 |
| Reh im Klostergarten (Deer in Monastery Garden) by Franz Marc, 1912-13 |
Distinguished economist Sir Partha Dasgupta gave the address at the first Annual Christian Aid Lecture that took place at St Martin in the Fields on 6th September 2021 which can be viewed at this link. His lecture set out to show how our disconnection from nature results not only in environmental damage but impoverishes our understanding of the economics of poverty and development. The themes raised in his lecture; stability, regulation and transformation of behaviour through communitarian institutions; the importance of relationship; have obvious parallels in Christian communities, particularly monastic communities of the nature envisaged in the Rule of St Benedict.
Drawing
on case studies from the poorer regions of the world, Partha Dasgupta evidenced how in
certain settings, holding habitats as ‘common property resources’ offers a more stable basis for
living with nature, improving the biodiversity of ecosystems and the livelihood
of those who depend on them.
Partha
Dasgupta did not advocate the treatment of all ecological assets in such a manner;
but encouraged us to recognise the benefits of doing so as a means of better
understanding the connection between nature and personhood and to know what is
lost when such systems are unable to flourish. Failing to account for such loss
of opportunity denudes the effectiveness of policymaking and practice of the
economics of poverty and development.
I felt
the themes raised in his lecture; stability, regulation and transformation of
behaviour through communitarian institutions; the importance of relationship;
have obvious parallels in Christian communities, particularly monastic
communities of the nature envisaged in the Rule of St Benedict. In holding the
language of ‘common property resources’ alongside the image of the religious
community (either a monastery or parish), a number of questions are raised
about the way those communities facilitate living in a way in which nature (in
its fullest sense) and personhood are more consciously embedded. It would be
interesting to learn of resources which have explored this connection
further.
Partha
Dasgupta began the lecture by contrasting humanity’s relationship with nature
at different scales. At the largest scale, our consumption of the world’s “open
access resources” (such as the atmosphere and waters which fall outside
territorial boundaries) outstrips supply by a ratio of 1.6 (we would need 1.6
worlds to meet humanities current level of demand).
However
at a smaller scale, anthropologists have found that where habitats such as
woodlands, lakes, grazing land are held neither privately nor by the state but
as ‘common property resources’ by strong communities, these are able to
moderate individual and family behaviour through social norms, preventing
unsustainable exploitation; a more balanced relationship between nature and
personhood.
There is
an ecological imperative behind the success of CPR’s, which are prevalent in
habitats where division through individual ownership would not offer
sustainable yields - unlike fertile arable land in densely populated areas. In
the latter, holding resources in common has been shown to fail (in Soviet
Russia); Partha Dasgupta explained that the innovation and efficiencies
associated individual ownership and market transactions are vital in those
contexts.
In CPRs,
communities farm sufficient space within each habitat on a rotation basis to
consume the natural resource. Individual transgressions from the agreed
strategy are prevented by the threat of exclusion from not only the
agricultural enterprise but all other communal ventures. Co-operation is “habit
forming”.
Is it helpful to apply the language of CPR's (Common Property Resources) to church communities?
Professor
Dasgupta’s explanation of those habitats where CPRs are particularly beneficial
(and flourish) resonated in terms of the space in which the church exists;
which some have described as marginal. His observations about appropriateness
of scale invites us to consider whether church congregations or religious
orders offer an appropriate basis for modelling - and regulating - life in
balanced (environmentally sustainable) communities today. Are we seeing
evidence of this in the increasing take-up of ARocha’s eco-church programme?
How much more can be done to promote behavioural as well as
practical/infrastructure change across church communities which have (like
those who manage ecological CPRs) established leadership structures and shared
goals?
As
Benedict shows in his overview of the different kinds of monks (Chapter 1 of
the Rule), sustainability and balance (stability or rootedness to a place) are
favoured characteristics. Is the language of the CPR appropriate to use in
terms of the parish church (in the CofE)? Spaces which facilitate a
relationship between (divine) nature and personhood?
Are church communities the optimum scale to promote behavioural transformation; to bring about a strengthening of the relationship between nature and personhood?
