Homeotely
necessary language for an interconnected world
“The natural world is the larger sacred community to which we belong. To be alienated from this community is to become destitute in all that makes us human. To damage this community is to diminish our own existence.“ ~ Thomas Berry”
I often meet with people who think people are the problem. It would be so much better if there were fewer of us humans (maybe even none at all!) since people are greedy and they destroy the natural world. Even if you are not that misanthropic, the idea of humans as the crown of creation has slanted considerably in the dawn of the Anthropocene. But humans aren’t destined to be destructive. Surely there must be a constructive role for us? When I teach, I sometimes ask what that would be. What is our role in this world? Once I got the answer that we are the responsible species. Not very politely, I burst into laughter. Responsible for what? Responsible how? Aren´t fungi showing far more responsibility in their work of decomposing and making nutrients available for plants? Humans, with our cognitive capacities, could be responsible; but in practice we are not. We are all entangled in a deeply irresponsible system wreaking havoc in the living world. How do we become collectively able to respond to ecological breakdown?
Homeostasis: flow, exchange and stability
A living organism needs to maintain its balance with the environment, often within fairly narrow limits. Humans need a body temperature of between 35 and 39℃, or we get sick and may die. Other factors are pH-levels and concentrations of sugar and other substances in the blood. This balance is called homeostasis (Greek for staying the same). The homeostasis of the Earth’s highly unstable atmosphere led James Lovelock to develop the Gaia hypothesis. Simultaneously, living beings need constant exchange with the surroundings. We breathe, we eat, we pee. This balance between sustaining yourself as an autonomous being and participating in living wholes is a classic dynamic in biology and systems thinking. Chilean biologists Maturana and Varela, in developing the theory of autopoiesis - how life regenerates itself and develops organically - described living systems as sustaining limits and organization while being dependent on continuous exchange with the surroundings. Building on these thoughts, Evan Thompson understood life as autonomy in relationships. Systems thinker Ilya Prigogine showed how these relationships of flow and exchange don’t threaten autonomy, but are prerequisites for its stability.
This interdependence may be hard to integrate for a culture which is hellbent on independence and “freedom”. But we can never be independent from living systems. They are not separate from us; we are a part of them. When we allow forests, seas, rivers and wetlands to be exploited, it is the sources of water, air, food, and thus justice, peace, diversity and beauty that we allow the destruction of. In the words of cultural historian Thomas Berry “Any progress of the human at the expense of the larger life community must ultimately lead to a diminishment of human life itself”.
Many of the species on the planet are participating in ways that are good for the whole. Like the millions of bacteria in your stomach, supporting your digestion or the bumblebees buzzing from flower to flower in search of nectar, pollinating as they go. Like the fungi, distributing water, nutrients and information across forests. Like beavers creating water retention on a landscape level. It seems like life itself wants to create relationships that are beneficial for the whole!
The heresy of teleology
Now, the idea that beings other than humans could want anything at all is highly controversial in science. Evolutionary biology teaches that life is not teleological, it doesn’t have telos, purpose. Like a machine, it just happens to be the way it is through certain mechanisms (such as the “selfish gene”). Swedish professor in ecology Torbjörn Fagerström described in an interview how he shudders every time someone talks about ecological balance: “in that concept you have the underlying value that nature is wise … but nature has no goal, the state of nature is a result of species in competition with each other”. This is a typical response (less typical is his statement that humanity needs only 10-15 species to survive.). German philosopher Hans Jonas wrote that even machines are more teleological than organisms according to this view, since they are created with a purpose (he didn’t believe that to be true, though). This unfortunate metaphysics came about when science needed to distance itself from the Christian perception of a heavenly designer, whose intentions explain the existence of biological organisms. The alternative view became to perceive a lack of intention altogether.
However, the absence of purpose in more-than-human life is difficult to agree with for anyone in touch with living beings. They certainly seem to want things, to have agency. There also seems to be an innate force in the evolution of life. Biologist J B S Haldane described this dilemma: “teleology is like a mistress to a biologist; he cannot live without her, but he is unwilling to be seen with her in public”.
