different permaculture schools of thought?

In another thread I heard mention of someone being more in the Sepp Holzer camp than the David Holmgren camp. It got me wondering if there are different 'schools' of permaculture thought out there.

I'm fairly new into the whole permaculture thing (picked up Mollison's design book and Hemenway's Gaia's Garden about a year ago, along with just being a voracious internet data junky) and I've never really heard anything about different schools of thought on the subject, though it would make sense considering how many folks are coming at this issue from so many directions.

Is there different schools, and if so, what are they? What defines them?  Does Holistic Management and Natural Sequence Farming fall under the umbrella of Permaculture or are they their own beasts? (or singular beast, as they seem to espouse the same approach and overarching goals?)

hmmm
well for me this forum was also the first time when i heard something being voiced like that. as far as i get from reading books from different writers on permaculture is not that there are different schools. as in not different aproaches or indifferences on certain subjects. i cannot think of a topic that they dont agree on. there are just different focusses, and differences on how to spread the word.

where holmgren and mollison were much more movement builders and travelled all over the world to start schools and teach, holzer mainly thought other farmers his method on his own farm. but i think in the end the way they put permaculture in practice, their starting points, ethics and principles are basicly the same.

holmgren is sometimes depicted as being more 'activist' since he has done talks on subjects like climate change, peak oil and possible food shortages, as he and mollison recognized these problems as possible results from our current system which is in its essence a finite system, and not designed to be perpetual.

holzer talks less about global problems and more about practical how to stuff as i understand from people who are into sepp, but then again, he díd call himself 'the rebel farmer'

I don't think there's different schools of thought per-se, merely application of Permaculture principles at different levels by different individuals.  Give two Permaculturists the task of creating a design on a single property and you'll get two completely different designs (as evidenced by the group projects in my PDC  )  Each designer brings the sum total of their unique experiences to bear on the design process and their application of Permaculture principles within their worldspace.

To use the Holmgren - Holzer comparo, while Sepp may be focused on applying his version of Permaculture within his property (and the property of others), David may be busy delving into how Permaculture applies to the world situation and refining our understanding of how Permaculture principles can apply to all aspects of our lives (i.e., not just "in the garden").  Each is using the basic Permaculture "stance" based on defined Permaculture principles and ethics, filtered through their individual world view.

It was probably me.

I think that there are about as many approaches to permaculture as there are people practicing it. 

And, yes, it is my obnoxious opinion that two rather different directions can be demonstrated by holzer and holmgren. 

Holmgren's approach is:  the world has problems and here are the solutions - including a lot of ag stuff.

Holzer's approach is:  Here are good ag techniques, and it just happens to solve a lot of the world's problems. 

I think that for every person that is more of the holzer camp, there are probably a dozen that are more from the holmgren camp. 

As long as we're talking about this sort of thing - and I may be the only person in this thread that has the opinion that these differences exist ....  I want to express a concern:  I think about half of the people in the holmgren camp are of the mindset that people that do not follow their idea of what permaculture is, to the letter, are not actually practicing permaculture.  And should be .. uh ... pressured ... to change.  And sometimes this pressure comes with a lot of .... uh .... hostility.

Which leads me to another aspect of permaculture that I've put on a mighty high pedestal:  When I took my PDC, the teachers and the people there were very much of ....  well .... it's hard to express ...  I think rather than telling people to stop being bad, they wanted to simply, quietly, build good things.  I wish there was a word for this.  There should be a word for this.  Is there a word for this?

Which leads me to another aspect of permaculture that I've put on a mighty high pedestal:  When I took my PDC, the teachers and the people there were very much of ....  well .... it's hard to express ...  I think rather than telling people to stop being bad, they wanted to simply, quietly, build good things.  I wish there was a word for this.  There should be a word for this.  Is there a word for this?

The word permaculture comes to mind.

  It seems to me that some folks read a book on a subject written by someone who was totally thinking outside the box and then become inspired by that book, but then proceed to put the whole new concept inside their own box and refuse to deviate from it.    Does that make sense?

