Nature connection shapes how we perceive and create

In environmental psychology, “nature connection” (sometimes called nature relatedness or connectedness to nature) refers to the psychological, emotional and experiential bond we have with the natural world. It includes how we feel about nature, how we think about our place within it, and how we behave in response to it.

Validated measures such as the Nature Relatedness Scale and the Connectedness to Nature Scale consistently show that higher levels of nature connection are associated with:

• Greater well-being
• Reduced stress
• Stronger pro-environmental behaviour
• Increased ecological concern

Researchers such as Professor Miles Richardson have also documented generational declines in everyday nature engagement — a shift that is not only cultural, but cognitive and experiential. When contact with the living world diminishes, so too can our ease in perceiving, interpreting and caring for it.

For those of us working in biomimicry, this has real implications.

Perception is a core biomimicry competency

One of the foundational competencies of biomimicry is the ability to perceive patterns and principles in living systems.

Research shows that deep nature connection engages multiple sensory pathways — not just sight, but sound, smell, touch and proprioception. This kind of multisensory immersion sharpens perceptual awareness and strengthens our capacity to notice relationships, behaviours and dynamics in ecosystems.

Nature connection has also been shown to enhance attention, working memory and executive function — cognitive capacities essential for:

• Systems thinking
• Pattern recognition
• Sustained observation
• Complex problem framing

Attention Restoration Theory suggests that natural environments replenish directed attention through “soft fascination,” allowing the mind to reset and regain clarity. Many studies and meta-analyses now confirm improvements in attentional capacity and cognitive flexibility after time spent in natural settings.

These are not peripheral skills in biomimicry. They are central.

Nature and creativity: seeing with fresh eyes

Creativity lies at the heart of biomimicry — reframing problems, generating novel connections, translating biological strategies into human design.

A growing body of research demonstrates that immersion in natural environments enhances divergent thinking, originality and creative performance. Students working in greenspaces, for example, often generate more flexible and original ideas than those working solely in classroom environments. Natural environments support a more exploratory, open mode of cognition — precisely the mental state required to generate innovative, life-aligned solutions.

Beyond imitation: toward ecological literacy

Biomimicry asks more of us than copying form. It calls us into understanding function, systems, interdependence and the principles that sustain life.

Nature connection research shows that direct, embodied experience in living systems deepens awareness of ecological relationships and fosters a sense of belonging within ecosystems. This shift in identity — from observer of nature to participant within it — supports deeper systemic thinking and ethical grounding.

Stronger nature connection consistently predicts stronger pro-environmental behaviour. For biomimicry practitioners, whose work seeks alignment with life’s principles, maintaining and strengthening personal connection supports sustained motivation, reciprocity and long-term commitment.

Connection nourishes the practitioner, not just the practice.

Strengthening the practitioner from the inside out

Over the past twelve years, I’ve worked as a nature connection practitioner and trainer, closely collaborating with Jon Young - founder of the 8 Shields and Connection First deep nature connection body of work. Alongside this I’ve kept up with the rapidly expanding academic research into nature connection. Again and again, I see how strongly the research supports what many biomimicry practitioners intuitively know:

The deeper our relationship with the living world, the richer our capacity to learn from it.

Practices such as sit spots, sensory expansion, wandering, tracking, bird language and gratitude — described beautifully in Coyote's Guide to Connecting with Nature (Haas, McGown, Young) — cultivate curiosity, awareness, empathy and creative insight. They actively enhance:

• Observation
• Pattern recognition
• Ecological literacy
• Creativity
• Systems thinking
• Well-being and resilience

Integrating nature connection into biomimicry training is therefore a foundation for good practice. It is a research-supported pathway to deepening the capacities that meaningful, life-aligned design depends upon.

An invitation

If you are a biomimicry practitioner or educator who senses that your work would benefit from deeper roots…

If you would like structured, research-informed practices to strengthen your ecological awareness and perceptual capacity…

I am offering a four-week course in collaboration with The Biomimicry Institute, Restoring Your Ecological Awareness, beginning March 5th, meeting one evening per week throughout March. In addition to our weekly calls there will be practices to explore and apply in between.

It is designed to gently but powerfully deepen your lived relationship with the natural world — in ways that directly support biomimicry practice.

Designing for life’s complexity begins with remembering that we are part of it.

Course details:

• Thursdays, March 5th, 12th, 19th, 26th | 11-12:30pm PT 
• Recordings available
• No biomimicry experience required
• Registration Link: https://lnkd.in/gNVBhcQs
• Discount Code: COURSE20

article by Root Cutbertson 2023   

part of a series on Regenerative Design Principles.

“There are no separate systems.  The world is a continuum.”  – Donella Meadows 
“Everything, the whole universe, everything in it, is one unbroken wholeness.” – Dave Hora 

A fundamental organizing principle of living systems is wholeness.

Caution! Hazard: if you were raised in a westernized society, you may have been conditioned by a worldview based on separation to think about parts more than wholeness. This has happened a lot. Thinking about wholeness can feel like stretching your brain in strange new directions. You may feel some discomfort or resistance. Don't worry too much if you struggle with this. As an author, i often struggle with this. It doesn't help that the modern English language tends to reinforce a worldview of separation. English is based more on nouns than on verbs, emphasizing objects more than processes. (As designers, we may benefit from co-creating new language as we go!) The words here represent my best attempt as an author at the time of writing. i am painfully aware of their limitations. Please forgive me if you find them imperfect or unhelpful.

