Ecological Literacy - Agri-culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature - page 166

realization that the group has the capacity to develop new solutions to
existing problems, individuals tend to be more likely to engage in active
experimentation and the sharing of results. Agricultural approaches start
incorporating regenerative technologies in order to make the best use of
natural capital rather than simple eco-efficiency. Groups are now begin-
ning to diverge and develop individual characteristics. They are more
resilient, but still may eventually break down if members feel that they
have achieved the original aims, and do not wish to invest further time in
pursuing new ones.
The final phase involves a ratchet shift for groups, with greater aware-
ness and interdependence. They are very unlikely to unravel or, if they do,
individuals have acquired new world views and ways of thinking that will
not revert. Groups are engaged in shaping their own realities by looking
forward, and the individual skills of critical reflection (how we came here)
combined with abstract conceptualization (how we would like things to
be) mean that groups are now expecting change and are more dynamic.
Individuals tend to be much more aware of the value of the group itself.
They are capable of promoting the spread of new technologies to other
groups, and of initiating new groups themselves. They want to stay well
linked to external agencies, and are sufficiently strong and resilient to resist
external powers and threats. Groups are more likely to come together in
apex organizations, platforms or federations in order to achieve higher-
level aims. At this stage, agricultural systems are more likely to be
redesigned according to ecological principles, no longer adopting new
technologies to fit the old ways, but innovating to develop entirely new
systems.
The idea of a link between maturity of groups and outcomes raises
important questions. Are groups who are endowed with social capital
more likely to proceed to maturity, or can they become arrested because
social capital is a form of 'embeddedness' that prevents change? Does
feedback occur between maturity and social capital? If so, is it positive
(for example, success with a new sustainable practice that spills over into
success for others, or creates new opportunities for cooperation), or is it
negative (such as changes in world views and technology that unsettle
traditional practices, erode trust and make existing networks redundant)?
Groups and individuals at stage three (awareness independence) appear
unlikely to regress to a previous stage, because world views, philosophies
and practices have fundamentally changed. But groups at stage one
(reactive dependence) are unstable and could easily regress or terminate
without external support and facilitation. This raises further challenges
for external policy agencies. Can they create the conditions for take-off
towards maturity when there is little social capital? How best should they