacting to 'drivers' such as economic, political and structural factors. Utting perceives such drivers to include, in his words, “so-called 'win-win' opportunities, the possibility of enhancing competitive advantage, 'reputation management', pressure group and consumer politics, regulation or the threat of regulation, and changes in the way production and marketing are being organised globally.” The fear is that without a vision born from ethical concern corporations may chose to respond to such drivers in terms that, as Utting puts it, “often involve imagery, public relations and relatively minor adjustments in management systems and practices, as opposed to significant changes in the social and environmental impact of a company’s activities.” A first order change rather than a second order one.

The general shift in attitude towards a more environmental ethic, whether practical or virtuous, is still commendable. However, all schools of thought accept that adopting more environmentally concerned practices will be a painful process in today’s business environment, particularly when the main emphasis is fixed on maximising the greatest return to shareholders in the shortest possible time. Furthermore, the level of awareness and degree of change that is necessary also complicates matters. As a result there is considerable debate as to the extent of the problem and how it is best remedied. There is now a recognised major division within contemporary environmental thought, where environmentalists tend to fall into two schools of thought: those that support a shallow ecology and those that champion deep ecology27, social ecology and feminist ecology. Their approaches and values are fundamentally different. To put this into context a résumé of each school of thought is necessary.

‘Shallow Ecology’ Shallow ecology is an extension of the reigning tradition trying to come to terms with its environmental destructive tendencies. It is inherently anthropocentric or human-centred, viewing humans as above or outside nature and the source of all value, whereas nature is only valued as a resource to meet the desires and needs of man, Capra (1997). Shallow ecology tends to favour political pragmatism and places great hope in technology to solve environmental problems. These aspects play a fundamental role in how businesses operate and pursue ethical social and environmental issues. This warrants further analysis.

In terms of business, shallow ecology translates as damage limitation or trying to prolong the life of a company by minimising their impact on the environment. Carmen & Lubleski (1997) spells out the situation: “Such [ecological] perspectives on business and development have emerged as a growing, though diverse, ethical critique of what has come to be known as the dominant ‘business-of-business-isbusiness’ [Friedmanite] paradigm. At one level, this critique focuses on damage limitation. A case in point is the revealing subtitle of one of the Institute of Business Ethics (IBE)’s more recent publications: ‘Case studies of Cost Savings and New Opportunities from Environmental Initiatives’.28 Sustainability is presented here almost entirely as a function of mainstream corporate practice’s relentless progress through a market economy. Sound environmental management, while offering some welcome first tentative steps for organisations beginning to analyse and reduce their environmental impact or ‘footprint’, is nevertheless primarily rooted in a model of business management which is culturally and historically specific, where ‘eco-efficiency’ relates first and foremost to a company’s, rather than the general public’s, need for survival. The limitations of such approaches, and the shallowness of the moral principle invoked, are highlighted by Paul Hawken, when he points out that, “even if every company on the planet were to adopt the best environmental practices of the leading companies - say the Body Shop, Patagonia, or 3M - the world would still be moving towards sure degradation and collapse.”29

! 27

The Norwegian philosopher Arne Ness, reports Capra (1997), in the early seventies coined this distinction between ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ ecology.

28 !

Hill. C et al, (1994) "Benefiting Business and the Environment: Case Studies of Cost Savings and New Opportunities from Environmental Initiatives" London; IBE ! 29

Hawken, Paul (1993) "The Ecology of Commerce: How Business can save the Planet", London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, p. viii.

Political Pragmatism A typical symptom of the reigning paradigm is the amount of political pragmatism used when trying to come up with environmental remedies or attempts to regulate business30 that aims at strictly national issues, whether from a state or international level, Hawken (1994). In consequence, Hawken argues that, “politically feasible solutions tend to be halfmeasures that bring up the rear in terms of innovation and imagination.”31 This is because the reigning paradigm whether nationally or internationally sees the environment as only one of many ‘important’ issues rather than a fundamental one.

Technological Optimism The shallow ecologists try to provide global solutions to environmental degradation from within the reigning tradition of rationality, which incidentally was the very cause of the problem in the first place, namely, more growth, technology and money, Hawken (1994). For example, those within this camp believe that more new forms of technology can forestall, fix, solve or eliminate current and future threats posed by humanities’ exploitation of the environment, Hawken (1994), Davies (1997). In addition, the technological optimists think technology can keep nature adapting to human demands, (such as biotechnology, for an example), Hazel Henderson (1996)32. Hawken aptly describes the situation:

“Proponents of this view [technological fix] argue that we require a ‘healthy, growing’ economy to pay for the changes that are required or, as they say, to “clean up the environment.” In other words, the health of the environment is subordinate to the health of an economy that by its nature depends on environmental exploitation. Unfortunately, in such an economy, financial incentives support technologies that give us the ability to harvest, extract, process, or mine our resources even more expeditiously.” Further on, Hawken writes: “Our comfort and abundance is the foundation for the great difference we see in public debate and private discussion about the environment. From business and government, we are presented with the concerned but optimistic “so far so good” assessment, a school of thought that biologist E. O. Wilson calls exemptionalist. This line of thinking relies on the ability of human beings to overcome ecological “laws” through innovation, ingenuity, and gumption. For every problem presented by environmentalist [and ecologists], optimists have an answer: desalinisation, fusion, deep-sea mining, space and bioengineering. Their conjectures are easier to swallow than the alarmist voices of environmentalist [deep ecologists] who say we are outstripping the earth’s means to sustain the human species.” Additionally, the idea that economic growth coupled with improvements in technology can help reduce environmental problems is proven to be a myth according to Tisdell (1990. Tisdell refers to the belief that technological progress will overcome all resources constraints and environmental problems as “faith” rather than “fact”.33 Sabine U. O’Hara explains:

“A common argument for expanding technological services is that economic growth will bring about more environmentally friendly production methods and products and thus reduce the negative effects of human physical and social needs on ecosystems. This notion, however, has recently come under attack. De Bruyn and Opschoor (1996) argue that data for several highly industrialised countries show that the previously assumed A-shaped relationship between economic growth and environmental pollution - which shows an initial increase of emission levels as GDP per capita grows and a decrease of emission levels with further economic growth - may more likely be an N- shaped relationship. Emission levels appear to rise again after a previous decline as economic growth continues. Thus the argument that technological services can replace ecosystem services becomes increasingly questionable (see also Cairn, 1996). Duchin and Lange’s (1994) research supports the doubts toward seemingly limitless technological solutions. Their analysis of the assumptions put forth in the Bruntland report confirms the constraints placed on economic activity. As Tisdell (1990) notes, not the energy resources required to supply the increasing technological services human societies depend ! 30

This issue alone raises one of the most difficult questions facing business ethics today, according to Davies (1997): “By what authority can, as well as should, global business activity be regulated?” Regulation is both useful and problematic. However, the deep ecologist perspective would argue that although it would bring about some help it is only equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. A more radical and creative solution that changes our very belief systems and business practice and purpose is required. 31 !