For infants and young children, perceiving wholeness can be simple and straightforward. Many infants begin their life with a sense of undifferentiated wholeness, and develop more perception of separation as they grow. Young children, while their identity and individuality is still fluid and not-yet-fully-formed, can often access their empathy, imagination, and 'magical thinking.' In westernized societies, a common pattern is for children to 'outgrow' these perceptions, along with their perception of wholeness. For more mature adults, perceiving wholeness can feel like trying to remember ways they perceived the world during childhood. It often involves a shift in perspective away from what has become habitual thinking.

image by Sergio Cerrato/Pixabay

Systems Thinking

When you begin shifting your perspective to perceive wholeness, you begin to engage in systems thinking, which underlies how you understand and interact with living systems. Fritjof Capra describes systems thinking as emphasizing wholeness instead of parts. It is “a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things; for seeing patterns of change rather than static 'snapshots.'”

At first, some patterns and interrelationships may be easier to perceive. For example: a child who enjoys watching (and catching!) tadpoles, may become curious about their amphibian metamorphosis into frogs; and then about the predators who eat them; and then about the wetlands where they live; and then about how their life cycle interacts with their environment (what kinds of bugs they eat, what happens to their poop, where they lay their eggs, how they survive the winter, what happens when they die). A child often relies on adults to tell them stories that reveal such patterns and interrelationships. And if the child pays enough attention, they can confirm the patterns in these stories for themselves, or discover new patterns. As they grow older, the child may find similar patterns and relationships throughout the living world (What else metamorphoses? Who else has a life cycle?) Experiences like this can reinforce systems thinking.

No True Separation

On both the micro and macro levels, there is no true separation. When two 'solid' objects 'touch', it is only the electromagnetic fields of their molecules interacting that makes them appear to remain separate. The living systems of our planet are contained by a layered blanket of air: the upper ionosphere gradually feathering into what we call 'outer space;' the lower atmosphere serving to contain the wholeness we call the biosphere or the ecosphere. From this perspective, the many environments of our planet are not truly separate: they are one wholeness.

As designers, perceiving wholeness, in any situation, in any context, (in every situation, in every context) can help us consider whether, when, and how we can best intervene in a living system. When designing it is beneficial to remember that we are also nested within (and in relationship with) the world; that the environment immediately around us is nested within a larger ecosphere; that the wholeness in which we are embedded means nothing is ever truly separate (see 1-2 Nestedness).

And, while separation may not truly exist at these fundamental levels, human neurobiology evolved to perceive separations. Much of daily human life involves discerning distinctions, gradations, patterns, contrasts, polarities. Our human knack for perceiving separation can be quite helpful at times. It has allowed us to notice aspects of the natural world that we have learned to exploit for our own benefit and survival. It allows us to separate and categorize information so as to more easily convey and transmit ideas to others (much as i am doing now as an author).

Instead of an 'either-or' polarity, a 'both-and' approach may be beneficial. We humans have the ability to perceive both wholeness and separation. We can emphasize one or the other depending on the context or situation.

image by Alexa/Pixabay

Boundaries and Containment

“Where to draw a boundary around a system is arbitrary.”  – Donella Meadows

Many people raised in a westernized society are conditioned to identify boundaries: the places where one thing is separated from another thing. This is often accompanied by a worldview that emphasizes the separateness of things. Systems thinker Donella Meadows suggests widening this worldview. When you perceive wholeness, when nothing is truly separate, boundaries become a construction of convenience – a short-hand way to describe distinctions and differences. When you perceive wholeness, you know that the separation of boundaries is not the ultimate reality; and, simultaneously, boundaries may be helpful for a time, to help you more accurately describe your perceptions to others.

The shift in perspective that accompanies systems thinking reimagines boundaries: instead of impregnable barriers that enforce separation, they are more like permeable membranes (see 3-4 Membrane/Threshold). They are places of connection where nested components interact (see 1-2 Nestedness). They are open to exchanging with and being influenced by neighboring systems (see 1-7 Networks, see 7-8 Allow Flow). They provide an edge or margin where experimentation, diversity, mixing, adaptation, and evolution are encouraged and make sense. A boundary might even be a temporary frame that allows an exploration of a certain pattern or set of relationships. It might reflect an agreement that affects a wider system, or even the entire whole: a specialization, a localization, or a concentration that provides wider benefits.

For example: the human body is composed of cells organized into several systems, which all interact to provide benefit for the whole. Every cell's DNA carries a map of the entire whole: it is possible to clone an entire human, with all its systems, from the DNA within a single cell. Every cell, however, 'agrees' to only express a portion of the entire map. Clusters of similarly expressed cells form concentrations and specializations within the body, sometimes even forming a membrane around the cluster. These clusters form organs, bones, nerves, skin, tissues. Lung cells, for instance, are clearly distinct from other types of cells. They form a membrane around the organs called lungs. Across this membrane, lung cells regularly interact with other systems: circulatory system, nervous system, endocrine system, digestive system, muscular system. They specialize in obtaining and providing key benefits for the entire whole.

