Top
Wednesday
Feb272013

Civic Ecology Week 3: Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2: Civic ecology practices emerge when individuals act on social-ecological memories.

In order to clarify some of the main points of my interests in civic ecology, it’s helpful to quickly summarize that is meant when the readings refer to “social-ecological memories.”  Let me quick provide some definitions from the Krasny & Tidball, Civic Ecology, Chapter 4: 

Rooted in Practice

The chapter tells us there is evidence that social-ecological knowledge is fundamentally linked with human activities, behaviors, and practices, particularly from diverse perspectives in a community context. The readings tell us that:

  • “When shared memories relate to experiences in ecosystems and specific cultivation practices… they are referred to as social-ecological memories.” (p. 3).
  • “When social-ecological memories are lost, we also lose important experience and knowledge about how to manage a system” (p. 8).
  • “Partnerships among civic ecology practitioners and scientists collectively contain diverse knowledge and experience that is needed to address complex natural resource management problems or dilemmas, where no single individual can profess to have all the solutions” (p. 9).

Knowledge and Memories

The chapter tells us there is evidence that social-ecological knowledge and memories accumulate in communities across space and time. We learn that:

  • Social-ecological memory is the ‘knowledge, experience and practice about how to manage a local ecosystem and its services (that) is retained in a community, and modified, revived and transmitted through time” (4) (p. 3).
  • “In order for communities to leverage their social-ecological relationships into stewardship action, the system must retain biological memories” ... “that have survived a period of over-exploitation or other disturbance, and that provide the living material for reestablishing a new population” (p. 4).
  • Traditional ecological knowledge” accumulates over time as “individuals… interact with the surrounding ecosystem,” but absent of a long-term accumulation of such interactions and resulting knowledge, or when it is simply lost, “knowledge creation is a process that is not controlled or managed from the outside, but rather emerges through self-organized interactions of the participants in civic ecology and other practices” (pp. 8-9).

Application and Transmission

The chapter tells us there is evidence that social-ecological memories are shared and transmitted in communities through collective or social memories. We learn that:

  • Social-ecological memories “accumulate over multiple generations of resources users” and “story telling is one way of transmitting social-ecological memories across generations” (p. 3).
  • “Social-ecological memories can be transported to new locations and used to inform cultivation practices under radically different conditions” … and “[i]n some cases, rather than use native species, people may draw on biological memories of a different set of species than what originally occupied the site” (p. 7).
  • “[W]hen people move to a new location, the social-ecological memories they bring with them may not be sufficient to allow them to adapt their past practices to the new setting” (p. 8).

Adaptation and Innovation

The chapter tells us there is evidence that social-ecological memories can play a role in helping communities adapt and innovate in light of a disturbance or disaster. We learn that:

  • In some cases, social-ecological memories play “a role in adapting to natural disaster and to smaller disturbances in cities” (p. 4).
  • Social-ecological memories “are not simply a “stagnant pool of knowledge,” …but “a source of innovation that allows for “the recasting of core ideas from a deeper past so they can be used to respond to the new circumstances of the moment” (p. 3).
  • “[U]rban social-ecological systems where civic ecology practices transpire often differ widely from the places where the knowledge that is bring applied originated” thus, they “adapt their practices based on the positive and negative outcomes of their ‘field experiments’ in managing local natural resources” (p. 8).

Relative to my civic ecology practice at the National AIDS Memorial Grove, two key concepts stand out from the readings: (1) biophilic memory, and (2) urgent biophilia. Similar to the Living Memorials created after 9/11, the National AIDS Memorial Grove does not “necessarily represent a social-ecological memory among people who once farmed or otherwise had been engaged in environmental stewardship” nor were the founders of the National AIDS Memorial “directly tied to a memory of an iconic species…” (p. 6). Instead, the memorial was founded as an expression of biophilic memory and an outcome of urgent biophilia.