Paul Hawken, “The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability”, Phoenix, 1994, p.202.

32 !

Hazel Henderson, “Building a Win-Win World: Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare”, Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, 1996, p. 8. ! 33

C.A. Tisdell, “Natural Resources, Growth and Development”, Praeger, New York/London, 1990

on, but the biodiversity necessary to sustain ecosystems and ecosystem services prove increasingly indispensable to a sustainable economy.”34

An Example of the Faith Placed in Technology by the Optimists Early this spring (1999) the Department for International Development (DIFID) held a public consultation meeting in London. At that meeting the author of this report posed a question connected to the issue of the carrying capacity of the world to support the development of the world’s poor to reach a suitable lifestyle we in the Western world would decree acceptable for us to live at: What lifestyle level do we want people, particularly the poor, in the developing world to reach? Adding, if our proposed answer is in line with what we would want to achieve as an average in the UK, say a house, one to two cars, electrical appliances/ gadgets, community amenities, travel, and so forth, scientist estimate we would need another three planets like Earth to meet the required capacity.35 Another answer would be to deny the poor a lifestyle equivalent to ours, but ensuring they can at least meet all their basic necessities, whatever that means, so that absolute poverty is eradicated. Alternatively, we can simplify our lifestyles, finding new, creative and innovative ways of allowing people to work, in order that we can raise the poor to a similar level. What should we do?

Put more succinctly: Do we allow the whole world to adopt the lifestyle of the first world and speed up the planet’s destruction in the process? Or do we continue to live as we desire in the first world and deny the rest of the world such luxury, extending the day of destruction by externalising costs and exploiting others, and perpetually expanding the chasm between the rich and poor? Or do we find a win-win solution? Interestingly out of the seven panellists on the platform only one person felt brave enough to answer. Maybe this should not be surprising, because for us in the first world the above question(s) is very hard to hear let alone answer. Anyway, he replied typically that technology would solve the issue in a way conducive to the wellbeing of the environment. This faith and optimism in technology is staggering. But perhaps this hope is more a delusion than a vision, for it hides our acceptance of the idea that we would prefer to continue to enjoy the fruits of exploitation, that often feeds without regard on the less fortunate and life in general, that our First world lifestyles demand. This is something we would rather not acknowledge let alone confirm in public.

Perhaps deep down we realise this desire is unfair, knowing that we would have to sacrifice much to even out the distribution of world resources, and that’s painful. Likewise, it makes us feel guilty, but we have neither the stomach nor vision to find a proper solution, so we tend to resort to half-measures such as charity or political pragmatism. The alternative answers, that we should simplify our lifestyles, in order for other people to enjoy a better standard of living let alone survive, if it happens to cross our minds is unpalatable, because again it reminds us of our need to sacrifice. In our dilemma we turn in hope to the god of technology to get us out of the fix, thereby seeking to clone the proverbial ‘cake’ so that everyone can, ‘have their cake and eat it’. Thus our sinful nature gets the better of us. In addition, it also speaks about a lack of vision, courage, and understanding of ecological systems and more importantly the nature and will of God.

Furthermore, it would also mean that we would have to recognise there are limits and boundaries to life and all that we do. Carmen & Lubelski argue that "Cultural determinism is so powerful that it is very difficult politically to admit that economic growth (with all its connotations of ultimate goodness - the modern substitute for the Ancients’ ‘sum-mum bonum’), must be limited. Universal wisdom holds that less growth (and hence less consumption) will seriously undermine the economic system, and yet it is imperative that the basic assumptions underlying industrial society change both fundamentally, and now (preferably, starting with the North). The problem facing the future world is not how to encourage more competition and growth, but how to stop the spiral of universal maldevelopment in both North and South. The key question which increasingly will have to be asked and answered in the future by rich and poor countries alike is: “How much is enough?” In recent years, CEPAUR (the Centre for Urban and Rural Development in Chile) has done pioneering work on the verification of a ‘threshold’ hypothesis. This holds that, in any society, there is a period of time in which an increase in GNP (Gross National Product - economic growth, as conventionally 34 !

Sabine U. O’Hara, “Internalising Economics: Sustainability Between Matter and Meaning”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 25 Issue 2/3/4, Date 1998, ISSN 0306-8293. ! 35

Hawken in a similar vein notes that “if the population of China lived as well as the population of Japan or France, or the United States, we would endure untold ecological devastation.” So how can we expect everyone to have the lifestyles of the wealthy nations complete with their levels of economic growth without destroying our world in the process? Thus the present state of the world, however unfair it sounds (and indeed is), needs to be maintained with a few tweaks on the side to make this position more palatable. This implies that: for some people to have very much, many people need to go without very much.

measured) will bring about a positive and measurable increase in the quality of life of people, hence the ‘Quality of Life Index’ (QLI).’ The ‘threshold’ is the point beyond which any further growth will result in a deterioration of people’s quality of life. The relevance and accuracy of this hypothesis, even in purely economic terms, has been confirmed in the meantime by the independent work of Daly and Cobb. Their ‘Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare’ (ISEW) confirms that, in the case of the US for example, the growth of GNP ran parallel with a growth in quality of life. But, starting from 1974-75, with growth still continuing, the ISEW started to decline. The question is crucial because, when things start taking a turn for the worse, they cannot possibly be improved with politicians’ current cure-all palliative of yet more economic growth and a competitive free-for-all.”