For example: an arbitrary boundary might help a group explore within a temporary frame, to better understand patterns and relationships. A team-building exercise called 'Cross the Line' invites separating into a number of temporary groupings, based on obvious or not-so-obvious characteristics or experiences. Such groupings call attention to patterns in how group members typically interact; and how awareness of those patterns might shift those interactions. Raising awareness around shared characteristics can help reduce a sense of separation and increase a sense of connection.

Everyone 'cross the line' who: 
has brown hair
has one or more sibling
speaks more than one language
has ever eaten rice
has been affected by a disability, your own or someone you know
has been affected by the death of a family member
has been discriminated against or the target of an unfair stereotype
has been bullied
has stood by and felt helpless while witnessing someone being bullied
has been a bully
has felt alone, unwelcome, or afraid
has wished to change something about their body
has questioned their gender identity
has received help from a stranger
has stood up for something they believe in

It may be helpful to remember that frames and boundaries can be temporary. Living systems can adjust or re-arrange their own boundaries, depending on the situation – so they might last for a longer or a shorter time. A basic Buddhist belief suggests that everything can be perceived as temporary, especially from a long-term perspective. In time, separate forms arise and pass away, while an underlying wholeness remains.

Carol Sanford describes living systems as including “structures of support and containment.” Containment is an important aspect, because it defines the limits of a system. A living system's regulation only affects whatever is contained within its boundaries (see 3-3 Feedback, see 3-4 Membranes, see 3-6 Contain Reactions). This relates to the principle of Nestedness, as well as Arthur Koestler's and Ken Wilber's description of 'holons' (see 1-2 Nestedness). A living system can be described as a holon, containing its own wholeness; while simultanesouly being nested within a larger system, a larger holon; and all holons are contained within a Universal wholeness.

image by Sergio Cerrato/Pixabay

Structures, components, processes

Carol Sanford reminds designers to begin by perceiving wholeness, especially when planning to intervene in living systems to promote regeneration. While perceiving wholeness, designers can ask more helpful questions about several aspects of living systems. Sanford points out that living systems are self-organizing – they create and arrange their own structures, components, and processes (see 1-7 Networks).

Structures typically support (like a skeleton), circulate (like a river), or contain (like a membrane). Structures can also serve to interlink neighboring systems (like a revolving door, or a ferry).

Components typically organize (concentrate, specialize, or localize) activities. Within the human body, organs are components, often contained by membranes, linked to various activities and sub-systems.

Processes are the ways things typically happen. Several components and structures can be involved in a process. For example, human respiration. Parasympathetic nerve cells stimulate diaphragm muscles, which expand the chest, drawing air into the lungs. Lung cells then absorb oxygen and transfer it to circulating red blood cells, which are then pumped by the heart through blood vessels to deliver oxygen throughout the body.

Some processes have a focus that is more internal, while others are more external. For example: DNA replication and transcription are typically internal processes. Breathing and eating are more external processes, involving interacting with neighboring systems. Membranes are key aspects of these interactions, since they allow for the containment of internal processes, while also remaining open to exchanges with neighboring systems. While living systems are mostly self-reliant, they also typically require a few external inputs, and ways to allow those external inputs to become internalized. They typically develop processes, components, and structures to enable exchanges across membranes (see 3-4 Membranes/Thresholds, see 7-8 Allow Flow).

Sanford argues that it is living systems' wholeness – the combined integration of their structures, components, and processes – that allows regeneration. She further suggests that regeneration necessarily involves these structures, components, and processes. For example: regenerating a degraded forest requires understanding its place within its local context, its watershed and ecosystem; as well as the local economy, and the human needs that likely led to the forest's decline in the first place.

Properties

Daniel Wahl proposes that patterns and properties emerge from the relationships and interactions that arise between the structures, components, and processes of a living system. These patterns and properties contribute to any system's wholeness. Fritjof Capra points out that sustainability can be one of these properties, often involving a whole community and its web of relationships. For designers aiming to improve on sustainability, however, patterns and properties that uplift regeneration may be more helpful.

Christopher Alexander attempted to describe such patterns as 'properties of wholeness.' Nikos Salingaros and Dave Hora have continued expanding on Alexander's ideas, exploring how these properties might inform various human designs. They are all based on perceiving wholeness. Some derive from mathematics (Gradients, Local Symmetry, Levels of Scale) or fractal geometry (Altering Repetition, Roughness). Some of these properties are more intuitive and easy to understand (Spacious Boundaries, Contrast, Echoes, Simplicity); others less so (The Void, Good Shapes). Let's explore four of Alexander's properties a little more: Strong Centers; Positive Space; Deep Interlock and Ambiguity; Non-Separateness.

Strong Centers

Dave Hora writes: “In every situation, there is a wholeness that we are working within. From this wholeness – in and of this wholeness – centers arise. The world is constructed from a field of interlocking and overlapping centers. Life comes from the strength, the well-formed-ness, of each center. An amplifying center, or set of centers, helps to bind together the whole. An example: The human head is a center. Each eye, on its own, is a center. The mouth, alone, is a center. The nose, a center. The face – the configuration of eyes, nose, mouth, other features – is a center defined by the centers that contain it, the centers that it contains, and most importantly, the relationships between all of those centers and how they enhance or strengthen each other center in this area of wholeness.” Note the many similarities a 'strong center' shares with a 'holon.'

