Transition groups do little more than hold meetings, says John Michael Greer.
After he spoke on the panel about local solutions at the ASPO-USA Truth in Energy Conference held in Washington, DC earlier this month, I asked John Michael Greer to give us some of his thoughts about the Transition Movement. He obliged us and so we offer his comments in full below. Greer is the author of numerous books on peak oil and other subjects including The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered.
Q. What do you think of the Transition movement’s decision to focus on communities, rather than (say) individuals, nations, or anything else in between?
Somebody had to try it, but it doesn’t seem to be working so far. By and large, Transition has fallen into the standard model of contemporary activism—that is, it’s given rise to small groups on the margins of society, pursuing their projects as if the rest of the world was watching, which it isn’t. It’s indicative that in Totnes, one of the two towns on the planet that has actually finished crafting a Transition Plan, only around 5% of the local population took part in the process at any level. Even that level of public involvement appears far beyond the reach of most US Transition groups.
Does that mean that trying to organize on a community-wide basis was a mistake? Not at all. It may still be worth trying, though a move away from familiar but ineffective organizing strategies could be indicated. What it means, rather, is that community organizing is only one of many possible directions that need to be explored, and other options may turn out to be more productive. We simply can’t know in advance, which is why pursuing as many different options as possible is a good idea.
Q. What do you think are the main obstacles that the Transition movement faces?
Here in America, at least, the level of denial that surrounds the end of the age of cheap energy makes a movement like Transition a very difficult sell. Still, Transition has made things even more difficult for itself, in part through the adoption of the standard model of contemporary activism. Some parts of that model—for example, consensus decisionmaking—are red flags for many who might be interested in Transition, because they have seen the problems with that model in other contexts already.
A broader issue is the focus on communities. I hear from many people who, knowing the temper of the communities where they live, recognize that trying to launch a Transition movement there would be an utter waste of effort. I also hear from many people who would rather gnaw on a dead rat than take part in a movement that consists mostly, at this point, of attending meetings. Much of my work in helping inspire responses to the post-peak future could reasonably be described as providing options for people who feel that the Transition movement provides them with none.
Q. Where do you think the Transition movement might be able to go from here?
That’s a good question. I haven’t read the latest publications out of the movement—it’s not really that relevant to my own work, and my book-buying budget is far from unlimited—but if I gather correctly, there’s been a certain broadening of options, a shift away from the linear progression from forming a group to establishing a Transition Plan. That could be a good thing, or the opposite.
It could be the opposite because every activist movement faces the temptation to exist for the sake of existing, abandoning its goals in favor of ever vaguer abstractions that, since no one can be sure what they would mean in practice, continue to justify holding meetings and pretending that something is being done. There are severe problems with the notion that writing a Transition Plan is a significant accomplishment—every municipality in America has plans on file for dealing with energy scarcity, drawn up in the 1970s, which have been gathering dust ever since—but at least it’s a measurable goal.
The current shift toward broader options could be a good thing, though, because nobody, anywhere, knows for sure just what has to be done in order for communities—or, for that matter, individuals—to get through the end of the age of cheap abundant energy with the least possible misery and loss. If Transition is open to having local groups embrace radically different organizational structures and practical agendas, and local groups make use of that freedom, it’s quite possible that the evolutionary process thus set in motion might stumble across viable routes into the future.
That requires a tolerance for disagreement and contradiction that’s rare in contemporary society, and especially in activist circles; the fixation on consensus in those circles is one measure of the difficulty so many people have these days dealing with forthright disagreement. Still, when you’re trying to find the best route through unknown territory, coming up with a consensus in advance is usually a bad idea; it’s usually better to have scouts head out in whatever direction seems best to each of them, and report back on their experiences, whatever those happen to be.
— Erik Curren, Transition Voice
Well you certainly cannot accuse him of telling people what they want to here.
If you are going to get 5% involvement (pretty good actually) of the general populace at best, it would seem like you would be talking about either a community within the community (a club if you will) if you are using a consensual (or possibly commercial) model, or you are going to have to go the govenrment route.
Greer said: “…though a move away from familiar but ineffective organizing strategies could be indicated.”
Bingo. The last thing I want to do is read meeting minutes about how to survive the end of western civilization’s ‘waste based’ economy. Time’s short. If you don’t know how to can peaches, use a chainsaw, brew beer, mend a pair of jeans, save seeds or a dozen other simple skills, you’re behind schedule.
I’m gaining respect for Greer again. I’ve always thought him to be more cynical than the alternative media made him out to be.