However, technology should not be ruled out per se. Everything must be held in balance. Technology has a role to play but it is not the answer to salvation. A number of people see the need not for mainstream technology but for so-called ‘alternative technology’ as a way froward. These alternative technologies are designed to run efficiently on solar, wind or wave generated power. They are also designed to be manufactured sustainably, and be made from sustainable or/ and recycled resources. Further, the manufacturing and selling of alternative technologies avoids exploitation or unfair trade practices. Moreover, alternative technologies are not linked to economic growth but community needs and creativity – the level and definition of such still needs to be worked out. Further, these alternative technologies will also create new jobs and investment opportunities. Governments will also play a role in encouraging industry to move from making unnecessary products or products that require socially and environmentally destructive manufacturing and management practices to those that don’t. This may not be as profitable in monetary terms but highly profitable in terms of the ‘quality of life’ measurement as advocated by Herman Daly and John Cobb or the New Economics Foundation, et al. The implications of the above question for business is significant, as they would play a major role in whatever humanity decides is the ‘right’ answer. An answer that could change the very nature of the way organisations operates. In addition, they will also be affected by the way humanity answers the question of “Should business solve [or help solve] society’s problems?”36

Deep Ecology The ecologist perspective argues Hawken (1994) examines all present economic, resource and technological37 activities from a biological rather than monetary point of view. In addition, it also addresses the impact of our present lifestyles will have on future generations – the sustainability issue. Deep ecology, Capra maintains “does not separate humans – or anything else – from the natural environment.”38 Fritjof Capra describes deep ecology as follows:

“[Deep ecology sees] the world not as a collection of isolated objects but as a network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected and interdependent. Deep ecology recognises the intrinsic value of all living beings and views humans as just one particular strand in the web of life… Ultimately, deep ecological awareness is spiritual or religious awareness. When the concept of the human spirit is understood as the mode of consciousness in which the individual feels a sense of belonging, of connectedness, to the cosmos as a whole, it becomes clear that ecological awareness is spiritual in its deepest essence. It is, therefore, not surprising that the emerging new vision of reality based on deep ecological awareness is consistent with so-called ‘perennial philosophy’ of spiritual traditions, whether we talk about the spirituality of Christian mystics, that of Buddhist, or the philosophy and cosmology underlying the Native American traditions, (see Capra & Steindl-Rast (1991).”

Arne Ness (1985) offers another characteristic by suggesting that “the essence of deep ecology is to ask deeper questions.”39 Capra takes this to imply that we must question every single aspect of the old paradigm. This does not mean that we eventually disregard everything, he argues, but before we know what to keep we need to be willing to question everything. He concludes by saying that:

" ! 36

“Deep ecology asks profound questions about the very foundations of our modern, scientific, industrial, growth-orientated, materialistic worldview and way of life. It questions this entire The title of Hazel Henderson’s Harvard Business Review article in 1968 – “Should Business Solve Society’s Problems?”

! 37

It is worth noting that deep ecology does not dismiss the use of technology, but nor does it place too much hope in it. What constitutes appropriate technology to solve environmental issue under deep ecology is starkly in contrast with the technology proposed by the shallow ecologists. Alternative technology is the term favoured by green ecologists to differentiate themselves from other forms, and includes such things as technologies that generate and use solar, wind or wave power, organic farming, and so on. 38 !

Fritjof Capra, “The Web of Life”, Flamingo An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, p. 7.

! Arne 39

Ness quoted in Capra (1997), p. 7, and Bill Devall & George Sessions, “Deep Ecology”, Peregrine Smith: Salt Lake City, 1985, p. 74.

paradigm from an ecological perspective: from the perspective of our relationships to one another, to future generations, and to the web of life of which we are part.”40

This process is something that shallow ecologists cannot achieve because it is rooted within the reigning tradition of rationality that is considered to be the problem. The need to get away from a consumerist, competitive and growth maximising ideologies to something that is based upon the notions of sustainability, ecology, civility and creative thinking and work is alien to the reigning paradigm. Carmen & Lubelski conclude: “Current business thinking, idioms and training modules, embedded as they are in a vision of development wedded to ‘the expansion of the flow of consumption’, are ill-suited to the challenges posed by sustainability and the ethical and practical demands of changing from a consumerist to a creativist culture. The satisfaction of human need is not primary, nor is achievement of ecological balance paramount.41 This is clear from an examination of management buzzwords currently in vogue: ‘re-engineering’ does not address the problems of superfluous and inappropriate production, nor that of the exploitative nature of disproportionate extraction from Third World countries. ‘Downsizing’ does not include, as it should, a genuine commitment to smaller, more regionally based human-scale enterprises geared to local regeneration. ‘The learning organisation’ ought to indicate corporations which, having drawn lessons from past environmental malpractice and recognising the crisis of sustainability, have now the courage to make radical social change an integral part of their mission statements and corporate practice.”

Carmen & Lubelski see the importance of language as shaping the way business think and act, and as we have explored deep ecology is all about finding a new language to help people see, think and understand in a new way. They also talk about stewardship of our environment or 'earth' household in Aristotelian oikonomia terms, which is being used by Christian thinkers (see 5.1. below). Carmen & Lubelski put it as follows: “What is clearly crucial in realising business’s role in the process of development is the semiology of the language used, and the ethics and perceptions that are deployed at the initial moment of defining that process. Returning for a moment to the Ancients, Aristotle drew the famous distinction between chrematistics and oikonomia, where the former involves the manipulation of the household to increase wealth for short-term profit, while the latter refers to the sound management of the household to increase its benefit in the future. As Daly and Cobb point out, the ‘household’ really describes ‘the larger community of the land, of shared values, resources, biomass, institutions, language and history’.42 This is where economics and ecology literally meet and share a common home in the root ‘oikos’, and where the distinction between truly sustainable and ultimately unsustainable perspectives becomes clear. Sustainability of economics and of the ecology meets when people join to ‘humanise the landscape’.43”

Social & Feminist Ecology The various schools of social ecology recognise that, in the words of Capra, “the fundamentally ant-ecological nature of many of our social and economic structures and that their technologies are rooted in what Riane Eisler44 has called the ‘dominator system’ of social organisation.”45 Walter Wink (1992) refers to this aspect as the ‘domination system’. “Patriarchy, imperialism, capitalism and racism,” are, suggests Capra, examples of social domination, “that are exploitative and anti-ecological.”46 Ecofeminism is similar to the social ecology school by addressing, Capra writes, “the basic dynamics of social domination within the context of patriarchy.”47 The emerging paradigm recognises how patriarchy is a predominant characteristic of the reigning tradition, which perceives it to be natural that the female is everywhere to be subsumed under the male, Capra (1997), Eisler (1987). However, Ecofeminism, argues Capra, goes beyond the scope of social ecology by seeing the “patriarchal domination of women by men as the prototype of all

! 40

Fritjof Capra, “The Web of Life”, Flamingo An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, p. 8.

! 41

Rahman, Anisur (1993) People’s Self-Development, London: ZED Books; see also Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce.

! 42

Daly and Cobb, For the Common Good, p. 138.

! 43

Carmen, Raff E. (in press) Autonomous Development: The Humanisation of the Landscape, London: ZED Books.

44 !

Riane Eisler, “The Chalice and the Blade”, An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1987.

45 !

Fritjof Capra, “The Web of Life”, Flamingo An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, p. 8.

46 !

Ibid., p. 8.