Yes.  I call it "trash-80 syndrome" due to my geeky history.  Long ago, there were folks that went to radio shack and bought a computer called "TRS-80" - sometimes called "trash-80".  These people really liked their new computer.  A lot.  And whenever anybody would attempt to discuss solving a problem that would use a computer, these folks insisted that a trash-80 was the computer to use.  Including stuff better suited to mainframe or micro computer, they would insist that a trash-80 would be best.  Well, they just weren't aware of anything else. 

Otis: “Here is THE solution!”
Elliot: “I have a different idea.”
Otis: “You can't have a different idea.  I said 'THE solution' – therefore there is only one.  Are you daring to imply that I do not speak THE TRUTH!”

...

As for the word "permaculture" to apply to where I'm looking for a word - I guess that won't work because there are lots of folks that are activists in the name of permaculture.  Which would then be an oxymoron.

paul wheaton wrote:

Which leads me to another aspect of permaculture that I've put on a mighty high pedestal:  When I took my PDC, the teachers and the people there were very much of ....  well .... it's hard to express ...  I think rather than telling people to stop being bad, they wanted to simply, quietly, build good things.  I wish there was a word for this.  There should be a word for this.   Is there a word for this?

Sounds like Leadership to me. 

When I took my PDC, the teachers and the people there were very much of ....  well .... it's hard to express ...  I think rather than telling people to stop being bad, they wanted to simply, quietly, build good things.  I wish there was a word for this.  There should be a word for this.  Is there a word for this?

The word used by Darren Doherty in my PDC for this was positivism.

Personaly I`m a -/+ person in that I see a problem and get really annoyed about it.So annoyed that I do something about it and help pioneer new lifeways.Its a positive way to harness my anger but I wouldnt bother trying anything new unless I was dissatisfied with what is.I guess that puts me in the Holmgen camp?but Im definitely a doer.

The word used by Darren Doherty in my PDC for this was positivism.

I took my PDC from Rick Valley and he would always start each morning session by asking everyone to answer the question, "What was the best of yesterday?"    Meaning what was each student's favorite part of the previous day's lesson.

I thought it was an excellent and positive way to discuss permaculture.

  Don't forget the Hart camp (Robert Hart), which is probably less numerous than either of the others. It is more focused on forest gardening than the others. Personally, I like to combine Sepp and Robert's ideas.

Well I probably live the closest to Sepp Holzer's place here and I'm surrounded by Bavarian/Austrian farmers. Here are my thoughts.

I think Pc should be climate and soil specific. The foods you can grow on your land are determined by the number of frost free days as defined in my Horticulture textbook as days when the mean temperature is 6 degrees C. Realistically the higher you go or the further north you go you are going to get less and less days.

The soil you are lumbered with is a product of the geology of where you are. It pays to follow what Toby Hemenway says and research the local geology and soils of your region. Might I be bold and say that Pc should really be discussed within different USDA temperature groups?

Paul, the WORD I thought of when reading your thread post was ENCOURAGEMENT, encouraging people to do something better, not only for them but for the world around them.

there are the brainiacs which insist that they are right and no one elses ideas are worth diddly..an then there are the people that encourage people to think out side the box..to do better, to do smarter..I would put Sepp Holtzer into the encourager class..or the see by doing class..

he does, and then lets people see?

i'd rather see people put things into the world sphere for people to see, and then encourage them to go and do likewise or take ideas and grow them.

my entire life i have "stolen" ideas from those around me and adapted them to my way of life..not line by line or precept by precept, but how they would relate to me in my zone 4/5 Michigan climate and under my budget and thought processes with my education and my interpretation.

Mabey I`m confused here as I dont see how the two are very different.Example:I hate greenhouses and feel fine telling people that if they use one ,that sucks.I feel I have the responsibility to show alternatives.The doing of the alternatives gives me the right to say greenhouses suck.Is the Holmgren club just talkers?are they living out their beliefs?or is it that their approach is different?How do you seperate what you are doing from the reasons your driven to do them?Personaly,I enjoy getting called on my s**t and will be the first to point it out.It forces me to question what Im doing.