The collective group of humanity (including Transitioners) is fast approaching a wall. That wall has a small hole in it the size of a person to crawl through. On the other side of the wall is our future (if the wall doesn’t melt during the warming). You can take skills and hand tools through the wall, but if you try to make the hole bigger to drive an electric car through, it will collapse.
I think the Archdruid is flowing with the circumstances, also. Before, we couldn’t see the extent of the Wall, and it was foreseeable that maybe we could find a way around it (The Long Descent). Now we are almost up to it, we see that the dreadnought of Progress is built based on the perception of perpetual growth. The Wall is the final stopping point for the premise that Everyone can have Everything if we only Work Hard Enough. No amount of work is going to save the majority of what we are doing now, as it is all worthless activity, meant to pit humans against everything else, under the perception that we are ‘winning’ just because we are getting bigger and ‘conquering nature’.
5%? We’ll be lucky if some tiny fraction of a percent of the current population is alive in 20 years, let alone the next century of climatic upheaval, even IF we learn to live cooperatively BEFORE we hit the Wall. Think “Venus”, not “greenhouse” effect. Think about what “exponential warming” REALLY means.
I live in Bloomington where I have taught permaculture to more than 200 people and have also started a Transition group, the first in Indiana. We don’t have many meetings (and DON”T use consensus [shudder]), but already have the support of a majority of our city council and county commissioners.
We are working with many other groups in town including the Local Growers Guild, the new Food Policy Council, our local food co-op, community gardens, a few ecovillages, food banks, a land trust, city planning, parks and rec, and more. We are actively working to improve local food security, and local economics, training people in reskilling themselves to become more independent of imported food (which is currently 98% of all of Indiana’s food) as well as other skills to generate new local businesses.
We’ve contributed to the city-commissioned peak oil task force report and are working with local leaders to implement the recommendations therein. We are actively supporting the development of more community gardens and a farmer training school with the goal of at least 300 (or more) new local garden farmers in the next 5 years. I can point to other Transition towns who have accomplished even more than this.
This is probably still not enough to prevent massive disruption to society as the crash unfolds but it’s better than nothing and there will at least be informed and skilled people to turn to before things get much uglier.. I’d advise you to do a bit more diligent research and reconsider your opinions afterwards.
JMG says; “when you’re trying to find the best route through unknown territory, coming up with a consensus in advance is usually a bad idea; it’s usually better to have scouts head out in whatever direction seems best to each of them, and report back on their experiences, whatever those happen to be.”
This makes sense to me. Individuals, couples, families and small groups will create their own unique attempts at living sustainably. Learning from each other what seems to be working and what doesn’t, new concepts and adaptive strategies might evolve and propagate. I think large groups (whole communities) are far too socially cumbersome to accomplish anything of real value. Fresh thinking is often seen as threatening by the majority who feel more comfortable with familiar, conventional ways.
For those of us who have already started on the journey, it’s good to be able to keep in touch and learn from each other via the internet while we still have it.
I’ve been pretty deeply involved in 2 Transition groups and I have also taken the “official” Transition Leader Training. It’s sad, but I have to agreed with just about everything Greer has to say here. Especially his take on consensus, which in my experience has been a great way to choke decisions and allow a tyranny of the minority.
The headline and caption given to this post are terribly misleading though. Greer nowhere says that “Transition plans and meetings [are] a waste of time.” Exactly what he said was that Transition is “a movement that consists mostly, at this point, of attending meetings.”
And that’s sad, but it’s also true, at this point – as he said.
I’m involved in a local group too and my own experience made me think that JMG’s insights could be helpful. I also wrote the headline for the piece, and I think it’s accurate. The way he talks about Transition groups doing meetings is clearly not complimentary. Then, he says this about plans: “There are severe problems with the notion that writing a Transition Plan is a significant accomplishment—every municipality in America has plans on file for dealing with energy scarcity, drawn up in the 1970s, which have been gathering dust ever since—but at least it’s a measurable goal.” Though a measurable goal is better than nothing, this is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilization?
I think it would be a good idea!
I think having a transition movement would be a good idea, I hope we have one while there’s still oil to redirect for relocalization.
So far, most of the “transition” groups seem to be small cliques that tell themselves they’re doing great things when at best it’s not even one percent. I’m certainly in favor of community gardens and trading time dollars for babysitting services and similar things, but the scale of the crises and the urgency of the (lack of) response is impolite to mention to most of the “transition” efforts I’ve run across.