! 47

Ibid., p. 9.

domination and exploitation in the various hierarchical, militaristic, capitalistic, and industrial forms.”48 In addition, ecofeminism points out that the exploitation of nature has gone hand in hand with that of women. Further, they tend to affirm that they have a natural affinity with nature and a natural kinship between feminism and ecology, seeing their association with nature as linking their history with that of the environment, Merchant (1980)49, Capra (1997).

Embracing the Dialogue Christianity’s Response Christianity should be in the vanguard of discussions. Christianity should develop a vision and lifestyle that is demonstrably critiquing the reigning tradition, using the perspectives of the emerging paradigm to ask profound questions while at the same time pointing out its’ fallacies. Thus Christianity should be responsibly answering the important and necessary questions posed by the emerging ecological paradigm and effectively critiquing the reigning tradition. To some extent the author of this report in 1993 attempted such an exercise by looking at the parallels between the emerging paradigm mentioned above and new thinking within Christianity on the subject of ecology and the concept of the ‘Earth Household’. See Addendum [A]. This vision and lifestyle must also deal with the domination system, a subject the author of this report has also touched on in another essay. Christians must have faith that God has a plan for the way we live that is expresses love, wellbeing and inclusive justice, and is harmonious with God, one another, future generations and all of creation. Thus Christianity must be a challenge to society, creating a crisis by shaking all assumptions that are not of God, enabling people to see that what they base their life on and the way they run their businesses and institutions and pursue consumption of products and services is dysfunctional and in need of healing and redemption.

Crisis as an Opportunity This is critical because in practice people and organisations only change when faced with a challenge or crisis. As we noted earlier, a change in thinking or a paradigm comes about as a result of a crisis. Embracing the new dialogue that the emerging paradigm poses is to be seen as a great opportunity. To convince people that theocentric ethics and social and environmental responsibility is not only in accordance with God’s will and character but essential for the flourishing of human life and nature in general, requires a crisis whether imminent or present. In a similar vein, although talking about introducing community based on his concept of civility into business, Scott Peck asserts: “Timing is crucial; a new and difficult way is not likely to be tried until it is clear the old way is not working. The easiest point at which to introduce community into business or society is a time of failure, a time of crisis.”50 51 On this theme he adds further that:

" "

“One of the things we need to do as we push towards Utopia is to dignify organisational chaos. I do not mean structural chaos. I mean the psychospiritual chaos that erupts in an organisation when there is sufficient confusion over its vision, mission, myths, norms, and patterns of communication as to produce overt conflict among its members.”52

In fact Scott Peck sees the ability, in terms of business organisations, of managers to manage the cyclic process of challenging the business’ reigning cultural paradigm, dealing with the inevitable crisis, and managing the transformation and necessary consolidation, as paramount. After this management is about maintenance until the need to revitalise the business to meet the realities it faces necessitates starting the process all over again. Furthermore, Peck’s analysis can be applied to communities as much as business organisations.

This is not only inevitable but also necessary as life throws up all kinds of challenges. This is because, as the emerging paradigm points out, life is a dynamic process perpetually renewing itself, and being punctuated by the creation of new forms, strains or organisations of life. Scott Peck puts it all like this:

“I believe managers [community leaders] of the future will actually learn and deliberately employ techniques to precipitate certain amounts of chaos or crisis when they sense their organisation

48 !

Ibid., p. 9.

49 !

Carolyn Merchant, “The Death of Nature,” Harper & Row: New York, 1980.

50 !

M. Scott Peck, “A World Waiting to be Born”, Arrow, 1993, p.426

51 !

Likewise, human or nature based ethical systems need to be acknowledged for their positive contributions but also shown that they are inadequate as the next section demonstrates. ! 52

Ibid., P.432.

! 53

[community] need revitalisation… We will come to expect our organisations to be in flux and in turmoil.”53

Ibid., P.432 & 435.

Addendum [A]

[This is a copy of notes written in 1993 for my portfolio for the ‘Emerging Patterns of Thought and Belief course at the University of Bath as part of my degree in business administration. Unfortunately the sheet containing the bibliography has been misplaced.]

Many people are aware today that the earth is suffering from an ecological crisis - from the hole in the ozone layer, the destruction of the rain forests to the litter in our backyards. This view is coupled with the realisation that the current reigning western mind—set is causing us to rape nature, and as one eminent Christian scholar Tony Campolo puts it "the reckless disregard for the environment, whether out of ignorance or greed, is sinful.” The emergence of this view and the impeding ecological crisis has led to the recognition by those involved in the new thinking in science and those of the new thinking within the Christian realm that they are dealing with similar concerns. Further they recognise that there is a need to understand and care for what Gary Snyder calls our “Earth household”.

Thus we have in the overall new paradigm movement an emergence of new thinking in science which seeks to reconnect itself with spiritual values. On the other hand we have also the new thinking in the Christian community which addresses social issues and ecological responsibility.

Each new paradigm or tradition of rationality, Lesslie Newbigin (1992), seeks an ideal community in which it strives to transform our present culture into. This essay looks at the ideal community put forward by advocates of the new—paradigm view in Christianity and note that it has similarities to that expressed by the new paradigm thinkers, although it is fundamentally different in many respects. But this view is also used to highlight the fallacy of the New Age movement with it’s over lopsided optimism. The result is that we need to adopt a view that is characterised by both/ and thinking, which enables us to avoid being too optimistic or too pessimistic. This is a perspective that helps us to realise our human capacity for both good and evil.

However, before the above, the essay will investigate that the biblical worldview is also wholistic in nature and therefore ecological. It will be noted that from this realisation the new paradigm thinking in theology leads to the view of the ideal community we will give reference to. But the most significant fact will be the identification of dualistic thinking within the church and society as a whole that has been part of the cause of our ecological crisis.

The question arising is what constitutes the new paradigm thinking? The answer to this is complex, as there are many diverse elements that constitute this new—paradigm, for as Michael Ventura notes this emerging paradigm is totally chaotic, but there appears to be a world wide movement in this area to form a new faith. However, Capra attempts to answer this type of question by arguing that the new paradigm thinking represents a shift in thinking from the old scientific paradigm of Cartesian, Newtonian, or Baconian worldviews, and the patriarchal value system, to a new paradigm, which maybe called holistic, ecological, or systemic. However, this is only a limited definition. To understand this view in a little more detail please refer to Appendix A.

From Appendix A we see that the proponents of the new thinking argue, that they are in the process of initiating, and we are seeing the making of, a cultural transformation. This is a phenomenon that is changing the mind-sets of people within our western culture. Additionally, it is a transformation that will make us think in an ecological way and one that will give value back to nature as a living and mindful organism, which certain proponents refer to as Gaia. This would lead to the

development of a community of people living in peace with themselves and nature, and through a new faith creating a better life for all. However, a view which can be considered to be characterised by a high degree of optimism, but optimism that is rather lopsided.

