Economic Ecosystem

A truly sustainable economy is not purely manmade. It is a breathing entity with seasons and fluidity. It is something we work with, something we try to synchronize with as we might do with a regional climate. We fail when we try to control it as western economists do.

Companies always view a quarterly "loss" or stagnation of profit as a bad thing. I think that's wrong; it is a necessary season as the daylight hours lengthen or shorten; or rainfall increases or decreases; or temperature rises or lowers. But when we push too hard for artificial and continual growth we end up with exhausted resources, over-saturated markets, mass consumption culture, etc.  

Rather than thinking of economy as some lifeless abstract concept, think of it as living ecosystem. Now imagine what would happen to any ecosystem if we tried to artificially control some aspect of it. Say we found a way to artificially super heat all the lakes and waterways in a region to force evaporation/condensation, and hence, rain. The ecosystem would experience continual rains, but at what cost?  

A little rain is great for growing crops or ensuring lush vegetation, but if we force it to a level that denies natural cycles, we end up with:

• flooded land
• nutrient stripped soil (as the water run off would leech out the nutrients)
• disrupted river and lake beds
• dying or dead aquatice life, which then affects the food chain
• etc.

Another example - suppose we were to specifically try to eradicate all wolves in a region because short-sightedly concluded that we would have more big game for ourselves without competition from wolves. Although, if we did that, there would be no natural mechanism in place to remove the old and sick from the herds, thereby diminishing overall quality of the wild meat and maybe even threatening us with disease.

Or what if we somehow figured out a way to make it daytime 24 hours a day. Party time! No night! Of course, if we did that, the scorching sun would damage plants, reducing food sources for humans and animals alike. Then entire food chain would begin to fall apart. Not to mention the net negative psychological effect on people and animals with respect to sleep patterns.  

With virtually any aspect of an ecosystem, too much of something is damaging, if not destructive, to the entire ecosystem itself. This is no different when we consider economies. Economies are not simply about money, jobs, businesses; they are holistic in nature. Economies are not rigid structures, but rather, they are fluid, moving, breathing, changing ecosystems. Economies are not one size fits all, but are unique for every region and community, each possessing distinct identities and features.  

This is crucial to understand if we wish to create true sustainable, meaningful community economic development. Too many communities look to mega-corporations from outside that ecosystem to come in and wave a magic economic wand (perhaps a benefit agreement of some sort), expecting that this will fix everything. Benefit agreements or partnerships are not bad, but they cannot be the driver and shaper of local/regional ecosystem (i.e. economy). The mega-corporations lack the understanding, the connection, and the personal stake in caring for the local ecosystem to adequately be able to "develop" it. They often come in with cookie cutter approaches to what the economy is "supposed" to look like.  

This, generally will not be sustainable. They are there to extract maximum benefit as quickly as possible without regard to natural cycles within the ecosystem. They come in like a wooden stake driven into the chest of a local ecosystem and stay until they have taken literally everything they want and then move on, leaving a gaping hole behind. It is not often easy or swift to heal from the hole left behind and often results in communities bleeding their residents who move away to follow the jobs.  

Some may call me idealistic in my thinking, but be that is it may, there a number of actions that people can take.  

On the "idealistic" side, it is an outright rejection of capitalism and its mass-consumption artificial culture. More pragmatically, it means exploring alternative methods for local trade and production and only producing as much as is needed for living. Local farms and gardens, barter exchanges, local stores, locally produced goods, etc. are all parts of the solution. If natural resources are to be developed, then less excessive extraction methods need to be considered and longer term thinking is required versus the short term "extract it all now" type of thinking.  

Coops, worker coops, social enterprises are all tangible mechanisms that can help create a better balance with a greater level of synchronization with the natural rhythms of the economic ecosystem.  

All said, at the core, pure capitalism is inconsistent and at odds with true community economic development in my humble opinion.

Indigenous Thinkers

Over the past few months I have been inspired, honoured with learning from so many great Indigenous thinkers.

For starters, there has been so many great discussions in my LinkedIn Group, Indigenous Economic Development. Generally speaking, everyone is in agreement that economic development is important. However, there are many different approaches to this.

For starters, the word "development" itself carries colonial baggage - often used to mean resource development or development of mechanisms by which a financial profit can be gained from the Earth. Terminology and baggage aside, there is also a tension between colonial (aka mainstream or Western) approaches and culture/tradional ways of life.

