BIOREGIONALISM

Below is a description of bioregionalism by David Barnhill, 2003.

Other definitions can be found at:

> Co-Intelligence Institute: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-bioregionalism.html

> Great River Earth Institute: http://www.greatriv.org/bioreg.htm

Bioregionalism is an ecosocial movement centering on one’s local geographic area – one’s bioregion. On the personal level it focuses on cultivating an intimate personal connection to the local bioregion. On the community level, it seeks to develop social, political, and economic structures in harmony with the specific land of the area.

Peter Berg, perhaps the leading bioregional activist, has defined bioregions as “geographic areas having common characteristics of soil, watershed, climate, native plants and animals. . . .” In this sense, bioregion is a scientific term in ecology and geography. A common way of thinking of nature bioregionally is in terms of watershed. A watershed is a river drainage, an area in which all the water runs – through streams and small rivers – to a large river. A watershed, then, is a geographic unit determined by the network of streams and river systems. A river is seen not as a boundary but as the central spine of a broad river system. One way to describe our bioregion is the Fox-Wolf River Basin , which includes Lake Winnebago . Another way to conceive of bioregional boundaries is in terms of ecoregions, usually determined by a combination of soil, climate, topography, and plant communities. Since bioregional distinctions usually are not clear-cut, ecologists will differ in dividing up an area such as Wisconsin . But one way of doing so is to distinguish the driftless area in the southwest, the central sands area, the central-eastern forests, and the northern woods.

People involved in bioregionalism often come up with new names for the area, sometimes based on Native American names. The central Piedmont of North Carolina, for instance, has been called Uwharria, after the Uwharrie Indians, while the Southern Appalachian area has been called Katuah. Other names are based on geographic features, for instance, Cascadia for the Pacific Northwest and Mt. Shasta Bioregion in northern California .

But a bioregion does not simply concern physical geography and ecology. It is also a term in cultural geography and human ecology, encompassing the cultures living there and the way individuals relate to the area. As Berg notes, “A bioregion refers to both the geographical terrain and a terrain of consciousness – to a place and the ideas that have developed about how to live in that place." Bioregions, then, are closely associated with “a sense of place,” a way people feel a part of the particular physical space they live in.

Bioregionalism is a movement that makes the physical bioregion central to the individual and society. In doing so it seeks to deepen the sense of place, both at a personal level in terms of consciousness and lifestyle, as well as at a social level, in terms of economy, social structure, culture, etc.

Perhaps the fundamental insight of bioregionalism is that, as Gary Snyder has said, “the world is made of places.” That is, there is no single, homogenous “nature,” only a wide variety of local and distinctive bioregional areas – e.g., the rolling mixed hardwood forest region of the Piedmont , the desert Southwest, the cool rainy area of the Pacific Northwest , the north woods of northern Wisconsin . The bioregional view of nature, then, is decentralized, emphasizing the uniqueness of the local area .

This tendency toward decentralization is found in many other aspects of bioregionalism. Bioregionalism opposes the movement toward a global economy, seeking instead to foster local and largely self-sufficient economies adapted to the particular land and climate. The economy of the Fox-Wolf River Basin , then, would necessarily be different from that of the deserts of the Great Basin or the coast of Maine – as it was for Native Americans.

Central to a bioregional economy is agriculture, which will determine to a large extent the economy of the area. As bioregionalist Wendell Berry has said, we need to ask what the land of our particular area naturally produces, what its natural patterns and limits are, and only then decide what farms can appropriately and sustainably grow. What is appropriate and sustainable will differ considerably between, say, the deep soils of Kansas and the thin post-glacial soils of northern Wisconsin .

Bioregional politics are also decentralized and defined by bioregional differences. To a large extent the political divisions in the United States are rational but therefore arbitrary in terms of the natural world they partition. National, state, and county lines often have no relation to the terrain. Consider the border between the United States and Canada from the state of Washington to Minnesota . Consider the border between North Carolina and Virginia . Some politicians got out a map and drew a line on it, ignoring the concrete reality of physical and cultural geography. In bioregionalism, on the other hand, political divisions would be made along natural lines. In Wisconsin , the northern section would be part of single bioregion with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (where did that state boundary line come from?). Such divisions would reflect what is actually there in the natural world, rather than the abstract creations of a few men.