Accepting, nurturing, supportive, are words that come to my mind in your search for a word Paul.
Once you get hit with a stick you stop what you are doing, it's effective but could make you want to stop playing at all.
We're not all the same and we certainly are not all blessed with perfect seasons in some areas.
Personal knowledge and living in a zone gives one an idea of what works in that zone, to make a blanket claim on viability of a system without personal experience makes one question the claimants voracity who has no zonal or corroborative experience/data.
  So I think we sometimes see a permaculture zonal bias in some cases, in addition to the Holmgren/Holzer camps.
If you don't live or have experience in the high mountains you would be a newbie there. To accept and listen to successful permaculture individuals from a particular area is not only respectful but could be a learning experience.
  Not one of us here can claim to be the ultimate voice of right and wrong. But to share a viable success goes a lot farther than the smack with a stick.
So I like the "what was best of yesterday?" but I also like "what can I do better today?".

Mt.goat - you are of your own path.  I suspect that your path smells a bit like many other paths.  Only you can say.

Is the Holmgren club just talkers?

No.

are they living out their beliefs?

Some more than others.

or is it that their approach is different?

Exactly.

How do you seperate what you are doing from the reasons your driven to do them?

Why bother?

paul wheaton wrote:
Which leads me to another aspect of permaculture that I've put on a mighty high pedestal:  When I took my PDC, the teachers and the people there were very much of ....  well .... it's hard to express ...  I think rather than telling people to stop being bad, they wanted to simply, quietly, build good things.  I wish there was a word for this.  There should be a word for this.   Is there a word for this?

This reminds me of the Buddhist philosophy that to change the world, you can really only change your corner and hopefully inspire others.  Similarly, there's the Gandhi quote, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

The main issue with those who have read "the book" and start pontificating to others is that it isn't an effective strategy.  It's simply human nature to resent the hell out of some holier than thou guy telling you what to do.  Such an approach doesn't change the underlying culture that created the so-called problems in the first place.

Sharing what you do and offering to teach and listen to others takes much longer because you're not enforcing anything, but it does much more lasting change.  Look at Geoff Lawton's vids on YouTube - especially Greening the Desert.  He's not telling you what to do, he's just sharing what he's done.  Since it's awesome, it inspires others to change their ways.

I guess it takes all kinds and everyone has something they are trying to get or do with permaculture.Saving souls..er..converting people is one, fame another.The best part is that at this point all roads lead to permaculture.FEAR over the future,ANGER over the options presented to us.LOVE for humanity.Practical meeting of NEEDS.and if people are not interested,chances are high that in the near future they will ultimitly be FORCED to practice by a collapse scenario.

paul wheaton wrote:I think about half of the people in the holmgren camp are of the mindset that people that do not follow their idea of what permaculture is, to the letter, are not actually practicing permaculture.  And should be .. uh ... pressured ... to change.

There's a thought experiment I don't really like, where you think: "What orders would you give if you were the benevolent dictator of the world?" (Might as well ask what I'd do were I an invisible pink unicorn, or a squared circle, for all the sense the question makes!)

The one technique that Mollison convinced me of through his videos, that I would maybe impose on others in the ridiculous thought experiment I just mentioned, goes like this: he offered a proven method of inquiry to people who needed results, and then came back later to learn all the cool stuff they had invented. You could see the childlike wonder in his eyes as he explored all the different ways of doing things.

*  *  *

Positivism is a huge part of the problem. I had a positivist as a boss a while back, which almost forced me to find a new career.

But I think it's a bigger, subtler problem that flavor of philosophy were to go extinct. My Buddhist friends would probably call it ego. People start attaching their identity to methods and schools of thought, so they feel proud when people adopt (and succeed with) those methods, but embarrassed when people reject (or worse, fail with) them: I think most of the coercion is an attempt to control one's own feelings by controlling another person.

I guess the opposite of ego is humility (same word origin as "humus," significantly). I really admire Mollison's humility in dealing with his students, and Holzer's humility in letting his pigs teach him how to seal a pond.

paul wheaton wrote:
It was probably me.

