Look over the man in black's face at the end of the scene

It’s not surprising to hear somebody says “don’t consume too much”, “eat seasonally”, “buy as local as possible”, even “don't consume meat”. As if our individual choices can have an impact on mitigating the huge degradation that we have caused for a long time when comparing the effects of the actions taken by the big corporations, conventional and industrialised/high input farming. But that's fine we can still buy environmentally friendly stuff from Amazon with 44.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2018, including purchased electricity and indirect emissions. Please don't get me wrong, I find the choices of individuals to be influential in the long run. I just don't think that whole scenario should be shaped by leaving the responsibility to the consumer. —— So what does this have to do with this video? People who watched Westworld know this scene. We see Man in Black (Ed Harris), who tries to seek the maze, which he perceives as a deeper level to the game, at the beginning and end of the video. However, the maze was not for him; it was created to guide hosts to consciousness by the creator of the game. In the scene, after being shot by hosts (robots), he realised that hosts could fight back for the first time because they started to gain consciousness.

Recently I realised that I feel the same thing what Man in Black felt when he saw the hosts stood up for their rights when I watch the World's responses to us since the beginning of 2020. All the -let's say- horrible things that have been around recently are the things that have been tangible enough now to surface our consciousness and attract our attention. I feel what Man in Black felt. Finally, we are confronting what we have been doing for a long time. It is neither good nor bad just it ought to happen.

Intensive Agriculture Approaches as two shadows of The King Archetype - Jungian perspective

Even though the definitions of the following terms have simplified such a complex subject, I wanted to share them to be on the same page with readers throughout the article.

Depth/Analytical Psychology (Jungian psychology (I know it's not quite right):

Understanding the language and dynamics of the unconscious

Shadow:

Aspects of a personality unconsciously rejected or repressed

Archetypes:

Universal principles and patterns that inform human experiences from the depths of the collective unconscious

Ps. for easy reading, bold sentences are from the book called "King Warrior Magician and Lover" written by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette.

Intensive Agriculture Approaches as two shadows of The King Archetype

When I think about agro-environments, one of my biggest questions is: would it be the same if we hadn't lived in a world dominated by capitalist patriarchy? Could we tend to accuse agro-ecological production models of being infeasible or hippie? Or would we not consider building production systems based on reductionist models, since we did not oppress our healthy feminine side? According to Jung, everything in cosmos comprises of both feminine and masculine principles. When I approach the subject from this angle, I need to hear what Jung and Jungian analysts think about the masculine and feminine principles.

Moore and Gillette, two Jungian analysts, state that patriarchy is not the interpretation of deep and rooted masculinity. They support the idea that truly deep and rooted masculinity is not abusive. Patriarchy is the expression of the immature masculine. It is the expression of Boy psychology, and in part, the shadow or crazy side of masculinity [1].

Since agriculture is all about manipulation of nature, I will try to understand the roots of the issue by analysing two shadow sides of one of the masculine archetypes called The King. Even though every psyche carries on at least a piece of every archetype, I wanted to be focused on the King as a foundation to demonstrate things.

Source: Illustrated by the Author, adapted from Moore and Gillette

Figure 1. The King and The Divine Child Archetypes with their shadows

As can be seen in Figure 1, The Tyrant is one of the shadows of The King archetype, in the bipolar shadow system.

The Tyrant’s degradation of others knows no bounds. He hates all beauty, all innocence, all strengths, all talent, and all life energy. He does not see any harm in building monoculture systems with a lack of diversity, which can cause a limitation in healthy functions that nature can deliver to crops and soil. He is far from the understanding of how different plant species provide beneficial nutrients. He also lacks the knowledge of how a wide range of insects is necessary to avoid one harming too many crops. However, he thinks that he can solve this problem by using synthetic fertilisers, herbicides, insecticides, and bactericides to protect his income.

The Tyrant exploits and abuses others. He is ruthless, merciless, and without feeling when he seeks what he believes in is his self-interest. Like intensive farming, he can overuse artificial fertilisers, particularly the ones with nitrogen contributing to the emission of GHGs, eutrophication, and thus environmental degradation [2] to achieve his maximum profit goal.