In fact, many people often believe that culture and economy are disjoint. The fact is that they are not. Even colonial nations have culture embedded within their economies. The first problem is that economy takes the driver seat and priority over culture. The second problem is that colonial culture intentionally places a greater importance on profit and financial gain than culture, environment, people.

What has set Indigenous peoples apart is that their approach ensures that economy is NOT the driver. Rather each sphere of life plays an interconnected role. Culture, Social, Recreation, Economy, Health, etc., all play a role, holistically, to ensure balanced prosperity of person, spirit, nature.

When you really think about it, what price are we willing to pay for "successful" economic development? Are we willing to adopt colonial practices at the cost of our cultures, our ways of life?

What if we didn't have to adopt colonial practices to be thriving, people, fully meeting our potential? What if we didnt have to sacrifice our culture, our ways of life, our spirits to be "successful?"

Here is what I'm thinking. First we need to define what success means to us. Then we need to articulate how we can meet our needs (core meaning of economy) in a way that honours our ways of life, our cultures, our languages even.

In a future post, I would like to begin diving into this in greater detail. Through your comments/feedback, and through learning from the many great thinkers and leaders I am blessed to be contact with.

The Economy of Language

I want to talk about the effect of language on culture and culture on economy. I have been on a linguistic and cultural journey throughout my life. As a background I will explain where I am coming from, the culture that is embedded into language, and then how that affects our ways of viewing the world around us and our approach to economic development.

My Background

My first language was French, taught to me by my father. My mother had already lost her own language, Ojibwe, by that time. When the day came to start school, it was around the era in the early 80's when the French had begun fighting in the Supreme Court for their linguistic rights. They had suffered decades of oppression and assimilatory practices (sound familiar?) by the hands of the English. French school children had to hide their books in ceiling panels when English inspectors came.

As the court case was working its way through, the hatred and aggression against the French by English people was at an al time high. My father feared that if he continued teaching me French, I would never get a job when I got older. So, well meaning, he placed me in English school and I lost everything.

Fast forward. Years later, after growing up entirely in the city, disconnected from my community, I set out on my own distancing myself from extended family and met the woman who would become my wife. I eventually immersed myself into her French language and culture, being fully accepted with wide open arms by her family. Her family became my family and her language became a beautiful gift to me.

Fast forward. Although I have spent most of my career involved in Indigenous business development, economic development and employment; it has only been in the past year I have begun having inexplicable longings to return to my home community. I say inexplicable because I have never actually lived there, only visited. Nonetheless, without going into too much detail, I have begun forming connections and friendships with my fellow Anishinaabe citizens*, reconnecting with relations, and now pursuing my native tongue.

Throughout this linguistic and cultural journey, I have learned a great deal. Through looking at 3 languages, I have seen how embedded and inseparable the culture is from the language and vice versa. Let's explore this together.

English Language and Culture

What do we know of the culture of English speakers here in Canada? With some modest generalizations I note the two common points: 1) there is one way to do things right, all others are either inferior or less effective; 2) in the mainstream English speaking world of Canada, we are taught to be bold, aggressive, and confident, sell yourself in job hunting

The English language is such that consonants are very hard sounding; bold, in-your-face. I know this after seeing how the same consonants in other languages (French, Spanish, Ojibwe) are often softer, smoother, and generally more gentle sounding. This makes sense when we consider the pervasiveness of English culture and language globally.

With English, grammar is such that there is a rigid structure in place with complex rules and syntax. This results in a rigid structure that leaves only one "correct" way of saying something. You might change the vocabulary, but the structure must always be in that one way. Anyone speaking like Yoda (Star Wars), would not be viewed as intelligently as someone with a "commanding" grasp of the English language.

One other embedded cultural element contained in the language is that of assimilation. The very language itself assimilates words of other languages, English-icizes their pronunciation, and more often than not, replaces the Indigenous language that was there first.

The English language is based on a subject-object relationship where, philosophically, they are independent of one another and the subject “does” something to the object as though the object has no role or say in the matter. In Ojibwe and many other Indigenous languages, subject and object are interdependent and not differentiable. They are not doing something “to” one another, but having an experience together.

Naturally, you can see how historic and contemporary English-speaking culture parallels these elements of the language. In fact, so embedded is it that the influence of the language construct sub-consciously reinforces specific world views and approaches to treating people. From English tendency to assimilate people, to viewing themselves and their ways as superior, to their views of dominance over the environment and the exploitation of natural resources, to their ways of interacting with one another, we can see the culture influenced by the language.