Homeotely: the whole-maintaining capacity of life
Dismissing the mechanistic view of life, Edward “Teddy” Goldsmith coined the term homeotely to describe how living beings are not just participants in greater wholes, maintaining their autonomy in relationship with others in the context they live, but they also seem to strive to maintain the whole they are a part of. This phenomenon occurs at all scales, from the cells of an organ to planetary level: “all natural systems … make use of resources … in such a way as to maintain the integrity and stability of the system within which they are distributed, which also means helping to maintain the integrity and stability of the Gaian hierarchy of which the system is part.” Goldsmith was an early proponent of Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis and inspired by indigenous worldviews in his search for a holistic understanding.
The poet and farmer Wendell Berry described it like this, beginning from soil: “the soil is the great connector of lives, the source and destination of all. It is the healer and restorer and resurrector, by which disease passes into health, age into youth, death into life. Without proper care for it we can have no community, because without proper care for it we can have no life.” Only homeotelic, or regenerative, organisms survive in the long run.
Aldo Leopolds land ethic also describes a homeotelic attitude, introducing an ethical dimension to the whole-supporting property of life: “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community”. This stance develops a complex understanding of what is valuable. A mechanistic culture tends to value efficiency. But what is that, really? Efficient for whom? Think about a squirrel harvesting nuts. It eats some and hides a lot for the winter. It has the capacity to find an impressive amount of the hidden nuts, but not all. Some get eaten by other animals, some are never found. Does this mean it is ineffective? Would it be better for the squirrel to have total control over all the nuts and be sure to eat them all? The nut collecting and dispersing habit of squirrels is what makes it possible for trees to spread and regenerate. It is what keeps the forest, and the squirrel, alive. Life as autonomy in relationships.
The potential danger of anthropomorphism
A biologist who wants to keep his teleological mistress secret would say that this is an instinctual behaviour, developed through the mechanics of evolution. The squirrel does not act intentionally to keep the forest alive. If the biologist happens to say for example that the squirrel is like a little furry forester, (s)he can be fairly certain to be accused of anthropomorphism; to see human properties in the actions of the squirrel. Since, in this view, only humans can have consciousness and act with purpose. There has been a lot of debate around this in the wake of Suzanne Simards research on “Mother Trees” who care for their relatives. However, fear of anthropomorphism leads to another trap: the presumption of non-humanity, i.e. that non-human beings lack certain properties unless proven otherwise.
Since teleology (and consciousness generally) is hard or impossible to prove, we find ourselves between two positions, two potential misreadings: anthropomorphism and the presumption of non-humanity, respectively. These two differ greatly in their practical consequences. If we anthropomorphise, there is the risk of overinterpreting behaviours as purposeful. This may lead to poetic exaggeration and romanticism. Presuming non-humanity - a lack of purpose or consciousness - is guaranteed to lead to underestimation. Historically, the consequence has always been exploitation.
I know which side I choose to err on. There is so much we are yet to learn.
Words are important! We must be able to articulate what a human presence which is not based on domination and control means. It is astonishing that homeotely is so little known and discussed, as a very elegant term for something profound and complex, and desperately needed. When the dominant narratives are either that nature should be liberated from humans, or that humans should be liberated from nature, homeotely points towards a third and regenerative path. As Maya Angelou said: “the truth is, no one of us can be free until everybody is free”. Liberation is about relation, not separation. Autonomy in relationships.
What if our culture remembered this whole-maintaining capacity and took it seriously? What would it look like, if striving to be beneficial for the living whole was a central value? Wouldn’t that be a worthy endeavor? Not just taking less, using less, being less damaging; that leads to the sad conclusion that it would be better if there were fewer humans. But actually start giving back. Strive for what characterises every healthy relationship: reciprocity.
The Alchemy of Homeotely
When you want to achieve things that are really grand, totally beyond your capacity, there has to be a trust that the world will support your efforts. There is a lot of wishful thinking on this. Follow the “Law of Attraction” and you could supposedly unveil the “Secret” that affirming things in your life will make them manifest. Maybe so; attention is a powerful force. And I do love the quote from Paulo Coelhos The Alchemist: “when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.” But I have always thought something is missing. It is the element of homeotely. The universe will only conspire - breathe together - with you when what you want is homeotelic. Beneficial for the whole.
I believe there is a longing. A longing to be in relation, to be needed, to contribute. A longing for belonging, for meaning. We cannot really become fully human until we understand ourselves as part. Until we fully participate in the world. I suspect this participation, this belonging, is inaccessible until we begin giving to the larger whole. Until we become homeotelic.