What is Permaculture?
This is a question I get from friends whenever I bring up something I have been researching, or the ideas of a podcast I have been listening to. I try to answer as best as I can, but it is very hard to define a holistic and complex idea in a few sentences … The following essay explores the term “permaculture” and it’s definition.
Please do leave a reply at the bottom to join the conversation.
So far, I have seen two approaches to defining permaculture. The first is to look at the word “Permaculture” itself. The second is to look at the definition of the word by some of the key thinkers in the field.
Below is the first of two blog posts. The first part will deal with the word “permaculture” itself, and the second part will deal with the concept.
Without further ado,
the word: “Permaculture”
It is traditionally understood that permaculture is a contraction of the words Permanent and Agriculture. PERMA-anent + Agri-CULTURE
The word “Permanent” comes from Latin permanent- ‘remaining to the end’ from per- ‘through’ + manere ‘remain’.
The word “Agriculture” comes from Latin agricultura, from ager, agr- ‘field’ + cultura ‘growing, cultivation’.
It is also traditionally understood that the co-orginiators of the concept of Permaculture were inspired by the subtitle of the book “Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture” by Russel J. Smith.
Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture
Smith begins the story by contrasting the eroded hills below the Great Wall of China with the lush Chestnut-filled hills of Corsica (photos from the book above via). That being said, there are many great examples of polyculture and permaculture in China, as there are around the world!
“Tree Crops” by Russel J. Smith, is one of the most remarkable books I have ever read. I picked it up not knowing what to expect, and I was very surprised to discover a book that is both revolutionary and unassuming.
The reason “Tree Crops” is subtitled “A Permanent Agriculture” may be because forests are almost permanent when compared with the life span of individual people (“ash in the wind,” as Marcus Aurelius says).
I have very thankfully had the opportunity of hiking through the chestnut orchards of Corsica, and have experienced the power of a four hundred year old “permanent agriculture”.
In the chestnut regions of Corsica there many stone cities, delightful food and people, and many shady streams whose banks burst with strawberries and mushrooms.
The reason “Tree Crops” is a revolutionary book is because it shows a radically different approach to food production and connection to the land. But it is also revolutionary because it shows that there are great opportunities for collaboration and integration of traditional land management practices with Western, “modern” Agriculture thinking, primary by using a hybrid field-forest approach. Some areas are more suited to corn or wheat production, and others are more suited to black walnut or mulberry. In many ways the landscape Smith proposes would come to be a patchwork, of fields and forests, based on topography, soil type, and other particulars.
The reason “Tree Crops” is an unassuming book is because it is composed of essays, letters, and correspondences that Smith undertook during his life. This gives it a very laid back, ephemeral, feel that reminds me of a James Joyce or Ernest Hemingway novel (minus the characters or plot).
Ancient Chestnut Groves of Corsica - A photo from my travels there in 2017.
The theme that emerges from “Tree Crops” overall, is of the vast potential of trees to create a form of food and fodder production which is enduring, resilient, and incredibly productive, while also stabilizing the soil, and replenishing watersheds and aquifers.
With delight Smith catalogs the vast yearly harvests from chestnuts, walnuts, hickories, mesquites, mulberries, and many more trees. He even goes on to suggest that a “far-sighted young farmer” begin trials of improved varieties of Sugar Maple trees (which has relevance to people practicing Permaculture in Canada) for maple syrup production.
One of Smith’s key premises was to use tree crops to grow animal fodder. The idea was that animals would be fed the produce of the tree crops. The animals do the harvesting, and the trees do the work.
Smith proposed converting hilly or stony land, unsuitable to field-cultivation due to erosion or the stones, to growing trees. He argued this would free up much more land for human food-production. But also, a very beautiful and lovely place to live. You can see that in the snippet of Smith’s book above, Chapter 2 of “Tree Crops”.
If you haven’t read Tree Crops, but are interested in permaculture, then I strongly recommend it. A scanned PDF version is here. Or you can find at your favourite bookstores or libraries.
back to the topic at hand…
So the argument is that one way of defining “permaculture” is to look at the word itself. Permaculture comes from the concept of “permanent agriculture”.
Over the last 4 decades, as interest in permaculture has increased and spread, a lot of new and interesting insights have been added to the body of permaculture knowledge.
Because of this, over the decades the word “permaculture” has also been given an alternate meaning: to be a contraction of the word “PERM-anent” and “CULTURE,” to reflect the idea that a civilization that uses permanent agriculture itself becomes a permanent society.
Stay tuned for the second part of this essay, about how the concept of permaculture, is defined as a holistic design approach model on positivism, i.e using information from the senses to make decisions.