Biophilic memory refers to a “deep seated love of nature” that is “described in terms of human evolution” – or how collective memories in nature provide a “means to restore a sense of self and community” (p. 8).

Urgent biophilia refer to the application of biophilic memories in a context of crisis, desperation, destruction, and tragedy. Urgent biophilia can be seen as “expressing a deep seated memory of the healing role of nature” in conflict contexts.

However, I am also reminded that the tragedy of the AIDS pandemic is characteristically different from terrorism of 9/11, in relation to both space and time.

The AIDS pandemic continues today, it reaches all communities in the human population, and people continue to die from it each and every day. In essence, the civic ecology practices at the National AIDS Memorial are still unfolding because the virus continues to advance without a cure. In this sense, the tragedy is ongoing and unlimited (time), even if recent advancements in medical science have reduced its impact in many populations. Furthermore, it reaches every realm (space) of human existence.

In contrast, the tragedy of 9/11 was a fixed moment (time) in time that, eventually, has come to a conclusion for the areas (space) it impacted (Lower Manhattan, Washington, D.C., etc.). A decade after the event, we still memorialize the tragedy, but the sense of renewal and recovery comes from a context of conclusion and resilience.

It is my hope that one day we will find a cure to AIDS so that the living memorial no longer represents a living tragedy. At the moment, both the memorial and the tragedy are unfolding in profound ways ripe with opportunities for further study, especially since there are so few examples of ongoing tragedies of this magnitude.


Describe how you and your fellow civic ecology practitioners talk about memories in relation to your civic ecology practices. What social-ecological memories do you and they recall?

Relative to my civic ecology practice at the National AIDS Memorial Grove, I am interested in focusing on five typological aspects of socio-ecological memories, symbols, and knowledge: (1) type of disaster, (2) type of civic ecology practices, (3) types of knowledge, (4) types of outcomes, and (4) methods of transmission.

Type of Disaster

1. At the National AIDS Memorial Grove, social-ecological memories are the result of a specific type of natural disaster: disease.

Simply put: AIDS had/has an impact on human populations, not on a physical space. Although comparable in magnitude to the world’s deadliest disasters, AIDS has not affected the broader ecosystem in the way an earthquake, tornado, tsunami, or other natural disaster would (in many ways it’s also different than most human-caused disasters, such as terrorism, violence, and war).

At the same time, we can recognize its human impacts and also recognize its natural basis. The disease is a virus, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon that affects all cellular life, in one way or another.

In this view, disease is a unique type of disaster: its consequences are limited to a particular species in an ecosystem (in this case, humans) and its cause is a naturally occurring phenomenon (in this case, a virus).

Relative to social-ecological memories and knowledge, it is important to note that the National AIDS Memorial Grove is different from other living memorials because of the type of disaster. There is no known cure for HIV/AIDS, so the human tragedy continues to unfold. Accordingly, there are undoubtedly profound implications for studying this type of disaster, relative to socio-ecological memories across time and space.

Type of Civic Ecology Practice

2. At the National AIDS Memorial Grove, social-ecological memories are rooted in transformative, rather than restorative, civic ecology practices.

The Grove is a memorial that has transformed the natural space, rather than restored the natural space.

In the 1860s, Golden Gate Park was carved out of sand and shore dunes that were known as the “outside lands” beyond San Francisco’s expanding borders. The park drew its name from the nearby Golden Gate strait. In order to develop on the dunes, the first stage of the park’s cultivation centered on planting trees. By 1879, over 155,000 trees were planted over 1,000 acres, securing the soil for development.

The Grove is located on the de Laveaga Dell, originally a recreational space that included a lake, meandering stream, irises, over-hanging oaks and spectacular ferns. In the early days, the Dell was known as the Deer Glen and used by the zoo to house animals. The Dell was well maintained during the first half of the 19th century, but later suffered from a lack of funds for maintenance and deteriorated in to a derelict site.