He does so because he lacks inner structure. He is terrified of his hidden weakness and his underlying lack of control. Therefore he tries to recognise patterns not to understand the language of nature but to predict and then control the outer world. The Tyrant King feel that they are the centre of the universe, (although they aren't centred themselves); thus, all the other creatures exist to serve them. Therefore he has created categorisation of ecosystems' functions that is called Ecosystem Services (the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being such as pollination, climate regulation etc.) to value nature; then he can understand the natural values. Even this is based on the economic evaluation system he has created.

Shadow King as Tyrant is like a father who makes war on sons' and daughters' joy and strength, their abilities and vitality. He treats soil like dirt rather than living entity where accommodate a wide range of organism which serves nature.

With his limited understanding of nature and its processes, he cannot see how a tiny little organism can contribute so much to ecosystems. He fears their freshness, their newness of being and the life force surging through them and he seeks to kill it. He does this with open verbal assaults. For having an unrealistic worldview and being too romantic to live in such a cruel world, he accuses the groups that produce in partnership with nature instead of fighting with it. His attacks may not be limited to verbal or psychological abuse; they may include physical abuse. He can see an excellent opportunity to invest in foreign farmland as a valuable new source of profits by grabbing land from local food-producing communities. This is how to destroy local economies, and this is destruction itself is counted as growth by him [3].

Even though he does not let to be seen, the anger is a sense of worthlessness, vulnerability and weakness for behind the Tyrant lies the other pole of King's bipolar shadow system, which is the Weakling. If he can't be identified with King energy, he feels he is nothing. That might be the reason for his desperate needs to concur the world as a form of capitalism. What he sees in the natural cycles' submission to the higher and more comprehensive system is the face of his hidden fear and weakness, projected onto another. Therefore he has been focused on not understanding the power of submission to the Whole but creating virtual systems where genetically modified organisms can survive in the completely exotic environment with the 'strength' of pesticides. He is far to understand the idea that when the conditions aren't right (when seeds don't know the soil where the plant inhabited in or the climate conditions where the plant will breathe), plants get weakened, and then become vulnerable to pests and diseases, similar to a person with a weakened immune system.

The Tyrant tends to divide and govern. When he looks at the natural systems, he sees boundaries and parts. The opposite of what Savory and Butterfield [4] said, "... not only are there no parts in nature, but there are also no boundaries either. Your skin could be viewed as the boundary between the community of cells that compose you as a person and the outside world. Yet skin is permeable, and the traffic passing through it in both directions is heavy. Viewed at the molecular level, the skin is more space than substance."

Probably The Tyrant will accuse Savory and Butterfield of being hippy or maybe too romantic for such a cruel world.

[1] Moore, R. and Gillette, D. 1990. King Warrior Magician and Lover

[2] Good AG, Beatty PH. 2011. Fertilizing nature: a tragedy of excess in the commons.PLoS Biology, 9(8), e1001124.

[3] Shiva, V. April 27, 2000. Poverty & Globalisation, The Nehru Museum, Delhi India

[4] Savory. A. and Butterfield. J. 2016. Holistic Management, Third Edition

Possible escape from Taker Culture

Efficiency is one of the most deceptive concepts for me. Maybe in every area, but I would like to be focused on agriculture, of course. What are we maximising? With our limited understanding, which inputs do we perceive as waste or non-added value or worthless need to be minimised? The following words' coming to my mind from one of my favourite book, Ishmael, written by Daniel Quinn: "This is considered almost holy work by farmers and ranchers. Kill off everything you can't eat. Kill off anything that eats what you eat. Kill off anything that doesn't feed what you eat."... "It is holy work, in Taker culture. The more competitors you destroy, the more humans you can bring into the world, and that makes it just about the holiest work there is. Once you exempt yourself from the law of limited competition, everything in the world except your food and the food of your food becomes an enemy to be exterminated." That can be an excellent summary of industrial/high input agriculture. Roots behind such an approach may be derived from an illusion where man is the owner and the governor of nature. I'm not quite sure whether we will be able to escape entirely from the intensified agriculture practices unless we see ourselves as a part of the whole.