Positive Space

Dave Hora writes: “In a field of centers exhibiting Positive Space, every bit of space is substantial, it 'swells outward,' it is geometrically and spatially positive. Nothing feels left over. Alexander describes Positive Space where the centers grow together like the kernels of corn on a cob, staying coherent, packing together, adapting themselves each to the adjustment of the other kernels around them.” Nikos Salingaros adds: “Wholes and the spaces between them form an unbroken continuous arrangement.”

diagrams by Camillo Visini

Deep Interlock and Ambiguity

Dave Hora writes: “In living structures centers are “hooked” into their surrounding centers, so centers enmesh in their surroundings. Two centers, seemingly separate, interact with one another or “grip” each other in such a way as to provide clear interlock between their pieces, or ambiguity where their edges come together. In either case, there is some zone between multiple centers where their self-contained-ness breaks down. In successful cases, there is no abruptness, no jarring disconnect. If that zone is particularly well formed and a healthy center in its own right, we may also be looking at a Boundary.” Nikos Salingaros adds: “Forms interpenetrate to link together. Two regions can interpenetrate at a semi-permeable interface, which enables a transition from one region to another. There is ambiguity as to which side of the interface one belongs to while inside the transition region.”

Non-separateness

Dave Hora writes, quoting Alexander: “'Each center is connected to the whole world'. It connects each center, up and down in size, recursively by scaling, to its surroundings, from the smallest detail to the whole world it is a part of.” Nikos Salingaros expands: “Not-separateness comes after achieving coherence. Coherence is an emergent property—not present in the individual components. In a larger coherent whole, no piece can be taken away. Decomposition is neither obvious, nor possible. When every component is cooperating to give a coherent whole, nothing looks separate, and nothing draws attention to itself.”

“This is the goal of adaptive design: a seamless blending of an enormous number of complex components. This is the opposite of willful separateness. Not-separateness goes beyond internal coherence, because the whole connects as much as possible to its environment.”  - Nikos Salingaros

Daniel Wahl describes wholeness in living systems as “a set of interconnected elements that together form a coherent pattern.” Again, note the similarity to holons in a coherent holarchy (see 1-2 Nestedness).

More Dynamic, Less Static

Both Daniel Wahl and Carol Sanford emphasize processes, relationships, and interactions. A shift toward perceiving wholeness may involve focusing less on static 'things' and more on dynamic processes.

“A whole is a dynamic 'coming into being' through mutual reciprocity (interbeing) with its parts.  Neither the whole nor the parts are primary.  They co-arise.  The wholeness of nature is not a thing, but a process of 'coming into being' through relationship.  So everything is 'natural' and 'nature' manifests through everything... From a participatory understanding of the wholeness of nature, the whole of life is not a thing, but a process that 'comes into being' through all living beings and their relationships.  Life is a transformative process that weaves trillions of 'individual' manifestations of being alive through and in relationships into an underlying unity.”   – Daniel Wahl 

One way to help this shift, to de-emphasize the static and emphasize the dynamic, may be to focus less on nouns and more on verbs. Calvin Po suggests that more-noun-based language can be extractive and disconnective, describing “natural resources” as a bunch of disconnected “inert objects” or “passive backdrops.” More-verb-based language can re-emphasize embodied, active beings and experiences; dynamic connections and patterns of relationship. Perceiving wholeness might reveal how much we humans are entangled with the wider world, mutually participating in a multitude of relationships and their co-arising.

image by Pete Linforth/Pixabay

Emergence: Surprise!

Perceiving wholeness means perceiving more than the sum of the parts. If you view a collection of parts as a bunch of “inert objects,” without any relationships or dynamic interactions between them, you are not perceiving wholeness. The interactions between various components help define “their significance and identity,” their belonging to the wholeness, according to Wahl. It is only through these dynamic interactions that the wholeness “comes into being.” This is a form of mutual dependence: the parts and the whole cannot exist without each other, since they mutually co-arise. (see 1-6 Interdependence). This echoes Salingaros's description of coherence.

The 'something more' that arises, is very difficult to define, predict, or control. Amay Kataria describes it this way: the world is composed of holons at various scales. When holons combine to form holarchies (like a collection of cells combining to form the systems that comprise a human being), 'something more' emerges. A human being is more than a collection of cells and systems.

This property of emergence is intrinsic to wholeness, holons, and every living system. It can express creatively, flexibly, and surprisingly. Arthur Koestler called its unpredictability “something unique and powerful.” Perceiving wholeness may involve noticing what surprises are emerging from the relationships and interactions within and between systems (see 8-8 Allow Emergence, see 4-8 Integrate the Unexpected, see 6-8 Allow Change).

image by Sergio Cerrato/Pixabay

Aliveness, Wellbeing, Healing

Alexander tried to describe this 'something more' in several ways. Speaking most directly to architects, planners, and designers of human spaces, he used terms like 'aliveness.' He asked: how can we humans design and create spaces that feel 'more alive'? He hoped designers would begin to use his properties of wholeness in their designs. He hoped this would add strength, boldness, beauty, and aliveness to human creations, helping them to be more aligned with their surrounding environment, more unified with (or even indistinguishable from) the surrounding wholeness of the world.