Bioregional politics are also characterized by at least relative independence of the different areas. Bioregionalism opposes the large, centralized nation-state, which tends to limit local determination and citizen input while increasing the political and military power of those running the government and the economic power of large corporations. Bioregionalism prefers small-scale citizen-based democracy, which increases the power and responsibility of individuals and allows them to shape their government according to local needs.

Culture is similarly localized in bioregionalism. The United States and the world as a whole is racing toward monoculture, based on the model of Western consumerism. This movement certainly benefits corporations in search of new consumers, but it destroys cultural diversity and the ability of different areas and countries to determine the character of their own way of life. Bioregionalism argues that we benefit from cultural diversity, just as biodiversity is a hallmark of health in nature. For most of human history cultures have differed significantly, and these differences have reflected bioregional differences in the area. In North America before the coming of the Europeans, a desert culture of the Southwest was inevitably different from the Inuit (Eskimo) culture in the arctic and the Iroquois culture in the forests of the Northeast. Such cultural difference here and around the world is being replaced by the spread of modern consumer culture.

Given the pervasiveness of the consumer culture, it is virtually impossible to establish a bioregional ideal on any large scale. However, some people are working toward that ideal as much as they are able. Such an ideal would involve living in a close-knit community, where people know their neighbors, spend time with them, and rely on them – something common throughout most of human history until the coming of an urbanized, industrialized society. This ideal is not only for rural areas. A number of people are exploring the possibility of a bioregional city. (See Seth Zuckerman’s A Green City Program for San Francisco Bay Area Cities and Towns, Planet Drum Books). In a bioregional city people would live close to their work, reducing dependence on that great ecological disaster, the automobile. Similarly, most stores would be within walking or biking distance. The ideal of a bioregional city highlights the importance of creative urban planning – a possible career for students wanting to make a difference.

Bioregionalists are often involved with “ Community Supported Agriculture” (CSA), which is an important movement in itself. As the Madison Area CSA Coalition describes it, “A CSA member purchases a ‘share’ of each season's produce. One share is generally enough to feed a household of four or more. Half or partial shares are often available as well. The food is distributed weekly through centrally located drop-off points or through farm pick-up. The price of a share is simply the farm's operating budget divided among the shareholders. For this reason the costs of subscriptions very somewhat from farm to farm. In general, food received is more economical or comparable in cost to local organic produce found at farmers' markets and retail stores.” (www.wisc.edu/cias/macsac/csa.html#whatcsa).

At an individual level, much attention is paid to cultivating bioregional knowledge. Where does your water come from? Where does the garbage go? What are the native plants? What kind of soil is found there, and what crops are appropriate? What were the myths and tools of the indigenous people of the area? Such knowledge is an important element to knowing where you live.

More important, and more subtle, is what is called “bioregional (or watershed) consciousness.” This involves an intimate sense of identity with the bioregion you live in. Most of us consider ourselves from a city or town and citizens of a state and nation. “I’m from Wisconsin and I’m an American” – this is one kind of identification. “I’m from Fox-Wolf River Basin , Turtle Island ” is another, with Turtle Island the name Gary Snyder has popularized for North America . To really have such an identification would mean that you are familiar with its physical and cultural geography, past and present, and that you see yourself as much a part of that bioregion as the oaks and squirrels. Indigenous peoples tend to have this deep connectedness to their land, which is why it was so wrenching when their conquerors moved them to new land.

Developing bioregional consciousness also means that you make your bioregion truly your home, not just a temporary waystation in a nomadic life. As Wendell Berry analyzes so well in The Unsettling of America, we are a culture that is characterized by transience, by moving from one place to another without ever settling in and making it your home. All too often the result is that people do not have a sense of responsibility toward the place they live in. In contrast, a major theme in bioregionalism (to use the title of an important book of nature essays by Scott Russell Sanders) is Staying Put. Only when you commit to a place and get to know it over an extended period of time can we really become inhabitants of it. Thus Gary Snyder and others have called for individuals to pursue “re-inhabitation,” to live as a native to your place.

