Thanks for your response John. Here’s my lengthy and quickly-scribbled commentary.

THE RALLY

You ask what “if two unknown nobodies had been holding that sign, instead of Holmgren and Dennett” at the rally. I think their doing that would have been criticised but the issue would have soon disappeared. The difference was that it was David and Sue, both significant influencers within permaculture, probably the prime influencers, that made the difference in the number and tone of responses.

Also evidently contributing to the controversy was David’s recent blog articles in which he made public his opposition to the Covid vaccination and, more generally, his attitude to science evident in his description of scientists as “the priests of arcane specialised knowledge maintained by an empire of extraction and exploitation”.

THE RESPONSE

The response to David at the rally and to his blog articles revealed an undercurrent of dissent within the social movement around permaculture.

The Australian permaculture movement did something I have for some years thought possible although very unlikely — it split into factions. Now, I know some might regard ‘factions’ as too strong a word, however I stand by its use. My use of the term comes from observing the behaviour of small leftist groups and, later, the environment movement where people cohering around an idea, and the movement being unable to retain coherence because of the organisational tension generated, results in a split as the factions go their own way. They often do this over strategic questions, the overall direction a movement should take. That seems to be the concern in comments around this issue, too. I did feel a little unease at using the word as I did in an article about using the term ‘split’ to describe what happened. However, for me those terms describe the situation in political terms.

AVOIDING THE CONVERSATION

You ask: “Why have these conversations been avoided or intractable for 25+ years?”.

There are probably multiple answers to this question. One of mine is that permaculture people — and I speak of Australians here — have been reluctant to openly talk about things that might be controversial within permaculture. There have been instances when they have, however these have been mainly personal conversations at permaculture convergences where, unlike on permaculture social media, they have been calmly discussed.

Another reason I see those conversations not happening is that there has been nowhere to hold them. The networking principle of preferential attachment, in which nodes with a high degree of connections attract more connections while the nodes connecting to them have a small number of connections, led to the dominance of a small number of websites and, later, social media sites. Those hubs are sites like David’s Holmgren Design Services where he features his design and educational services and houses his blog. None of them were open fora where issues and ideas could be discussed. In revealing the existence of this hidden disquiet below the permaculture surface the Evidence-Based Permaculture Facebook may be becoming that missing fora where ideas can be discussed — time will tell. This, I think, is why we see there an outpouring of questioning of some permaculture ideas as well as of David role in the movement.

CLOSING CONVERSATIONS

Where I have seen issues raised in permaculture’s online conversation, some have responded that the conversation was divisive. They wanted it shut down because they felt uncomfortable reading it or because it clashed with their beliefs about permaculture.

This is what facebook admins have occasionally done when, in a classic parent/child response, they have switched-off comments, effectively silencing a discussion simply because it became a little heated and disturbed the equanimity of some. That demonstrated the influence that complainants have with social media admins while disregarding those who wanted the conversation to continue as evidenced by comments and the number of ‘likes’ appended to comments. I recall it happening on the Permaculture Australia facebook a number of times. Sometimes the entire conversation was deleted. It was as if they didn’t want anyone to ruffle the calm waters of permaculture, but what it did was stymie discussion of topics pertinent to the evolution of permaculture. Now, we see the result of ignoring those comments.

BEYOND THE COMFORT ZONE

I believe such responses indicate the existence of a permaculture comfort zone that some do not want to step outside of, fearing disturbance either to the design system itself and public perceptions about it, or to their own beliefs about its cohesiveness and direction. We see the boundaries of this comfort zone in permaculture’s focus on, primarily, individual solutions rather than social. It manifests primarily as a focus on the garden. This is what the neoliberal system wants, putting responsibility for finding solutions on the individual rather than on social institutions and the political system.

Maybe that partly answers your “We might look at the persistent failure of permaculture over 30+ years to get beyond a small fringe subculture.”

If you want to step out of the subculture and its comfort zone and into the world you have to take risks and you have to have a system strong enough to deal with dissent and controversy.

SOMETHING BELOW THE SURFACE

Just as a large dark shape seen passing below your surfboard triggers instant alarm, so there has been the diffuse, dark shape of dissent below the permaculture surface that now triggers its own state of alarm.

This is about your asking why we as a social movement we have not had these conversations and why this issue has suddenly erupted. David with his banner at the rally might have triggered the existence of something submerged, something hidden below permaculture’s smooth surface.

I am talking about the apparently hidden dissent with permaculture-in-Australia’s status quo. We see from the new Evidence-Based Permaculture facebook group that dissent and division has existed for some time. There are differences over various topics, and these have been calmly discussed in the past. Then there are differences over the role, prominence and dominance of David and his powerful influence over permaculture thinking and the movement in general. This gets to your “replicating a culture of apparent or alleged ‘leadership’ by charismatics and personalities.”

There can be no mistaking David’s predominance when it comes to the constitution and direction of permaculture. What David says and writes is often taken as truth and goes unquestioned. David’s useful but generalist set of principles is an example. It is only when some of us apply permaculture ideas in social institutions and in mainstream society that we find they could do with a little nuance.

I’m not saying this is a good or a bad thing in its effect. But, as Terry Leahy points out in his 2021 book, The Politics of Permaculture, the occupation of the apex position in permaculture’s informal hierarchy (am I right is saying that?) precludes anyone else from occupying a similar position and role in the movement. One result of this are those subsurface undercurrents in permaculture I mention.

It is only three weeks from the time of the trigger event.

I’m curious about the evolution of permaculture in Australia from this point, however I imagine that David’s intellectual dominance will continue to direct permaculture for most, but no longer all of its practitioners. It seems permaculture, once part of the social counterculture, now has its own counterculture.