Alexander developed his properties of wholeness between the 1950s and 1980s, when plenty of 'modernists' were designing and creating sterile spaces devoid of aliveness, disconnected from a sense of wholeness. Some of the built environments of this time (inside which many people still live today) are deliberately 'incoherent', lacking the properties of wholeness. They were designed to be disturbing, alarming, and exciting, drawing attention to their architects. Salingaros states that such violation of the properties of wholeness “causes physiological anxiety for the users.” He claims that such 'brutalism' affects people subconsciously, and may reinforce a sense of dis-ease and lack of wellbeing.

Salingaros proposes instead studying the properties of wholeness, which give rise to coherent forms. He says that “coherence is healing:” it promotes wellbeing. Alexander also used the term 'healthy.' The words 'whole,' 'health,' and 'healing' all come from the same root stem. To heal literally means 'to make whole.' Or to re-connect to a surrounding wholeness. Alexander advocated for creating healthy structures in human built environments – buildings designed with the properties of wholenes, that promote aliveness, health, and wellbeing.

Salingaros further suggests that “making wholeness heals the maker." When you design with wholeness in mind, you yourself become 'healed;' you become more whole in your own self, and you become part of that wholeness you help to create. Wholeness therefore has bearing on your own well-being. This is why, on a deep level, you feel 'more alive' in a whole and healthy environment. Hora puts it like this: you feel 'more alive' when you interact with environments that feel 'more alive.' Such spaces help you to feel more connected to the surrounding wholeness, and thus to become more whole.

Hora notes how expansively Alexander's ideas could be applied: many societal institutions could be re-designed with wholeness in mind. Any aspect of human creation – from the built environment to activities, organizations, policies, or laws – could be re-designed to feel 'more alive,' to contribute to wellbeing and wholeness (see 4-1 Health, see 4-4 Collective Responsibility).

Designing with Wholeness in Mind

Expand the individual view. Donella Meadows contradicts the popular notion held by capitalist economists that systems are best guided by individual self-interest. She argues that the individual view is not the best basis for determining the wellbeing of a whole system. “The bounded rationality of each actor in a system may not lead to decisions that further the welfare of the system as a whole.” Expanding the individual view by perceiving wholeness may be more helpful (see 4-4 Collective Responsibility).

Beware the analysis of parts. Fritjof Capra reminds designers that deconstructing and analyzing the parts of a system rarely aids in understanding a system's wholeness. Even the properties of parts “can only be understood within the context of the larger whole.” Carol Sanford agrees that parts analysis, while common, is ultimately unhelpful, a pathway away from perceiving wholeness.

Beware over-focus on function. A capitalist-individualist worldview (which is very common in westernized societies) typically over-focuses on function, asking 'what does it do?', 'what is it for?', 'what can it do for me?' or 'what can I get out of it?' Carol Sanford cautions that such an approach tends to fragment wholeness, and ends up emphasizing parts again, not perceiving wholeness.

Use frameworks, not models. Meadows reminds designers that “everything we think we know about the world is a model. While models do have strong congruence with reality, they fall short of representing the real world fully.” Sanford warns against over-reliance upon models, since in westernized societies they typically represent a predict-and-control cookie-cutter approach to replicating something precisely. Models are often used to design factory assembly-lines, to conform to a pre-existing patttern, or to problem-solve by generating answers. By contrast, frameworks help generate questions, says Sanford. This allows designers to “repeatedly rethink a situation or project, inviting higher quality reasoning, intuition and energy, as it reveals evolving connections and relationships.” A framework can help generate new questions and thinking that are more relevant to changing contexts, timings, and patterns. Compared to models, frameworks are a much better tool for perceiving wholeness.

image by DGSstudios/Pixabay

Use systems thinking. Fritjof Capra calls systems thinking “seeing interrelationships rather than things; seeing patterns of change rather than static 'snapshots.'” Charles Krone advised “using systemic frameworks and developmental processes to consciously improve the capacity to apply systems thinking to the evolution of human or social living systems.”

Promote regenerative development. Pamela Mang and Bill Reed suggest designers “develop strategic systemic thinking capacities... to ensure regenerative design processes achieve maximum systemic leverage and support.” They suggest designers find “technologies and strategies for generating the patterned whole-system understanding of a place.” They define “place” as: “the unique, multilayered network of ecosystems within a geographic region that results from the complex interactions through time of the natural ecology (climate, mineral deposits, soil, vegetation, water, wildlife) and culture (distinctive customs, expressions of values, economic activities, forms of association, ideas for education, traditions).”

Healing and Regenerating

Quoting several dictionaries, Mang and Reed offer this definition: “Regenerate: To give new life or energy; to revitalize; to bring or come into renewed existence; to impart more vigorous life. To form, construct, or create anew, especially in an improved state; to restore to a better state, refreshed or renewed. To improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful.” To this they add Jenkin and Pedersen Zari's definition of “restorative design: a design system that combines returning 'polluted, degraded or damaged sites back to a state of acceptable health through human intervention' with biophiliac designs that reconnect people to nature.”

As regenerative designers, we have a responsibility to “prioritize the good of the whole system,” as Donella Meadows put it. As we shift toward perceiving wholeness, we can better uplift systems thinking, re-framing problems, and generating questions that better address everyone's needs. We can imagine regenerative and restorative designs, ones that will leave the world better than how we found it.