The
chapters in Benedict’s Rule on what kind of man the Abbot should be (Chapter 2)
and on obedience (Chapter 5) and elsewhere, emphasise that while there is a
hierarchical structure, the success of the community relies on obedience
between its members as well as to the Abbot and, ultimately, to God. Unlike
legislative and political systems at a larger scale, the “system” proposed in
The Rule is not an entity to which personal responsibility can be transferred
(or blamed when transgressions occur) - because at this scale it is evident
that individuals (persons) are the system; just as in the management of CPRs
where behavioural norms prevent individual transgression.
In his
lecture, Professor Dasgupta explained, using examples from India and the
Himalayas, that where natural resources are held in CPRs there is evidence that
poorer families fare better (and ecological diversity improves). In CPRs,
transactions are not mediated by market prices (one reason economists have
found it hard to attach a value to this
approach). But there is also evidence that CPRs are open to abuse; richer or
more powerful families in a community and men rather than women, seem to
benefit disproportionally.
In
Benedict’s Rule, a great deal of thought is given to the distribution of
resources, which are held in common but distributed to Brothers ‘each according
to his need.’ (Chapter 34). If we view churches, or religious communities as
common property resources, who takes on the role of Cellarer in Benedict’s Rule
(the individual responsible for the storage and distribution of appropriate
resources - Chapter 55)?
Can Individual 'Rules of Life' alone further the relationship between nature and personhood?
Many
aspects of Benedict’s rule governing sanctions for transgressions seem brutal
to the present day reader (Chapters 23-30). As Professor Dasgupta explained in
his lecture, the basis for maintaining CPRs relies on mutual trust (and mutual
obligation) which he described as a “fragile commodity”. Once one transgression
takes place, the whole system can come crumbling down.
Some new
monastic communities encourage the adoption of a personal rule of life. Often
these must include some element of communal activity and require the adherent
to be accountable to an authority figure and the wider community for their
obedience. But to what extent does failure to adhere to an individual’s rule of
life affect the balance of the whole community (as failure to adhere to the
rules of a CPR affects the supply of food or natural resources?) In both a
religious and environmental context, individual responsibility cannot be the
only answer to questions around the relationship between nature and personhood.
Benedict’s Rule explains that at the Last Judgement we will be held to account
not only for our individual righteousness but enabling those around us to live
according to the Gospel. To what extent do our church/parish communities embody
this sense of communal responsibility in terms of our responsibility to live as
persons embedded in nature?
What resources are uniquely available to church communities to nurture communal accountability for the relationship between nature and personhood?
In
Benedict’s Rule the focus on developing humility as the Way of encountering the
perfect love of God (Chapter 7) has an etymological connection to the earth.
“Earthing” or grounding ourselves is perhaps a more palatable phrase today than
Benedict’s exhortation to see ourselves as nothing more than worms.
It is
here that (perhaps uniquely) religious communities can offer that sense of
communal, collective responsibility and model the embedded relationship between
nature and personhood through prayer, teaching, reflection and action.
Benedict’s image of Jacob‘s Ladder, with its twelve rungs to true humility,
teaches us that the way to exalt our creator - to climb the ladder - is to have
our eyes fixed to the ground; to be at the level of the foot-washer. To be
rooted in the earth.
At the
start of his lecture, Professor Dasgupta explained that mobility is a
characteristic of “supreme importance” when it comes to natural resources. The
wind blows, rivers flow. But the movement of modern life is causing and
spreading the effects of our environmental damage across the earth. Recognising
the counter cultural movement - the Way - revealed in the Gospels and
illustrated so powerfully in Benedict’s Rule can help to earth us and change
tack.
Professor
Dasgupta concluded his address by explaining that rediscovering and recognising
the value of communitarian institutions (like CPRs) is important if we are to
address the continuing erosion of natural capital and strengthen the
relationship between nature and personhood.
Rediscovering
the values of Christian communities especially those envisaged in the Rule of
St Benedict, might help us to do so in the fullest sense.
Links
The full
transcript of Partha Dasgupta’s address entitled ‘Nature and Personhood’ can be
read at this link.
Image : Reh im Klostergarten (Deer in Monastery Garden) by Franz Marc, 1912-13
No comments:
Post a Comment