The above movement has been very much born within our contemporary spiritual awakening. Yet new paradigm thinking is not only the exclusive property of the enlightened science but also it is evident within the Christian tradition. In this area we are witnessing that the old theological paradigm is being renewed or transformed by new paradigm thinking in theology. This process is partly a consequence of the series of Christian renewal movements of the twentieth-century. The last two were the restoration of spiritual power and gifts to the church - the body of Christ - and the social justice movement. Yet the new paradigm thinking realises also that these renewal movements have been relatively fragmented and therefore what is needed is the emergence of thinking that is holistic and “ecumenical”. This is equivalent argues Thomas Matus to the ecological view in science — whereby one maintains an integrated vision of renewal in every dimension of the church’s life, John Stott (1992). Thus the new paradigm thinking within Christianity is challenging the traditional church and many of its mainline denominations — those effected or not by the charismatic movement.

As a result of this new thinking, which to a degree is reflective of the general paradigm shift we are now experiencing, Christian scholars are rediscovering the wholistic and systemic nature of Hebrew and early Christian thinkers, for example, Jesus, the Prophets and other writers within the total Old and New Testament books. In this area there is the realisation that nature/ creation is to be valued and that God has spoken of various conditions in which man should be following to ensure that nature is treated respectfully and with responsibility.

The Christian Bible is filled with positive images of nature - a theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation. The Christian view purports that nature is infinitely godly and is marked everywhere with their God’s fingerprints. Additionally, there is the aspect of the “fall” which was brought about by humankind’s attempt to become autonomous, which led to the view of creation existing for man: the move from theocentric to anthropocentric. As a result, ‘theocentricism’ for a Christian is the true position where all things exist for and have their meaning in God. The move from theocentricism to anthropocentrism, however, should be considered as a sin. For Calvin he saw the fall as perverting the ‘whole of nature in heaven and earth’. Nature was disrupted and the ‘shalom’ that existed in the Garden of Eden between God, humanity and nature was ruptured, Bishop (1992). Because of this, the Christian view suggests that nature, which is essentially good, is frustrated because of humankind’s fall. Therefore, the Christian perceives that because of the systemic characteristics of creation, the fall has caused a terrible impact upon and within creation. However, the Christian story maintains that through Christ Jesus - redemption is truly ‘cosmic’, radically affecting everything in God’s world, including the “renewal of all things” in Christ’s future reign.

The question arising is that if the above represents the Christian view, and to a Christian is the truth, then why has the church taken so long to develop an ecological conscience and ethic? As we noted earlier the church has experienced a number of ‘revivals’ which have transformed many churches, putting life back into them, whereby the message of the gospel resonates within people and to a degree becomes manifest in everyday life.

The problem is due to what Seaton (1992) calls ‘missing links’. A view similar to John Stott, which argues that the church has only preached a fragmented message and one that is rarely preached in a

very green - that is, in a very whole - form. Therefore, if the Bible - the Christian view - is so clear on the goodness of the earth, then why, as Seaton questions are its believers so reluctant to declare it?

A part of the answer to this question is that Christian thinking has been co-opted into the reigning western world view which has domesticated the Christian view of life, Newbigin (1992). Thus a Christian maybe seeing the world through the lenses of the biblical tradition of rationality or as many people have done by looking at the Christian tradition from the perspective of the reigning culture. Thus the criticisms of the new paradigm thinking can be just as much applied to many Christians as it can to secularists.

To be more specific towards the Church dimension, on this matter, Dave Tomlinson has identified five key reasons for the Church’s lack of response. Four of these factors can be found in Appendix C. However, it is intended that we concentrate now on one of the most significant and dangerous factors to enter into Christianity and the reigning Western worldview, and that is - as many new paradigm thinkers have highlighted - the aspect of ‘dualism’.

In the scientific new paradigm thinking there is the realisation that the Western worldview - the map in which we interpret the terrain - has been infiltrated by dualism. This has led non-enlightened people to hold worldviews that are dualistic in nature. Dualistic thinking is based on Creek philosophies of neo-Platonism, Jones (1991). These ideas were picked up and re-interpreted during the Age of Reason by Rene Descartes and other deists - the period of enlightenment, Capra (1987), Jones (1991), Newbigin (1992). This led to the dualistic separation of matter/ spirit and what Newbigin calls public/ private or fact/ belief distinctions, which has profoundly affected the whole of our thinking and the working out of our values. In turn this has naturally become reflected within our culture’s plausibility structures, Newbigin (1989). The church is also a victim of this dualistic onslaught. As a consequence many Christians’ worldview differs from the biblical tradition of rationality. This is because many Christians make the mistake of interpreting the scriptures through the lenses of the Western culture worldview and not as Newbigin calls for by indwelling the biblical story and seeing the world through its' tradition of rationality. This task, however, is not an easy one, and within us with have this internal dialogue and conflict between the biblical and worldly traditions.

Dualistic thinking within Christianity has been a negative force, leading to many separations being read into Christianity over the centuries: Soul and body; flesh and spirit; sacred and secular; holy and worldly; heaven and earth, and so on. Thus to make a distinction is one thing, but to push it to the extremes is quite another. Instead the new paradigm in theology expresses that concepts of body, soul, and spirit and so on are to be seen positively as all being part of the wholeness of a person, a view which also includes a relationship to God and nature.

The above realisation also has parallels with the view held by the advocates of new paradigm thinking - whereby the idea that there is dualism within nature are to be considered as dangerous and therefore to be avoided. A view expressed by Gregory Bateson in his writings. However, Bateson does note that Christianity still contains a dualistic view in respect of its description of God - being transcendent and separate from creation. If this is true, however, it represents only a limited and lopsided understanding of the biblical picture of God. This is a view that has sometimes been overemphasised without maintaining the tension of the other perspective, which shows God as being intimately involved in nature.

Therefore, the new Christian understanding creates a position of tension, whereby both/ and thinking is maintained. For it avoids taking the extreme view of monism - the theory that all reality is one. Monism is also closely linked to pantheism, which is the view adopted by deep ecologists where God equals nature. Yet the Christian position also avoids the extreme of dualism, which sees God only as totally other and uninvolved in creation - the view that Bateson attacks. Therefore, the new paradigm view expresses that, “Jesus is before all things, and in him all things hold together”, Colossians 1:17. In other words, the Christian belief is that God is before the cosmos/ universe, and in him the cosmos/ universe holds together. However, the new paradigm in theology maintains that at the level of the cosmos/ universe, the idea that there are also dualisms within nature is incorrect and therefore to be avoided. At this point there is a correlation between the understandings of the emerging new scientific worldview and the new paradigm in theology. Appendix E gives a further discussion of this perspective.