None of the cities that have published “transition” and “sustainability” and “climate action” plans have dared remove a single road expansion project as part of their alleged concern for the downslope of energy production. Most assume that electric cars powered by elephant farts or magic pixie dust will save our collective rears at the last moment, a delusion perhaps inspired by watching too many Hollywood films (although not “WALL-E”). Good luck finding politicians, environmental groups, neighborhood associations willing to say “growth is over” – the few that will embrace the fact that there are limits on a finite planet are in a small minority.
We’re past Peak Oil but Peak Denial is probably still far in the future. I hope to be proved wrong.
The federal plans for energy scarcity include the USA PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq and other unpleasant actions that show the military industrial complex privately understands these issues very well, although is not promoting a compassionate response. The social justice advocates need to expand their understanding to include how to have a more equitable and sane response. Most of “the left” wants to share the pie more equally, but how to share a pie that is getting smaller will be a more difficult challenge, especially if the fact the pie can’t grow any more is a heretical concept to most pie eaters.
Today is the 48th anniversary of the coup against President Kennedy shortly after he called for ending the Cold War and nuclear arms race. What would our country and planet look like today if the resources for endless war had been redirected for “transition?”
Hi Erik. This piece was a very disappointing read, and it promotes lots of myths that may exist in Mr. Greer’s imagination but nowhere else, and I would like to correct a few of them here if I may. He states that Transition “doesn’t seem to be working so far”. That is an extraordinarily dismissive statement, and one that certainly bears no relation to what I see happening.
At times he is talking about Transition in the US, which I have less experience of and which I am delighted to see some US Transition folk responding to here, but broadbrush sweeping statements such as that, and stating that Transition is “a movement that consists mostly, at this point, of attending meetings” are simply factually incorrect.
What we are actually seeing is many of these groups maturing very quickly, and moving with great purpose into very real, tangible and innovative projects on the ground. It has always been presented as an experiment, but the new book ‘The Transition Companion’ (which Greer hasn’t read but feels happy to diss nonetheless) tries to draw the learning together, and captures many stories of where this is going. Rather than consisting of “vaguer abstractions” I think it represents far better what these projects are doing around the world (and it’s certainly not “mostly … attending meetings”).
He states that 5% of people in Totnes engaged in the EDAP process. The survey we did last year found that 75% of people had heard of TTT, 62% agreed with it, and 33% had had some kind of involvement in it. It is never stated that everyone has to be on board, and what we see time and again in Transition initiatives is that they start to impact in a range of ways other than the more obvious ones. Yet our Town Council is now a “Transition Council”, we are creating, with the District Council, an economic development plan for the area, and being recognised in the national media as “the biggest urban brainwave of the century”. “A standard model of contemporary activism” it ain’t.
He states that “community organising is only one of many possible directions that need to be explored”. Absolutely. Transition has always presented itself as one of many options. That’s the point. No idea where he got the idea that anyone believes Transition is all we need….
Then he makes the bizarre suggestion that all Transition groups work using consensus decision making, which is again factually incorrect and easily corrected here. In the Transition training, and in all our materials, consensus is, at best, presented as one of many options, and more usually is actively advised against. I have no idea what his statement is based on, but unfounded stuff like that, as well as the photo used to accompany the article, paint a picture of Transition and what groups are actually doing that is absolutely the opposite of the many Transition groups I meet and interact with.
What I found, when researching the new book, wasn’t groups endlessly holding pointless meetings like some sort of green-tinged Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, but one that is maturing very fast, setting up all kind of initiatives and enterprises, engaging with local government in fascinating and meaningful ways, and that is starting to impact on government thinking on some of these issues.
One example to leave Mr Greer with. Bath & West Community Energy, a community-owned energy company, launched its share option last month. It has already attracted over £1 million in loans, and plans, within 5 years to have put £11 million’s worth of renewables in place, raising over £300k per year for community Transition. It is just one story among many, of ordinary people doing extraordinary things, in a mature, focused and determined way. Of course it is not the only thing we need, but to say “it doesn’t seem to be working so far” is an insult, frankly.
I’ll leave the last word to Hugo from Transition Norwich, who I interviewed last week at their 3rd anniversary celebration (http://tinyurl.com/723jqbs) and who offered an interesting reflection on the “doesn’t seem to be working so far” question. He said:
“I speak to people who aren’t terribly involved and they say nowadays nothing is happening any more (in Transition Norwich). I think Transition Norwich has come out of this phase where it has all these talk shop meetings that are interesting to start out with, but now it has actually gone out on the ground and is doing stuff. I think that is much more valuable. I think that direction is very good, but it does mean that, for instance, the calendar we have is not very filled….”