French Language and Culture

In the French language, there is also some rigid structure involved in how you say something, but with one key difference than that of the English language. In French, you have several options of how you wish to say something. I am not talking simple vocabulary switches here either, I mean complete phrase structure changes between these options.

The language is still based on subject-object, but sometimes the subject come after the object and in many cases, the phrases are indirect. With English, it is subject does something to object. In French, there are forms in that structure where object is affected by subject in such and such a way, rather than strictly "subject does action to object". Culturally, there is some acceptance of different ways of being (as there are some options of different ways of speaking a phrase). However, it is limited acceptance.

One very interesting difference is that in English, emotion is all but stripped out of the language so that English speakers are forced to use descriptor words to explain emotion. In French, emotion and romanticism is embedded. The French culture has always been noted for their romantic natures, charm, and often their seductiveness (not saying this in a negative way). These cultural tendencies are rooted in the very language itself.

There is no way to say “I like you” in French. You either LOVE them or ADORE them, nothing less. Pronouns and adjectives for people are often terms of endearment, embedded into the language. Even the method in which the words are spoken involve animated hand motions to the point that expression is a well known trait for French people.

Ojibwe Language and Culture

In Ojibwe, there is an interesting trait of the language. The word order does not matter in most cases. Rather than a rigid, “one right way,” structure, an Ojibwe speaker may use whatever order they wish. It is, in many ways, like the cultural view that one must find their own way. It is truly a liberating feeling coming from the rigidity of the English language.

Consonants in Ojibwe are ALL much softer than in English. A “g” is spoken closer to a “t” sound and a “b” closer to a “p” sound, etc. This is very much in parallel with our culture of being softer spoken, more tentative and respectful, and exhibiting gentleness. As our language is not at all “in your face,” our culture is very much about humility.

In English, we operate under the rigidity of subject + action +object. The philosophical underpinning of that structure is that subject and object are independent of one another and the subject may do as it pleases (action) to the object (ie. Environment), with or without consent.  In Ojibwe and many Indigenous languages, there is little difference between subject and object. One is not “doing” something TO the other, but rather they are sharing an experience together.

Practically, English speakers (subject, ie. Government) wish to do something (action, ie. Improve social-economic status) to Indigenous people (object, as though they are separate and apart from English speakers and no interdependency). This is why such efforts ultimately fail. The subjects are not sharing in the experience, good or bad. As a result, it is impossible to effect real change.

In that same example, from an Ojibwe linguistic and cultural perspective, the solution lies in both “subject” (ie. Government) and “object” (Indigenous people) to have a shared experience improving socio-economic status. This approach means it is not just a job some hired bureaucrat does, but rather it is a whole community (both English speaking mainstream Canadians and Indigenous people) approach that transcends a 9-5 job. It becomes something that we live. It means we are not going to talk about how bad poverty is and then go home at the end of the day to our Steak dinner in front of our 60" flat screen tv and 6.0 surround sound system.

Culture and Nationhood

I have learned a great deal from the French people, whose culture I was happily accepted into. The French in Canada also have a history of oppression and persecution at the hands of the English. They had lost the war against the British (which, sadly was about controlling a land that did not belong to either of them) and suffered as the losers of the war at the hands of the victors.

One thing I had learned was the way they had maintained their culture and nationality over time. They did this through the protection of their language above all else. Not land, not programs, not individual communities could have enabled the French in Canada to survive to the point where they are today. I have observed when French people hear another person speak French, even a complete stranger, and the instant sense of connection that they demonstrate.

I have felt this connection as well. It is these lessons that have shown me the critical importance of our Indigenous languages to protecting our cultures and identities. These identities, cultures and linguistically influenced world views are absolutely critical to cultivating the wisdom required to recreating local, national and global economies that are better integrated and interconnected with the land, the environment, people and animals.

I feel this connection again as I am in the process of learning my own native tongue.

Effect on Economic Development

Now we can see how language intrinsically influences and shapes culture (and vice versa). Together, language and culture influence and shape our world views and hence, our approach to economic development.

The mainstream approach to economic development has been driven, in large part, by the English speaking world. As a result, consciously or not, people have adopted a separated view of themselves and our environment – a philosophy of disconnect between all that exists in this universe. This has led to exploitation of resources, harmful corporate practices, even genocide (when the perpetrators view the victims as disconnected from themselves). This philosophy has led to the belief that animals and resources exist to be dominated by humans without the acknowledgement of the interconnectedness that exists.