From the above it is clear which ever perspective one takes - the scientific or theological, there is the realisation that dualism grips our culture and the Christian church. Due to this phenomenon the emerging traditions of rationality - scientific and Christian - seek the antidote to this dualism. In both cases there is an attempt to secure a wholistic worldview by the transformation of culture. This will change the heart attitudes and mind-sets of people by creating the appropriate community and culture to enable wholistic and ecological thinking to reign. It is this context that the new thinking in science and theology has many similarities and some fundamental differences. Both realise that they hold profound social implications, and as such the new paradigm thinking in science holds valuable insights for Christian thinking, just as society is becoming aware that its problems have a spiritual dimension and implications. We shall now explore in more depth the results of such thinking.

The Christian new paradigm antidote to dualism and the way to secure a holistic worldview lies within the Christian bible itself, through the concept of the Kingdom of God. The social implications of this view are clearly expressed by Martin Luther King Jr. in his concept of the “Beloved Community”. This view is in line with the new paradigm thinking in theology and has been expanded to incorporate a higher emphasis on the ecological dimension. King’s, view is also characteristic of the thinking within the emerging new scientific school of thought. And in this sense enables both Christian and their neighbours to seek together in dialogue the working out of this beloved community that cares for the “Earth household” - both humankind and nature.

In both traditions of rationality one is encouraged to seek reconciliation and the formation of a community based on love. To King and the new paradigm thinking in theology would see this community operating in the following way. However, it must be noted that the information written below are based on the work of John Ansbro’s writings on King, and other sources of new paradigm thinking within the Christian tradition.

People would allow, in this community, the spirit of ‘agape’ to direct their entire individual, social and ecological relationships. Thus they would manifest a persistent willingness to sacrifice for the good of the community or Earth household, and for their own spiritual and temporal good. In their private lives and as members of the caring Earth household or community, they would regard each person as an image of God and a heir to a legacy of dignity and worth with rights that are not derived from the state but from God. In this picture one also incorporates the view that people will regard nature as good, ‘alive’, and has worth and rights that are not derived from the state but from

God - spiritual dimension. The biblical worldview challenges the idea of anthropocentrism, but in a completely different way to that expressed by deep ecology, for it also challenges the alternative extreme of biocentrism - for a fuller discussion see appendix D.

Within this community people will be inspired by a vision of ‘total interrelatedness’ and of the solidarity of the human family - culture - and ones interconnectedness to nature. These are the very principles of systemic thinking. Whereby people will be aware that what directly affects one person affects all persons indirectly, and what effects one part of nature will affect all nature including humans indirectly - ecological understanding. By their laws, actions, and attitudes people would never reduce a person to a mere means, but always treat them as ends in themselves with the right of rational self-determination. In addition, people will treat nature in a sustainable manner.

In this community all races are considered equal and all forms of discrimination will be excluded. Whereby “genuine inter-group and interpersonal living” is achieved, King (1963). Every member of such a culture/ community would be committed to brotherhood and sisterhood due to the awareness of their interconnectedness which is a part of the Kingdom of God teaching, and the heart of the new paradigm, Capra, et al (1992). The sense of belonging to the Earth household, where we are not only sensing belonging to a community of people, but also to nature and God as a whole. This is the heart of religious experience.

In this community industries will be more concerned with people and the environment than with profits, seeking to rid the destructive feeling of alienation from peoples’ work and their relationships as well as pursuing ecological and social sustainability. Lester Brown defines a sustainable society as, “one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations,” quoted in Capra (1992). In addition, governments would concentrate on developing moral power, and would arrange to share political power with their citizens at the local level (the principle of subsidiarity) and for the rest of humanity and nature. These governments will also ensure equality and justice in all things.

The churches in this community would seek to actively promote ecumenical endeavours, and to be involved in community programmes to enhance the spiritual and temporal well being of all, Ansbro (1982), Newbigin (1992) and Stott (1992). Additionally, the churches will be developing along with others ecologically and socially sound projects.

The above is a beautiful and wonderful picture of the ‘beloved Community’; one although different from a new paradigm view because of its Christian bias, nonetheless has many similarities. Each hopes for a better future, whereby this type of view becomes manifest in reality. However, there is a difference between the new paradigm thinking, which has been mainly adopted by the ‘New Age’ movement and the new paradigm view in Christianity. In the former there is the belief that this new thinking is a good thing and will inevitably lead everyone to have a better life. For in their view people have the potential to create this ‘community’. Yet as Berman (1989) argues this is but a lopsided optimism because it fails to look at the shadow side of the “holistic worldview”, which in Berman’s mind is “potentially very dark”.

However, this aspect is realised within the Christian new-paradigm. Although like King we may allude to the above ideal of the “beloved Community” as if it could be achieved, nonetheless, their is the realisation that as Berman notes because of the dark side of human nature the ‘perfect’ beloved community could not be realised in all its fullness - to become an historical reality, Ansbro

(1982). As King realised and Reinhold Niebuhr argues we need ‘realism’ to avoid the illusions of a superficial optimism concerning human nature, and as Ansbro notes the dangers of a false idealism. Additionally, according to King, we need to be more aware of “the glaring reality of collective [and systemic] evil”. In ‘Strength to Love’, King asserted that, “Man collectivised in the group, the tribe, the race, and the nation often sinks to levels of barbarity unthinkable even among animals.” King also indicated that Niebuhr emphasised those thinkers such as “Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Freud in their explorations of the dark depths of the human heart to confirm the biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of man,” Ansbro: King (1982).

The new paradigm theology also realises along with King that, “evil is with us a stark and grim, and colossal reality. The Bible affirms the reality of evil in glaring terms… The whole history of life is the history of a struggle between good and evil”, Ansbro: King (1982). However, this ‘dualism’ is not only exclusive to Christianity; other great religions have recognised that in the midst of the upward thrust of goodness there is the downward pull of evil. As Ansbro puts it “they have discerned a tension at the very core of the universe”. Thus Hinduism regards this tension as a conflict between reality and illusion; Zoroastrianism, as a conflict between the god of light and the god of darkness; and Judaism and Christianity, as a conflict between God and Satan.