I think that there are about as many approaches to permaculture as there are people practicing it. 

And, yes, it is my obnoxious opinion that two rather different directions can be demonstrated by holzer and holmgren. 

Holmgren's approach is:  the world has problems and here are the solutions - including a lot of ag stuff.

Holzer's approach is:  Here are good ag techniques, and it just happens to solve a lot of the world's problems. 

I think that for every person that is more of the holzer camp, there are probably a dozen that are more from the holmgren camp. 

As long as we're talking about this sort of thing - and I may be the only person in this thread that has the opinion that these differences exist ....   I want to express a concern:  I think about half of the people in the holmgren camp are of the mindset that people that do not follow their idea of what permaculture is, to the letter, are not actually practicing permaculture.  And should be .. uh ... pressured ... to change.   And sometimes this pressure comes with a lot of .... uh .... hostility.

Which leads me to another aspect of permaculture that I've put on a mighty high pedestal:  When I took my PDC, the teachers and the people there were very much of ....  well .... it's hard to express ...  I think rather than telling people to stop being bad, they wanted to simply, quietly, build good things.  I wish there was a word for this.  There should be a word for this.   Is there a word for this?

I thought of a word;  Permieability

In terms of Forest Gardening(a single aspect of PERMACULTURE but a crucial one), Dave Jacke and Eric Toensmeier's 'Edible Forest Gardens' 2 book series is hands-down the best resource for temperate climate forest gardening. It contains extensive background information on ecology, detailed step by step design processes, and thorough species lists..CHECK IT OUT!

Unfortunatly,i must disagree on the value of said literature.While the charts and technical stuff almost make it worth purchasing,they missed an opportunity to create an excelent book on forest gardening by focusing everything toward EDIBLE forest gardening for a small area for people who dont harvest wild animals.Such a large book for such a small scope.Too bad!

Mt.goat, I am little unclear on what you mean?You can definitely have a small food forest and still hunt deer or wild game..or any wild animal for that matter. If you're talking about raising animals within the system(i.e. raising chickens or pigs in the understory of an orchard), then yes that book does not offer much on that end...it's mainly focused on producing plant based foods for human consumption. Explain??

Ruduced Herbavory I believe(my books lent out)seems to be a key point.My forest garden is desighned to draw animals in for consumtion.Why someone would want to exclude free protien is beyond me(might as well spit in the Great Spirit`s face).They also dis Robert Hart for planting his apples too close.Robert never specified if he was growing them for wood (worth a lot)or fruit or a combo.Their forest desighn is for food only.Fiber and Fuel require denser spacing of trees.Personaly,I even plant my fruit trees really dense and thin out ones that are less adapted.I suppose if you knew for sure that a tree was going to thrive on your location than the spacing they recomend would be great but how many people know that?I say cram em in cause half aint going to be caloricaly efficient enough or will die from random causes.I might add that ists East Coast specific and that too much complexity(Old Growth)can be less productive due to harvesting limitations.I collected native fruit for seed for 10 years and old growth is not where I would pick(increses in gross do not translate into increses in net if complexity of harvest grows too much)so why would you want to emulate it?If you wrote the book while living in a condo I guess!

paul wheaton wrote:
It was probably me.

I think that there are about as many approaches to permaculture as there are people practicing it. 

And, yes, it is my obnoxious opinion that two rather different directions can be demonstrated by holzer and holmgren. 

Holmgren's approach is:  the world has problems and here are the solutions - including a lot of ag stuff.

Holzer's approach is:  Here are good ag techniques, and it just happens to solve a lot of the world's problems. 

I think that for every person that is more of the holzer camp, there are probably a dozen that are more from the holmgren camp. 

As long as we're talking about this sort of thing - and I may be the only person in this thread that has the opinion that these differences exist ....   I want to express a concern:  I think about half of the people in the holmgren camp are of the mindset that people that do not follow their idea of what permaculture is, to the letter, are not actually practicing permaculture.  And should be .. uh ... pressured ... to change.   And sometimes this pressure comes with a lot of .... uh .... hostility.