Dear Rob,
Good to hear from you. John Michael bears no responsibility for the photo, as we choose all our own art, as we write all our own headlines. Both of those are intended to get attention and get people to read the article. And we tend to like whimsical or edgy images to explore a point made in an article…
Thanks for your comments. I can’t speak for John Michael, but can say for my part that we are glad to host a frank discussion about Transition’s goals and its accomplishments so far. And I feel that it’s worthwhile to get more people talking about the topic as well as to learn new things that Transition has done, such as the Bath & West Community Energy project. Very impressive.
In the spirit of dialogue, we’re always happy to hear from you and others in Transition Network and we’d be glad to run pieces from your perspective, as we already do in the States with a regular monthly column from Transition US.
Regards,
Erik
Hello,
I reread the article, and I believe the headline is deliberately misleading. Maybe rather than “says Greer”, would be “implies Greer”, or some such. But it’s your production, and it’s also your credibility.
Steve
Thanks Steve. This seems like a distinction without a difference. I think it’s pretty clear that Greer is saying that Transition groups are a waste of time because they do little more than hold meetings. And also that he doesn’t have much faith in Transition plans, since as he said, most plans just gather dust. I guess we can quibble about wording, but the title seems accurate to represent Greer’s views. And it helped get readers to the article, which is what headlines are for.
Greer’s comments are accurate, I think. Transition is a neat concept but it is far too tied to the status quo style of thinking to actually be viable in the event of real of energy scarcity. Real solutions will be far more local, organic, and decentralized. This is the type of message I would like to get out to the Occupy Wall Street and its various branches – stop protesting and stop trying to be activists and stop being lovey dovey about the American Dream.
Its over, move on, and build your own world outside of the shadow of the scaffolding of the collapsing edifice of the status quo.
@VyseLegend. Eh? “Transition is a neat concept but it is far too tied to the status quo style of thinking to actually be viable in the event of real of energy scarcity. Real solutions will be far more local, organic, and decentralized”. I’m not sure if I have missed something here, but the whole point of what Transition initiatives are trying to do is “local, organic, and decentralized”. That is the very nature of what they are trying to do. Entering this discussion to knock Transition groups for not doing work that is “local, organic, and decentralized” is quite extraordinary! I’m confused…
Thanks
Rob
And I would add that if you look at life in Cuba, as told in the documentary The Power of Community, it was exactly crisis that spawned radical relocalization and a much healthier way of life. So while Transition principles do rely on advance thinking about converging predicaments, and how to address them before crisis, when those principles are present in crisis, even if only partially developed in practice, just having them on the ground can help localities respond much as Cuba did. In fact, in some ways, the LACK of an acutely identifiable crisis may be preventing the shift in paradigm at a broader scale.
What Greer said about providing an alternative to Transition is very important. I am of those who feel that Transition doesn’t have much to offer me because of my geographical location. The closest Transition initiative to me is about a 3 hour drive. For it to have any meaning it needs to be at most a 3 minute walk from me and that’s not going to happen where I’m at. I would love to go to the neighborhood next to my home and start knocking on doors, but I would be met by incomprehension at best, distrust, and probably hostility. I’m sure somebody would like to reply to my message by saying optimistic things like “how do you know unless you try?” To that all I can say is that reality usually trumps idealism. If you want to know what my neighbors and others in my “community” are like, youtube “black friday,” and you can see them and what they are all concerned about.
JMG offers a meaningful response to people such as myself. I can prepare and cultivate skills and information that will be applicable to the future (as well as now) while knowing that the future may offer a chance for those things to blossom into community when those around me begin to realize that the American Hologram was indeed a hologram. JMG made a very good point in his last report. America is the 1% of the world and that is to include the welfare class that lives better than the well off in other countries around the world. We use 25% of the world’s energy and we are 5% of the world population. What more do you need to know?
It’s my opinion that JMG is invaluable and correct. I don’t think he’s discouraging Transition, just mostly saying that it’s not for everybody and that it’s probably not going to change much, at least not in this country. Besides, I don’t see Rob Hopkins advocating Green Wizardry. I think Transition is optimistic and hopeful for people who need to feel that the near future could be comfortable and better than now. The reality is that the near future is going to be slightly worse than now, and 20 years from now it’s probably going to be full blown third world status in America and mostly everywhere else as well. The one thing you can do, regardless of your neighbor who’s caught up in the stampede at Walmart, is learn how to live with LESS now (less energy, stuff, and stimulation)…as JMG has been advocating. So keep doing the transition thing, but I don’t see a Totnes in America. I don’t even see people around me who have even heard of Peak Oil, much less that it’s irrefutable and already happened. The people around here think that climate change is a leftist conspiracy, have no idea that anthropogenic is a word, and can be summed up by sayings such as “kick their ass and take their gas,” and “if you’re not with us your a f@#king terrorist.”