Thus the view that as we evolve we will be able to progressively eliminate evil is an illusion. The above view recognises the New Testament reference to the universality of sin, evil or the dark side of human nature”. Of course one must not over react with the above view and proclaim that all human deeds are therefore sinful or that sin prevails over good. For the new paradigm realises that there are ‘righteous people’ who conform to the law of goodness, so to speak, and care for the needy and the environment. Yet none of us are perfect we still have the potential to do good or evil (and be complicit with evil). However, just as humanity has the potential for evil it also has an amazing potential for goodness, Ansbro: King (1982).

Yet this potential for goodness is limited. This is a notion that one would ascertain from the existentialist and others which realise that human freedom is limited, and that a man or women is but a finite child of nature. This view will not only highlight humanities interdependence on nature but also indicates that environmental conditions may hinder the ideal of agape. For example, if one is in poverty it may be hard not to chop down trees in a way that is sustainable for money and food. Hegel in his works also notes that the human spirit develops dialectically as it struggles against objective evils, which implies that no community can be manifested whereby it eliminates the necessity for continuous struggle, Schaffer (1982).

There is, however, a realisation of another limitation, which both new paradigm thinking notes, and that is government regulations and law, and programmes although they can provide a means of protection and initiative for change and the care of the environment are only a partial step toward genuine community. For it might bring together people physically, but not necessarily spiritually, because laws can not reach inner attitudes and change the heart, and bring an end to fears, prejudice, pride, and irrationality which hinder the attempts of belonging, Ansbro: King (1982), Schaffer (1982) and Stott (1992).

If the above view indicates that humanity could not achieve the perfect actualisation of the ideal community - Earth household - then what is the purpose of such a view one may ask? The answer is that it sets a standard in which people can both hope and strive towards realising. To bring one closer to ideal, so, as King maintains, we may develop this vision in “judgement, in personal

devotion, and in some group life.” In a sense as DeWolf maintains although we may not see the ideal perfectly fulfilled, we can preserve this beloved community as a very realistic and active goal, and use it for determining if our actions are moving in the direction of this ideal. In this sense one can strive at obtaining ‘Utopia’ - living in the Earth household. This in turn will help guide our actions towards establishing ‘Utopia’ as a reality as far as possible.

King believed that although the world will never be perfect there is a propensity for good – for in this world, “…the other world, the world of the perfect ideal, will always be at work in it.” As surely as there is a world against which we protest, so surely the ideal in the name of which we protest is more potent than the world’s evil.” Although this was spoken in connection to the civil rights movement it is just as applicable to our aim of establishing a community that cares for nature as a whole.

Gandhi also argued that the individual could not reach the perfect state, but the striving after the ideal/ Utopia is the basis for all spiritual progress. The ideal must remain the goal:

“Man will ever remain imperfect, and it will always be his part to try to be perfect; so that perfection in love or non-possession will remain an unattainable ideal along as we are alive but towards which we must ceaselessly strive”, quoted by Bose: Gandhi (1948).

Capra mentions the need for people to pursue non-violence, however, he to suffers from a lopsided optimism, for as King would argue we may never be strong enough to be entirely non-violent in “thought, word, and deed... but we must keep non-violence as our goal and make steady progress towards it.”

Overall, by following King’s position and emphasising humanity’s “moral obligation to struggle against injustice”, and to fight against the rape of nature, and by affirming humanity’s capacity to move closer to the ideal of the Earth household, we will be able to avoid the lopsided optimism of New Age thinking. Likewise, we will also overcome the potential to fall into a pit of despair, pessimism and doom and gloom. In a similar vein to the new paradigm in theology we don’t adopt a thesis of liberalism, which is also reflective of the New Age movement, but instead strive towards a synthesis that includes the ‘truths’ of both. This enables us to obtain a realistic view of human nature that ignores neither the human capacity for good nor its capacity for evil. Thus as King concludes, “Even though all progress is precarious, within limits real social progress may be made.” This would be social progress that incorporates ecological progress - care of the planet.

Christianity, therefore, has not only to rid itself of dualism but also to seek the above holistic gospel. One in which we are called to work in the community to transform it into the ideal community or earth household, working together with those in our society who have become enlightened, and to participate with them in dialogue. For the new paradigm thinking Christian, realises that God does not exclusively work just in the church but in all things - the extension of the fruits of the kingdom to all human beings, Matus (1992). However, it must be noted that the new paradigm thinking has not got the ‘truth’ in the sense that we don’t have anything more to learn. We must become aware that we as finite beings cannot possible comprehend all reality. Our way of thinking and perceiving will be continually challenged and changed as we test out our Christian tradition of rationality against our experiences and in dialogue with those of other worldviews, see appendix F.

Appendix A

Capra identifies five criteria, which constitutes the new paradigm thinking. The first two refer to our perceptions of nature, and the other three to our epistemology. Without going into detail, theses are basically: the shift from the part to the whole; the shift from structure to process, the move from seeing science as objective to ‘Epistemic’; the metaphor of knowledge as building is being replaced by that of the network, and finally that there is a shift from truth to approximate description.

One of the fundamentally and important aspects of this new thinking is its ecological awareness and consciousness. It provides an ecological worldview which, according to Capra, (1992), “goes far beyond science, and at the deepest level it joins with religious awareness and religious experience”, and he goes on to say, “...the notions of being embedded in the cosmos, and of belonging to the cosmos, are very similar. This is where ecology and religion meet.” In addition, Capra notes that the new paradigm represents a shift, which is more than a shift in worldviews, but one that also incorporates values and activities that are part of a social paradigm. In this context Capra maintains that an individual may have a worldview, but a community shares a paradigm.

The above is developed further by the realisation that science is pursued within the frame of reference of the larger culture or paradigm and its inherent values and beliefs, Wilkins and Dyer (1989). This phenomenon has great similarities to what Peter Berger calls a “plausibility structure”, which is a structure of assumptions and practices, or in other words patterns of belief and practice accepted within a given society, which determine what beliefs are plausible and what are not, Newbigin (1992). These plausibility structures are of course different at different times and places.

Thus the plausibility structure of a society, for example, determines what kind of a science a society will pursue and what information will be perceive as scientific fact. In otherwords, as Capra (1992), argues the “scientific paradigm is embedded in the social paradigm.” The consequence of this thinking highlights the potential of one or a number of culture(s) to pursue scientific activities that are ecologically disastrous. Where as in another culture it could be possible that its values and beliefs would not allow any activity to be pursued or even thought-of that would lead to environmental damage.