Which leads me to another aspect of permaculture that I've put on a mighty high pedestal:  When I took my PDC, the teachers and the people there were very much of ....  well .... it's hard to express ...  I think rather than telling people to stop being bad, they wanted to simply, quietly, build good things.  I wish there was a word for this.  There should be a word for this.   Is there a word for this?

Looks like im in the holzers camp.... very interesting thread... i consider it more of a "real world" answer.

when you lump ethics into it, many are turned off. If their religion or other things conflict on the surface. however if you offer a better way without the other stuff, the ethics are there anyway, because of the balance it carries!!!

tamo42 wrote:
This reminds me of the Buddhist philosophy that to change the world, you can really only change your corner and hopefully inspire others.  Similarly, there's the Gandhi quote, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

The main issue with those who have read "the book" and start pontificating to others is that it isn't an effective strategy.  It's simply human nature to resent the hell out of some holier than thou guy telling you what to do.  Such an approach doesn't change the underlying culture that created the so-called problems in the first place.

Sharing what you do and offering to teach and listen to others takes much longer because you're not enforcing anything, but it does much more lasting change.  Look at Geoff Lawton's vids on YouTube - especially Greening the Desert.  He's not telling you what to do, he's just sharing what he's done.  Since it's awesome, it inspires others to change their ways.

Very amazing post!!

paul wheaton wrote:

Holmgren's approach is:  the world has problems and here are the solutions - including a lot of ag stuff.

Holzer's approach is:  Here are good ag techniques, and it just happens to solve a lot of the world's problems. 

I think that for every person that is more of the holzer camp, there are probably a dozen that are more from the holmgren camp. 

This is part of what I was trying to say in a different thread.  IMO, when people start talking about PC and one of the first things they bring up is “We must all do this now to save the earth.  Here is the PC Ethic,” they are driving away 11/12ths of the people who would be happy in the “Holzer Camp.” 
I happen to be pretty well convinced that if we changed how we make PC look, we could double the number of people who are at least partially practicing PC.  Right now there are many people I've talked to who would benefit from a better understanding of PC who think it is some left-wing, tree-hugging liberal idea and therefore they should stay clear of it.

The fact that one “camp” is larger than the other is unneeded but self-perpetuating.

homesteadpaul wrote:
This is part of what I was trying to say in a different thread.  IMO, when people start talking about PC and one of the first things they bring up is “We must all do this now to save the earth.  Here is the PC Ethic,” they are driving away 11/12ths of the people who would be happy in the “Holzer Camp.” 
I happen to be pretty well convinced that if we changed how we make PC look, we could double the number of people who are at least partially practicing PC.  Right now there are many people I've talked to who would benefit from a better understanding of PC who think it is some left-wing, tree-hugging liberal idea and therefore they should stay clear of it.

The fact that one “camp” is larger than the other is unneeded but self-perpetuating.

i agree 1000percent! I can verify this from personal experience with folks from a wide range of backrounds.

I know the power of permaculture. Ive been doing it, and experimenting with it for awhile now. Ive seen the work of many other great folks. Its practical, and has potentials no ones realized yet almost certainly. there are just so many variables that can be accounted for.

But as you said the bulk of folks looking for practical things, learn a few things and move on.  or ignore it entirely, because of what they viewed it as.

basically if you say to practice PC you must take this part to, well many just wont take it then!!! so we end up divided, and the movement looses that much steam.

i think im somewhere between holzer and fukuoka

Kirk Hutchison wrote:
   Don't forget the Hart camp (Robert Hart), which is probably less numerous than either of the others. It is more focused on forest gardening than the others. Personally, I like to combine Sepp and Robert's ideas.

interesting. a wheel within a wheel.....

As far as permaculture in practice, i guess im kinda forming my own. It is predominantly a forest culture because various factors in my area lead me to think this is by far the most efficient way for me. however, within the forest Im going to be growing my staples as well.

also keep in mind forests are different in different places. my area is dry, the forests here are widely spaced not a lot of under brush, though as we know i can enhance on that in practice... But my point being its structured different then forest culture may commonly be thought of.