In the 1990s, volunteers cleaned and transformed the de Laveaga Dell, while raising funds for an endowment to maintain the memorial in perpetuity. That is, they did not restore the Dell to its natural state, which would have been impossible due to the changes in Golden Gate Park since the 1860s. Instead, they “cleaned it up” as an act of stewardship, not as an act of restoring it to its natural habitat and ecology. In this urban park, complete true restoration is almost impossible.

Type of Knowledge

3. At the National AIDS Memorial Grove, social-ecological memories are based on both traditional ecological knowledge, as well as new knowledge particular to the memorial and Golden Gate Park.

In my own civic ecology practices, I have written and published a new resource, The Grove Field Guide, (see: http://adam.badwound.org/grove-field-guide/) which provides an overview of the Grove's cultural and natural history, along with plant pictures, identification information, and a species list.

In writing the Guide, I tried to use as many examples of “traditional ecological knowledge” as well as cultural and mythological symbols. A few examples include:

California buckthorn (Frangula californica)

This native plant is also known as coffeeberry because its berries contain seeds that look like coffee beans. American Indians found it to be an herbal laxative, but only in small quantities since the effects of the plant are quite powerful.

Common yarrow (Achillea millefolium)

American Indians considered it to be a "life medicine,” so they chewed it for toothaches, earaches, headaches, and drank it as tea to reduce fever and aid in restful sleep.

Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii)

American Indians have been known to eat the berries, but since they have high tannin content and are thus astringent, theywere more often chewed or made  into a cider. An iconic example is found near the base of the creek in The Grove, near the Crossroads Circle.

In this example, I draw upon cultural symbolism:

Blanket flowers (Genus Gaillardia)

The common name refers to the flower's resemblance to brightly patterned blankets made by American Indians.

In this example, I draw upon mythological symbolism:

African iris (Dietes iridioides)

These beautiful flowers are named for the Greek goddess Iris, a messenger of the gods who traveled by rainbow.

When possible, I am trying to incorporate “traditional ecological knowledge” into my civic ecology practices at the Grove.

Yet, the readings remind us: “social-ecological memories can be transported to new locations and used to inform cultivation practices under radically different conditions” and that the “biological memories used in a restoration project may come from outside of the system being restored” (Krasny & Tidball, Civic Ecology, p. 7).

To this point, I am reminded that the Grove also has another important resources that we use on our monthly volunteer workdays: a weed guide.  This resource helps stewards of the Grove identify and remove invasive or unwanted species from the Grove. This guide was crafted by the Grove’s gardener and reflects his working knowledge of the relationships among the living species in the Grove, as well as its manicured beauty as a botanical garden.

As a civic ecology practitioner, I’ve been thinking about what it means (mostly for plants) to be indigenous/native, introduced/non-native, naturalized, invasive, and/or ornamental - to name a few of the terms used to describe the ecological characteristics of the species living in a given habitat. Defining these concepts reminds me of parallels to the various human definitions of place of origin, adaptation, inhabitation, colonization, and immigration.

Taken together, these resources help stewards of the Grove understand their civic ecology practice, relative to the types of knowledge that come from our socio-ecological memories.

Type of Outcomes

4. At the National AIDS Memorial Grove, social-ecological memories and knowledge tend to produce emotional and psychological outcomes.

Particularly in relation to “biophilic memory” and “urgent biophilia,” the Grove is similar to many living memorials in that its civic ecology practices (i.e. stewardship activities) are a “means for humans to express such biophilic memories when they are in desperate need of a means to restore sense of self and community” (Krasny & Tidball, Civic Ecology, p. 6). Furthermore, the readings cite numerous examples of emotional and psychological outcomes related to civic ecology practices. 

To this point, the readings point to the connection between emotional/psychological outcomes and complex individual/social human processes, such as grieving, healing, and learning.