Dave Hora says that the world is not always beautiful or comfortable, nor are human creations always sensibly designed. These can be improved, and as designers, we can be the ones to begin improving them. “Where we have influence on the structure of some area of the world, we can and should work to heal that place.” To work to heal a place is to strive to make it more whole, or more connected to its surrounding wholeness. Carol Sanford urges us to begin by perceiving wholeness, then to work regeneratively to increase wholeness and healing.

“Those who work with wholes create cascades of beneficial change through strategic interventions. This is the way we need to work, by intervening intelligently in whole systems for the purpose of regenerating them.” – Carol Sanford

image by Okan Kaliskan/Pixabay

References

Alexander, Christopher; S. Ishikawa; M. Silverstein; M. Jacobson; I. Fiksdahl-King; S. Angel (1977). A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press.

Alexander, Christopher (2002). The Nature of Order, Book 1: The Phenomenon of Life. Routledge.

Alexander, Christopher (2002). The Nature of Order, Book 2: The Process of Creating of Life. Routledge.

Alexander, Christopher (2002). The Nature of Order, Book 3: A Vision of a Living World. Routledge.

Alexander, Christopher (2003). The Nature of Order, Book 4: The Luminous Ground. Routledge.

Capra, Fritjof (1996). The Web of Life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Anchor Books.

Capra, Fritjof and Pier Luigi Luisi (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press.

DeKay, Mark (2011). Integral Sustainable Design: Transformative Perspectives. Earthscan. DOI:10.4324/9781849775366

Hora, Dave (2020). “Nature of Order #1: Christopher Alexander's work and its importance in shaping a healthy, living world.”

Hora, Dave (2020). “Nature of Order #2: The First Eight of Christopher Alexander's 15 Fundamental Properties of Wholeness.”

Hora, Dave (2020). “Nature of Order #3: Nos. 9-15 of Christopher Alexander's 15 Fundamental Properties of Wholeness.”

Jenkin S, and M. Pedersen Zari (2009). “Rethinking Our Built Environments: towards a sustainable future.” Ministry for the Environment, Manatu Mo Te Taiao, Wellington.

Kataria, Amay (2020). “A Brief Primer on Holons and Holarchy.” https://www.manacontemporary.com/editorial/a-brief-primer-on-holons-and-holarchy/

Koestler, Arthur (1967). The Ghost in the Machine. Hutchinson.

Krone, Charles (2001). West coast resource development: session notes. Unpublished transcription of dialogue by members of the Institute for Developmental Processes, Carmel

Mang, Pamela and Bill Reed (2012). “Regenerative Development and Design.” In: Meyers, R.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_303

Meadows, Donella (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green.

Po, Calvin (2023). "Verbs Not Nouns: How language can shape alternate worldviews." https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/verbs-not-nouns-how-language-can-shape-alternate-worldviews-giyu-tjauvaljian-yu-chieh-wu

Roös, Phillip B. (2021). "Living Structures: The Fundamental Properties of Wholeness" in: Regenerative-Adaptive Design for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53234-5_9

Salingaros, Nikos Angelos (2013). "ch. 11 (19). Christopher Alexander's 15 Fundamental Properties." In Unified Architectural Theory: Form, Language, Complexity—a Companion to Christopher Alexander's "The Phenomenon of Life : the Nature of Order, Book 1", 125-130. Sustasis Foundation and Vajra Books. https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-172521

Salingaros, Nikos Angelos (2012). "“Making Wholeness Heals the Maker”: Why Human Flourishing Requires the Creative Act." Crisis Magazine.

Sanford, Carol (2016). "Living Structured Wholes." https://sustainablebrands.com/read/organizational-change/regenerative-business-part-2-discerning-a-living-structured-whole-and-avoiding-part-thinking

Wahl, Daniel (2016). Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press.

Wilber, Ken (1995). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution. Shambhala.

Root Cuthbertson

loves dancing, music, poetry, public libraries, matching needs with resources, monofloral honeys, generously inclusive humor, and stories about healing and hope. He has studied social change movements, comparative religion, needs-based approaches, de-colonization, and liberation for all. He holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Education, and certificates in Sustainable Curriculum Design, Participatory Facilitation, and Ecopsychology. A certified trainer in ‪Gaia Education eco-social design, Root designs experiential opportunities for learning by creating strong containers for the graceful facilitation of group energy. With his wife Deborah Benham, he has delivered trainings on ‪Sociocracy, Culture Repair, and the Connection 1st online courses: “Introduction to Regenerative Community Building,” “Designing for Peace,” and "Pathways to Village Building.” Former Training Coordinator for ‪Transition Network, he is the co-author and curator of collections on ‪Personal Resilience, Conflict Resilience, Group Culture, and Social Justice. With ‪Jon Young and Deborah, he is co-authoring a series of e-books on regenerative community design. With his ear to the ground, Root’s guiding question is: ‪“What is most needed here now?”‬

article by Root Cuthbertson 2023  

part of a series on Regenerative Design Principles

"High performing teams believe that if they are successful they will have made a fundamental contribution to their organisation or even to the greater good."  – Ken Thompson

Collaborative teamwork is a principle that shows up in living systems in lots of ways. Biomimicry educator Ken Thompson explores many interrelated aspects of what he calls 'Bioteams.' These teams demonstrate several characteristics of living systems, which include being:

• Self-generating. They create their own boundaries, and any components they need.
• Self-regulating. Within their boundaries, they create their own rules and limits.
• Self-reliant. They maintain and sustain themselves, based on a few external inputs.
• Self-organizing. They create and arrange both their own internal structures, and ones that interlink between systems. This includes their own components and processes.
• Self-ordering. They nest themselves, smaller within larger systems.