Appendix C

Firstly, Christian theologies have tended in the old tradition to swing to two extremes, whereby liberal theologians have tended to overemphasise Genesis 1 and 2 at the expense of Genesis 3. A position, according to Tomlinson, that denies sin and its consequences. This view, argues Tomlinson, “distorts the goodness of God’s creation, and its need of a saviour”. The evangelicals on the other-hand have sometimes been guilty of the reverse, as Tomlinson puts it “majoring on the fall and apparently forgetting the creation completely!” The latter it has to be admitted has led some to conceive the world as ruined, and this has seriously impacted their motivation to care for the planet. These people it can be argued have misinterpreted the concept of ‘renewal’ to mean the ‘replacement’ of all things. The liberal position on the other hand has led often to a lopsided optimism, which has foundered on the rocks as it attempts to deal with the darker side of human nature. However, the new paradigm in theology recognises that there is a paradox, for the earth is both lovely and tainted with ugliness. However, the Christian Bible does not leave us in this tension forever. For it directs us to a hope filled future that encompasses creation, and declares that we will see the “renewal of all things”.

Second factor is the view of the Christian “premillennial dispensationalism”, which was conceived by the Brethren Leader, J N Darby. This is the view that things will get increasingly worse and eventually the earth will be burnt up at the end, and the true believers will experience the rapture and be taken up into heaven. This has led to what Seaton calls the “departure lounge” mentality. The consequence of this is a lack of motivation amongst such people to care for the earth, because it is believed that it will be eventually destroyed anyway. In fact there is the danger that these people see the ecological crisis as something to be hoped for because it signifies the return of Christ. This view lends itself to the position that Christians should be rescuing people out of this world, rather than bringing wholeness within it.

Thirdly, there is the attitude of ‘comfortable conservatism’ a phenomenon both present in and outside of the Christian church. This reflects the reigning view of many in Britain’s middle-class, which represent the largest proportion within this country’s churches. It is a view that seeks to maintain the ‘status quo’ of their comfortable lifestyles, anything that upsets this position is to be avoided and denied for fear of change and pain. Of course there are many people who are beginning to embrace change, but the majority do not grasp radical change that the new paradigm teaching suggests. Tackling questions of worldviews have radical implications and lead in to an uncomfortable and painful period of transition and chaos.

Fourthly, many have kept out of the green movement because of the suspected New Age infiltration of this movement.

Appendix D

The Christian theocentric view does distinguish that humans are valued more highly by God than nature. However, this is held in the tension that God sees and cares for every sparrow that falls (Matthew: 10:29-31), because God feels for these common two legged creatures. However, God also considers a human to be of more value than many sparrows. Thus God does not dismiss the value of nature in order to give man pre-eminence. In the biblical worldview there appears to be a hierarchy of value within nature, but that does not give humanity the mandate and right to abuse nature. This view in other words avoids the foolishness of dualism by suggesting man is precious and nature is worthless and available to be abused. In addition, the biblical tradition of rationality also avoids the opposite extreme of the biocentric philosophy typical of deep ecology that can suggest an anti-human and even misanthropic position, Bishop, (1992), as expressed by Bookchim (1987), Naess (1987), and Sessions (1985). This Christian perspective, along with other new paradigm thinkers, also suggests that humanity needs to take responsibility for using nature sustainably to meet our needs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the art of proper stewardship, Capra (1992), Compolo (1992), Seaton (1992).

The biblical view also avoids the position that sees human beings being above and outside of nature, destined to dominate nature for our own means and ends. For the biblical system maintains that we are part of the earth, being creatures of God, and yet we are also made in Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s image both male and female and we are instructed to have dominion over nature. However, this ruler-ship does not mean domination of nature, but instead for us to care and use nature in a way that is responsible and accountable to God, as Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stewards of his creation, (see appendix A). This theocentric view enables the Christian to be free of the extremes of biocentrism and anthropocentrism, Bishop (1992).

Appendix E

David Steindi-Rast in his conversation with Capra refers to the Christian perspective by arguing that God does not equal nature. To clarify this he talks about a horizon phenomenon when one speaks of God. In this view he maintains that the “horizon belongs inseparably to the landscape. There can’t be a landscape without a horizon, nor a horizon without a landscape. But the horizon is not the landscape. The horizon recedes as you go and remains the horizon.” This view is quite helpful in helping us to get a picture. However, the point he made which suggests one can’t have a horizon without a landscape does not entirely fit the biblical picture. This is because God was there in the beginning, before the landscape and was in existence without the need for the landscape. Thomas Matus picks up on this paradox by arguing that one may conceive of God as being the horizon of the universe, but it must also be understood that God is also to be seen as the ineffable Other.

Thus on one hand the biblical tradition sees God as totally other to nature. Yet the Bible also refers to God as working in all things for his purposes, and holds all things together. Another picture of God’s involvement in nature is expressed in the following extract from a psalm written by King David, “For you created my innermost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Thomas Matus also identifies the intimate nature of God within nature when he speaks of a theme within the scriptures that Saint Augustine picks up on in his experience, “O God, closer to me than I am to myself, more intimate than my very innermost point.”

The Christian perspective however, does talk of one kind of separation, a form of dualism. The biblical worldview identifies that God is working in all things, from working in everyone’s life to the whole of creation. However, the Christian story maintains that humankind is separate from God in the sense that one cannot see his ways, for sin has blinded and deafened us to his presence. As a consequence we are unable to have a personal relationship with God, where we come to know God more intimately. A knowing that as one continues to live we realises more greatly and perceptibly how unknown God is. This is a knowing which is analogous to friendship, according to David Steindi-Rast, “for the more you know a friend, the more you know that friend as unknowable, as a mystery.” Thus the Christian message is that sin has separated us from God, but through the atonement of the cross one can be reconciled back into fellowship with God, whereby we shall indeed know God, but we shall know God as the unknown. Additionally, the new paradigm in theology notes that through this process humankind will be able to realise a way of life that cares for one another and the whole of creation, as we participate in the present manifestations of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom, according to the Christian story, that will be fully established by the return of Christ.

Appendix F

The Christian ideal of the community is that of the Kingdom of God, the eschatological view whereby the presence of the ultimate, final manifestation of God as referred to both in the old and new testaments, is the focus in the present, of the believer. However, this biblical worldview also maintains that through God’s grace we are in a ‘middle time’ in which the Kingdom is already manifesting but yet not fully consummated. This Kingdom is constituted on the earth not only in the Church but also as the extension of the “fruits of the kingdom to all human beings.” Thus according to this view God is not exclusively working in the church but in all things. So for the Christian we are to join with the world in fighting for justice for the whole of creation and humanity which is a part of it. In affect, as a Christian we are co-workers with God in the process of advancing the kingdom of God on earth. Although as Christians we often differ, we should seek in dialogue to establish where justice lies and discern what is happening in the world so that we may follow the way of love - realistically.

" Endnotes