(NOTE: this is not to say that there are not many English speaking people who have altered their perspectives on these issues. Certainly there are many who have and many who are champions for a new way of developing and approaching this world - but these shifts in perspective generally have come from education and awareness, not from intrinsic and subconscious influence of their spoken language)

The alternatives to this approach stem from our Indigenous languages. The embedded cultural world views are full of the wisdom required for the changes this world is going through. Economic Development can be done in a different way than exploitation and profit above all else. The key to finding these alternatives lie in our understanding of the world views that come from our languages.

Concluding notes:

There are gifts that can come from every language. The trouble begins when we allow for one language (any one) to dominate the others. The same global issues could have stemmed from a different language if it had gained dominance. Our global strength lies in our diversity.

Notes:

*I say citizens because our nations are not simply communities, but nations with the power of citizenship, even if our current leaders are not exercising that power.

Rebuilding Indigenous Economies

There has been a lot of talk globally about the need to rebuild Indigenous economies. It is seen as the foundation of sustainability, independence, and wealth creation.

There is no consensus about how to do this.

In fact, there are probably more questions than there are answers. To begin the conversation of how we ought to rebuild our economies as Indigenous people, there are a number of questions that we need to ask ourselves and our communities.

1.       How does the culture behind mainstream economic processes compare with our own culture?

2.       Are we seeking to change our own culture to align better with the economic system that is out there or do we prefer to shape the economic system to our culture?

3.       What will we define as economic success?

The mainstream economic culture that currently exists, is largely based upon individualism, infinite profit, “bottom line” thinking, economic value worldview. The conventional thinking here is that in order for an economy to succeed, you must encourage individuals to have ambitions and pursue those ambitions for personal gain. Individuals with great personal wealth will spend that money buying products and services and paying taxes.

As we look at businesses, the principle of infinite profit comes in. Here, businesses are only seen as successful businesses if their profits are increasing quarter after quarter, year after year to no limit. To achieve such growth, businesses and companies are forced to use their bottom-line as the primary criteria in any decision. If it doesn’t increase the money they make or decrease what they spend, it is not worthwhile. In this way, we shape our entrepreneurs and business leaders to view the world as something that must be labelled with financial value. Each activity, person, object is then given a relative value, and is hence, prioritized.

There are many who are comfortable with this economic culture. There are, however, many who are not. Typically, those who are not comfortable with this economic culture have conflicting values from their own culture. Consider those cultures where collective wealth is a value (ie. Communal vs individual). Or those where the land and water are valued above personal or even communal gain.

Understanding the mainstream economic culture and comparing it with our own culture is critical to understanding what directions we need to take as communities and nations.

With that understanding, we then need to ask whether we desire to align our culture with the mainstream economic culture or whether we wish to take what we can adapt to our culture. This is important because if a community is not willing to assimilate into the larger mainstream economic culture, then conventional methods of economic development will not work.

Revising the economic models to fit a different culture than what the mainstream has to offer requires far more creativity and innovation than conventional approaches. It also requires that a community consider what its definitions of success will be. Adopting a different economic model will mean that people and communities cannot expect the same economic results (it’s possible that not everyone will have big screen TVs and two fancy new cars). That is not to say they will not have the same or greater level of success. But it is all in how we define success.

For some, the conventional approach to economic development is to recognize that there will always be the rich and the poor and the goal is really to move away from being poor, up the ladder, towards being rich. We see this in most Western nations as the gap between the rich and poor continually grows.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/inequality----thy-name-is-revolution-117223113.html

If this is not the path that a community wishes to take, then the approaches must be different. Entrepreneurship and corporate empire building that rewards only a small percentage of people in the backs of legions of workers, will not lead to such values as communal sharing and collective wealth creation, for example.

So, defining success, then, becomes critical to deciding what approach to take. Is economic success defined as greater wealth among individual members of the community/nation? Is it defined by a strong and vibrant Indigenous government? Is it defined by collective ownership and wealth generation? Or by improved health or social conditions? Might it be defined by greater sustainability and health of the environment and people?

There is no correct answer, although some will be more or less damaging to various aspects of our world and peoples. Selecting an answer doesn’t require a PhD either – just an honest introspection and plenty of discussion.