Boundaries

Like living systems, teams have clearly defined boundaries. A boundary allows a team to limit its scope, to define its own processes, and to clarify its membership. Within its boundaries, a team can self-regulate and self-organize, determining various roles, relationships between members, and expectations around team interactions (see Roles below). For example, some teams are organized by dominance hierarchies, or 'pecking orders,' assigning certain roles to 'stronger' or 'weaker' members. Team boundaries tend to be open to exchange, like permeable membranes, so that the team remains connected to its host community and its wider context (see 3-4 Membranes/Thresholds, see 7-8 Allow Flow).

Shared Goals and Problem-Solving

Most teams focus on achieving a shared goal, solving a problem, or overcoming an obstacle. Here are a few examples of shared goals that teams can collaborate to achieve.

Decomposing – fungi, bacteria, protoctists, worms, and insects can team up to break down dead organic matter and transform it into a multitude of useful nutrients.

Pioneering – re-populating an ecologically disturbed area (like a cultivated field, or the scorched earth after a forest fire) can involve inter-species teams of soil microbes, fungi, bacteria, weeds, and scrubby plants that provide ground cover.

Archiving – Suzanne Simard documents how same-species daughter trees can team up to preserve the 'memories' contained within mother stumps.

Colonies – social insects (like bees, ants, termites, and wasps) use same-species teamwork to build and maintain their nests and hives. Symbiotic colonies of bacteria and yeast (SCOBYs) form inter-species teams for both food production via fermentation, and for defense against extremes in temperature, moisture, and ultra-violet radiation.

Burrowing – prairie dogs, rabbits, and rats often form same-species teams to co-create shared living spaces.

Migrating – same-species teams of birds, butterflies, salmon, turtles, or elephants can help each other migrate. Geese, for instance, collectively remember the entire route, and rotate leadership based on which individual remembers the next segment.

photo by Ted Erski/Pixabay                                          image by Muhammad Shahzad Butt/Pixabay          image by Muhammad Shahzad Butt/Pixabay    

Shoaling, Flocking, Herding – small fish, birds, and hoofed mammals (like bison, horses, antelope, caribou) often team up to travel in same-species groupings. Sometimes inter-species teams (like zebra and wildebeest) form to enhance protection from predators.

Hunting – orca pods and wolf packs form same-species teams for hunting prey. Inter-species teams of coyotes and badgers have been observed hunting ground squirrels.

Networking – Clustering - Nestedness

A network of teams, or a host community like an ant colony, might approach a large complex problem (collecting and storing an abundant food supply; or repairing a damaged nest) by breaking it into smaller tasks that are then assigned to a number of teams. Each team would have its own particular task, while also working alongside all the other teams to achieve the shared goal of the host community. Each team can also devise its own strategies for achieving their task, so each team's approach may vary (see Strategies and Processes below).

Dolphin pods provide a good example of the clustering aspects of collaborative teams. Most of the time, dolphin pods are strongly-bonded coherent teams, where members regularly work together. Occasionally, dolphin pods can cluster into weakly-bonded super-pods; as when feeding on seasonally massive shoals of fish, or when socializing with distant 'cousins' from far away.

Dolphin pods are able to maintain both a (weaker) connection to a larger cluster (or super-pod), and a simultaneous (stronger) connection to their regular pod. This allows for some fluidity and agility, both throughout the network and within the team. Dolphin pods might occasionally cluster for family reunions, or to visit with friends whose company they enjoy. Individuals might occasionally swap pods (like foreign exchange students), to see what it's like in another pod, or to get more time with a certain sexy someone.

photo by joakant/Pixabay

Individuals who have lots of relationships (sexy or otherwise) help increase the connectivity of the network. It is often highly connected individuals who help their pod (or team) engage effectively with the wider network (see 1-7 Networks). This can assist with 'bridging,' keeping a team up to date with what's happening in the network, and helping to align a team's activities with the overall goals of the host community. This relates to the principle of Nestedness. Much as individuals are nested within a team, teams are nested within a larger host community, all working together toward a number of shared goals. In this way, a team resembles a holon nested within a holarchy (see 1-2 Nestedness). This nested and networked connectivity affects several other aspects of collaborative teams.

Modularity – Redundancy – Trusted Competency

Within a larger network, teams can become a form of modularity (see 3-2 Modularity, see 1-7 Networks). In an ant colony an overall shared goal of collecting and storing food might be modularized: some teams might work on collecting, while other teams work on storing food. Storing food might be further modularized into several areas, each with a distinct team. All the food-storing teams might begin with a similar basic approach or technique, which can help teams trust each other to accomplish their tasks efficiently and effectively. It turns out that trusting the competency of fellow teams within the same host community can be really important, affecting team autonomy and self-management (see Autonomy below).