The differences I see are that Holmgren seems to be a lot more political and "woo-woo" than either Mollison or Holzer. The main difference I see between Mollison and Holzer is Mollison tried to see how PC could be implemented in many different climates around the world, while Holzer focused on one climate.  One is breadth and one is depth.  But i see them both as being practical. 

I guess on the ethical scale, Mollison would be somewhere between Holmgren and Holzer. 

So people who come to permaculture from a desire to be more self-sufficient would probably gravitate toward Holzer, whereas people who come to it from a more environmental perspective would gravitate toward Holmgren. 

Pneal wrote:
The differences I see are that Holmgren seems to be a lot more political and "woo-woo" than either Mollison or Holzer. The main difference I see between Mollison and Holzer is Mollison tried to see how PC could be implemented in many different climates around the world, while Holzer focused on one climate.  One is breadth and one is depth.  But i see them both as being practical. 

I guess on the ethical scale, Mollison would be somewhere between Holmgren and Holzer. 

So people who come to permaculture from a desire to be more self-sufficient would probably gravitate toward Holzer, whereas people who come to it from a more environmental perspective would gravitate toward Holmgren. 

9anda1f wrote:
The word used by Darren Doherty in my PDC for this was positivism.

Now there is another inspiring bloak.  His map collection is amazing!! 

Brad Lancaster seems very down to earth (but I may not be a good evaluator, being quite greenie and possibly woo-woo myself  ).  Brad's main focus is water, a subject dear to my heart.

http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/

http://www.sonoranpermaculture.org/members/brad-lancaster/

Ludi wrote:
Brad Lancaster seems very down to earth (but I may not be a good evaluator, being quite greenie and possibly woo-woo myself   ).  Brad's main focus is water, a subject dear to my heart.

http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/

http://www.sonoranpermaculture.org/members/brad-lancaster/

I LOVE his books. A long long term goal of mine is to try to buy some land around here with a old over used spring, and see if i cant bring life back to it....

If I had all the energy and strength in the world I would install Lancaster's earthworks suggestions all over our place. 

Lancaster's books are great--I'm trying to get his second volume translated into Arabic. 

ts quite interesting that you bring this up. Only on this forum have I heard people in my view limited and/or (to me) very unusual ideas of permaculture. But then again I am in the SF permaculture world. Which from what others have told me (esp. those who've gone to Australia/Around the world) the Bay Area/Northern California movement is way more chapter 14/Spiritually oriented.

To me Permaculture is a only Design System and as such means many people will have opinions and ideas toward a grand system even if its recognized each one will look different depending on many factors (internal and external).  I do not believe Bill Mollison or David Holmgren created anything or should be credited for anything other than having the access and ability to gather information. Any subsistence farmer in a third world country, with the need to feed themselves and family; with the chance to be literate, with the access of books and the privildege to travel around the region or world would have come up with the same things in the PDM.

Permaculture is not simply a list or series of techniques or anything that causes limits on the possibility. For example deep tilling could for me be annual or once a century; depending on the circumstances. Its not just deep mulch, no-till, hugelkultre in polycultures; but I feel permaculture is limitied because most people interested in it are just ordinary people with limited or no agronomic experience who go on permie forums, read permie books, and talk to other permies.

Its not bad at any level its just I think permaculture doesn't teach a thing on growing food, nor is there much research (other than anecdotal) yet in permaculture.

Permaculture right now I think is in a philosophy phase (just read the title  ) But I hope it will soon become a study and science.

Ahipa wrote:

Its not bad at any level its just I think permaculture doesn't teach a thing on growing food

Wow, I totally disagree!  I've learned a lot about growing food from permaculture! 

Maybe it's my location near Australia, but the PRI has a very strong presence here.
That basically means  Mollison is discussed when gurus, gods, fathers, what have you, are brought up.
Geoff Lawton and Darren Doherty could be considered up-and-coming heroes.
Holmgren doesn't come up much, and I'd never heard of Sepp Holzer before I joined permies...