One passage states, “Such greening activities are one form of memorialization, which has been described as: the process of creating physical representations or commemorative activities that concern events in the past and are located in public spaces… designed to evoke a specific reaction or set of reactions, including public acknowledgement of the event or people represented; personal reflection or mourning; pride, anger, or sadness about something that has happened; or learning or curiosity about periods in the past” (Brett et al. 2007, p. 1, cited in Tidball et al. 2010, p. 593).

To sum: the Grove exemplifies the phenomenon that they call “spontaneous memorialization” as well as “urgent biophilia” in ways that demonstrate emotional and psychological outcomes that contribute to broader individual and social processes.

Methods of Transmission

5. At the National AIDS Memorial Grove, social-ecological memories are transmitted through stories, cultural symbols, and community ceremonies.

We know that “storytelling is one way of transmitting social-ecological memories across generations” (Krasny & Tidball, Civic Ecology, p. 3) and I am pleased to report that as a member of the Grove’s Board of Directors, “telling the story” has been an important part of our strategic planning process, currently underway.

As part of this process, we started by revising our mission statement, which had historically been quite long, confusing, and difficult to understand. In revising the mission statement, we identified two areas of primary importance: (1) not forgetting the lives lost to AIDS, and (2) making the story known to future generations.

Our revised mission statement reads:

“The mission of the National AIDS Memorial Grove is to provide, in perpetuity, a place of remembrance, so that the lives of people who have died from AIDS are not forgotten and the story is known by future generations.”

The first part of this mission serves the traditional “memorial” role – providing a space to remember the lives lost to AIDS. Of the second part of the mission, one key word stands out: the “story.”

Storytelling is an important way to transmit social-ecological memories and as we move forward with our strategic plan, I am thrilled to be a part of the Grove’s attempt to focus on storytelling in the future.

As co-chair of the Grove’s World AIDS Day Observance, I also know that our ceremonies are one way that we tell “the story” and evoke the memories of lives lost.

Taken together, interpretive materials (such as a mission statement and strategic plan), events (such as World AIDS Day and Light in the Grove), are fundamentally methods of transmitting social-ecological knowledge, as well as serving the functional role of memorialization in the midst of this ongoing human tragedy.


Reflect on how you’ve heard fellow civic ecology practitioners talk about their memories and any memories you have brought to your practice.

Generally, my fellow civic ecology practitioners at the National AIDS Memorial Grove speak from a place of loss, sorrow, and hope. One tag line that I put forth in my creation of The Grove Field Guide is that “the Grove is a place for us all to gather, grieve, and grow.”

To me, these three words exemplify how I talk about my own relationship to the space, the disease, and the memorial.

Gather: the Grove is a place in perpetuity (for the public) for people to come together. AIDS has touched each American life in one way or another – directly or indirectly – so it is important to recognize the Grove as a place for everyone.

Grieve: the Grove is a memorial, for people to remember those who died and to mourn their loss. It’s a place to remember and respect.

Grow: the Grove is a living space dedicated to an uncured disease. Growth reflects resilience and renewal, as well as hope and learning.

As a person that is not HIV+ and does not have AIDS, my relationship to the Grove does not necessarily reflect my own memories, social-ecological or otherwise. Rather, it reflects the collective memory of my community – particularly as a gay man living in San Francisco. To this point, I often say, “I live with AIDS – not in my body, in my community.” At this point, that’s how I describe my memories in relation to my civic ecology practices.


Take a moment to reflect on recent experiences in your own civic ecology practice that are likely to become strong memories in the years ahead.

In the years ahead, my hope is that by becoming a better civic ecologist, I will be able to inform and influence the Grove in advancing its mission. In the future, hope to look back at these moments of civic ecology education as an important formative stage of my civic ecology development and research.

In this way, my education in civic ecology practices is a form of memory, as I will draw from it for many years from now – I can already tell. 

 


As an entry in my Civic Ecology Practice Journal, this post is part of a 12-week course through the Civic Ecology Lab at Cornell University.