If there is one major theme that keeps resurfacing when it comes to my critiques of mainstream environmentalism, I would say that it has to do with universalized ideas of what is best for the communities at hand. Oftentimes, those with the “power” to decide on the solutions are far removed from the problems (or sometimes non-problems that get problematized), leading to wrong presumptions and de-contextualized conceptions of what “regeneration” or “resilience” means.
Hey Kamea, I really love and enjoy your podcast. I’ve decided to become a paid subscriber as of today because I have received the call for collaboration. I do have something really urgent to point out about a guest you have invited on 2 times and im hoping you can discuss my findings with me. I don’t want to place my findings on public discourse as it may be damaging to your efforts. I would appreciate a response when you have the time in your earliest convenience. If you can respond here or send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org
Kamea and all,
Agreed. A wise person in one of my networks mentioned recently that we need to avoid ‘generating a path internally, motivated by our own desires, which are often colonial, despite good intentions, but we are responding and mobilizing to requests by other leaders’.
This is a common trap.
This person goes to say ‘I perceive this as a shift from self-authorizing our power to enacting responsibilities …it feels much more work has gone into establishing organizational protocols than relational ones.’
Many of us tend to focus on organizational protocols that makes us feel better and that actually retain our power as opposed to the difficult work of working through it.
Your point about ‘solutions being removed from the problems’ is part of this dynamic where we work from a set of problematic assumptions and keep tripping over ourselves with our good intentions.
Only when we go to the root causes of our behaviour (and assumptions) can we understand and feel what “regeneration” or “resilience” really mean.