I think there is room for both Transition and Green Wizardry. I just happen to be the type of person that resonates with Greer’s message and have no hope of ever seeing a Transition within biking or walking distance. I’m just hoping to meet one person around here who’s interested in the red pill.
I know that Common Security Clubs are an alternative to Transition, though the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. It’s just that CSC can help people/families/neighbors work at a much smaller scale, yet also not go it alone.
Best,
Lindsay Curren
Greer said, “Here in America, at least, the level of denial that surrounds the end of the age of cheap energy makes a movement like Transition a very difficult sell.”
I agree. And the denial is relative to all of our fossil fuel (and net energy) issues, including the climate crisis. This denial is the crux of the matter, really. But I hardly think this denial is best understood in relation to individuals. It’s a cultural issue / problem. Tied in with the individual is the media and the government, and corporations and “finance,” all of which conspire together to keep this denial system rigidly in place.
If we want a decent world / future, we will need to conspire against this conspiracy of denial. We will need to discover the weaker links in the chain, the rotting timbers at its foundation…. We will need to bring the whole contraption of denial down.
Since media is at the heart of this systematic denial, I’d focus most of the energy there.
James, I’m glad you went back to this piece and pulled out this quote by Greer. It seems more apt now then when he originally said it more than a year ago — after the election it’s clear that America is still in huge denial about the end of cheap energy. One party might be more hostile to renewables and conservation, but both parties are equally bad on the supply issue. They both act as if we can achieve “North American energy independence” by just drilling and mining more.
So how do we fight this conspiracy of denial? It’s tough, because even green groups go along with the industry line that there’s plenty of oil and coal left and they resist talking about the end of cheap energy. We can keep hammering away in the peak oil community, but it would be better if we came up with some strategies to break out into the mainstream.
“So how do we fight this conspiracy of denial?”
I’m far from certain that “fight” is what we must do. More and more I’m inclined to leave off battles and just go about doing what needs doing, rather than opposing “them,” whoever they are.
The word “mainstream” should perhaps refer to that which is conventional, normal, expected. But more and more people are using “mainstream” as interchangable and synonymous with “corporate”. Anything “alternative” is that which is “alternative” to the corporate establishment culture / economy / media…. So it’s a little confusing to think in terms of trying to bring something “alternative” into “the mainstream.” Nothing could be more corporate-mainstream than institutilnalized denial about the fundamental incompatibility of the current fossily fueled corporatized culture and the well-being of people and the planet.
The only solutions that make any sense to me involve creating stronger and more effective non-mainstream “alternatives” — including media institutions.
I have mixed feelings about Transition groups: I see truth in both what JMG wrote and what Rob wrote.
I think it probably depends a great deal on the specific group. My experience is closer to John’s than Rob’s.
In our local case, Transitioners drive their Priuses to meetings and congratulate themselves for setting up a Transition Investment Fund that “only” charges people with deserving projects 5% for funding! How can you be a part of the solution while being part of the problem of debt-based money?
On the other side of the coin, the local Transitioners are pretty stingy with each other. I live very close to the land on an annual income of under $8,000. They asked me to put on a two-hour workshop about humanure and our greenhouse fertigation system. I spent several hours putting together a handout, and I spent more time setting up a demonstration. By the time the workshop was over, I had about ten hours into it. The suggested contribution was $10 each. There were 15 people. The donation jar contained $32 at the end of the workshop: $3.20 per hour of my time. I guess that’s because they were all paying 5% interest on their Transition Investment Fund loans.
The problem is the people involved with this particular Transition group are such a part of the problem that they can’t even see it. They are mostly retired people. They think information should be freely shared, which is easy to say when you’re living on investment money. But they can’t see that the entire concept of “investment money” is a huge part of the problem!
Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Change “salary” to “investment income,” and in a nutshell you have what I see is a big problem with at least our local Transition group.
I don’t have an answer. Perhaps they could do what I did: cash in all my investments and put the money into “the means of production” — good arable land, animals, seeds, farm infrastructure, etc. Their return on investment would be way below what they were making before, but the intangibles — clean air, fresh water, healthy and nutritious food, negative carbon footprint, food sovereignty — are priceless.
More practitioners and fewer poseurs, please!