The ideal of bioregional consciousness has made this movement important to many nature writers. Snyder , Berry , and Sanders are only a few examples. Terry Tempest Williams in the Great Basin , for instance, has written passionately of her sense of identity with the land she lives in. Bioregional consciousness often involves heightened senses and sensuality, which have atrophied in modern culture. Williams has cultivated what she calls an “erotics” of place, and the intimacy of her bond with the land is seen in the concluding passage of “River Music” (in Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert, 2001).

This river has muscle when flexed against stone, carved stone, stones that appear as waves of rock, secret knowledge known only through engagement. I am no longer content to sit, but stand and walk, walk to the river, enter the river, surrender my body to water now red, red is the Colorado , blood of my veins. (150)

In addition to the sensual and at time mystical communion with one’s place, bioregionalism is also characterized by political consciousness. As Terry Tempest Williams states at the very beginning of her book Red, “place + people = politics.” Bioregionalists are “engaged” in their land not only in cultivating their knowledge and the soil, but also in local political issues. If you feel that this place is your true home, that your very identity is bound with it, then the need for political involvement becomes obvious. Williams, Berry , and Snyder are all politically active writers.

As is obvious, bioregionalism looks to traditional, indigenous cultures (emphasized by Gary Snyder) and small-scale farming societies (championed by Wendell Berry) as models for bioregional living. But the ideal is not to “turn back the clock” or to “play Indian.” It is, rather, to begin seriously exploring what a post-industrial form of bioregionalism might be. That search has just begun.

In assessing bioregionalism, we can see that its power and appeal stems from various qualities:

• It interweaves the ecological with the cultural/ social. It is a movement designed to bring them together, calling for radical changes in the way we live our lives, organize our society, and relate to nature. Its social views and attitudes are organically rooted in a bioregional view of being “in place” in one’s local environment.
• It also interweaves an ecosocial philosophy and ecological psychology with practical, concrete application in daily life. Indeed, bioregionalism is something you do more than a way of thinking. But it does offer a substantially different way to think about nature and society and their relationship, and it involves a fundamentally different form of consciousness.
• It interweaves the political and the personal. Bioregionalism is concerns the way individuals live their lives, including, for instance, how they procure their food and deal with their garbage. And it is about how to develop new political and economic structures.
• As a result, it is comprehensive, involving multiple dimensions for critiquing our current situation and working toward a better alternative.

Bioregionalism is not without its problems and detractors. The following are some of the issues that have been raised.

• Doesn’t bioregionalism depend on a romantic view of traditional societies, in which people actually lived difficult and precarious lives without many of the things modern people require for a full life?
• Doesn’t bioregionalism ignore the social benefits of the modern nation-state, which keeps regions and ethnic groups from ongoing hatred and warfare? Wouldn’t a “devolution” into bioregionalism lead to the kind of bitter savagery we have seen in the Balkans?
• Isn’t a centralized nation-state necessary to provide the necessities of life for the poor?
• Isn’t a nation-state necessary for social justice and environmental protection? Consider the institutionalized racism in the South before the national civil rights movement, or the popularity among Alaskans of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
• Doesn’t bioregionalism lead to an ignoring of large-scale ecological problems? How does a bioregionalist deal with global warming and acid rain?

Bioregionalism has responses to these concerns, which we cannot explore here. (For a list of five arguments against bioregionalism and responses to each, see: http://www.greatriv.org/5arg.htm#5arg.) But these questions do show that there are significant issues involved. Bioregionalism is a complex approach to our ecological and social problems, which in any case have no easy answers. Despite these concerns, bioregionalism is one of the most promising approaches to our current situation. As a sign of its importance, schools of thought as diverse (and all-too-frequently competitive) as deep ecology, ecofeminism, stewardship, and social ecology have tended to draw on and support bioregionalism. Its future success depends on the creativity and commitment of the people who seek a new way of living in harmony with the earth by focusing on the place in which they live.

Back Home