One of the benefits of modularity is redundancy in case of failure. Even if one module fails, the entire network can continue. Redundancy can mean ensuring multiple teams have similar skills and knowledge. If one food-storing team's performance is reduced by illness or injury, another team with similar knowledge of basic food-storing techniques can step in as a substitute. They have a trusted competency with the same basic food-storing techniques. Work toward the overall goal of storing food can thus continue, even though one team is taking a break to rest and recuperate; maybe even getting a few new members (see 7-6 Resilience/Redundancy; see 4-7 Ecology of Support).

Over time, modularity can also lead to slight variations or specialized techniques. One food-storing team might 'improve' on the basic technique by using a certain leaf or a sticky gum. At first, such an innovation might not be communicated, especially if everyone is really busy. Also it can be helpful to wait and see if an innovation actually turns out to be a successful improvement. Eventually, if an innovation is proven beneficial, it is typically shared widely with other teams (see 8-5 Replicate Successful Strategies; see 6-5 Systematize Strategies). While among humans, innovations might be 'jealously guarded,' the opposite is typical for most non-human collaborative teams, where it is more common to prioritize sharing proven innovations that benefit everyone (see Innovation below, see Shared Work and Wealth below).

Size and Scale

Teams are most effective when they are the 'right size' for their task. For example: while there can be 'too many cooks' in a kitchen trying to prepare a meal, there can also be not enough helpers. The size of a team can change, depending on the size of the task. While a smaller team can prepare a family sized breakfast, a neighborhood celebratory feast might benefit from a larger team. Team size can also adjust along with natural cycles of growth and decay. During an abundant harvest season, a kitchen team might expand from cooking meals to processing, preserving, and storing food. During a quieter winter season, a kitchen team might shrink back to simply preparing meals.

Humans typically benefit from the group dynamics of a small team. In a smaller team it can be easier to feel like you've made a meaningful contribution, to see the results of your efforts, sometimes tangibly. Smaller teams can also allow for more innovation and individual expression. Small teams can provide some 'division of labor,' with members focusing on different roles or aspects of a shared goal. For example: a team producing an event might divide into roles responsible for – welcome and orientation; logistics and registration; overview and budget; practicalities and infrastructures; reflection and review; entertainment and catering (see Tasks below; see Roles below).

Coordinating all these various tasks and roles, especially when teams are nested within a larger network, becomes an important part of a larger group dynamic. Humans can also benefit from feeling part of something larger. Networked teams can coordinate to expand the reach and range of their efforts and thus achieve shared goals on a larger scale. For example: a small honeybee hive might start out with 5k workers with a limited range, and then expand to 10k or 20k workers with a much wider range (see 6-7 Change Scale). Team coordination of harvesting nectar might involve the most efficient way to cover different geographic areas (see Coordination below).

Distributed Leadership

"It pays to take turns doing the hard tasks and sharing leadership." – Angeles Arrien

Angeles Arrien has described a number of lessons we humans can learn from how migrating geese distribute leadership in collaborative teams. Teams of geese fly in V-shaped formations, which is hardest for the lead goose, who does not benefit from the extra lift enjoyed when flying behind another's slipstream. By rotating leadership, geese take turns flying in the more difficult lead position, then falling back in the formation to fly with less effort. This helps to conserve everyone's energy and allows a team of geese to fly further than a single goose can fly alone. Distributed leadership also allows a team of geese to collectively remember the entire migration route.

No one goose knows the whole migration route. Collectively, between them, they know the migration route but no one individual knows. So a goose leads the part of the journey where it knows the way and when it recognizes “I don’t know where to go next” it flies back into the V and waits for another goose to take over.  – Ken Thompson 

Teams that rely on either collective memory or collective intelligence trust in the competency of each team member. Team members are trusted to take the lead, especially when they have a 'bright idea' or 'remember the way.' Some teams even allow any member to take the lead, especially if that member has helpful information about a local context, or connectivity with the wider network of a host community (see 7-7 Self-Organize). This can reinforce what Thompson calls an 'action bias:' if they prefer to continue working as much as possible toward achieving their task, high performing teams can rotate leadership to be most effective. Such strategies have allowed generations of geese to collaboratively achieve their shared goals.

photo from Pixabay

Autonomy and Self-Management

In high performing teams, an 'action bias' supports the tendency for taking action. Instead of deliberating or waiting for permission, both teams and individual team members are empowered to respond swiftly to certain situations. When there is trusted competency, and access to accurate information, everyone can make well-informed independent decisions and enjoy a degree of autonomy. Such decisions are often based on a simple set of agreed rules – usually about how to act in case of threat (predator or competitor) or opportunity (food or building materials). For example, when an autonomous forager discovers a valuable resource and communicates an 'alert,' the rest of the team can begin mobilizing to respond in agreed ways. Communicating transparently and sharing information thus become vitally important, since they are linked to rapid responses and independent actions (see Communication below).

Self-management benefits all levels of a networked system, both teams nested within a host community, and individual team members nested within a team. Timely access to accurate information supports self-management, while reducing the need to ask for permission or await commands.

Caution! Hazard: if you were raised in a westernized society, you may be most familiar with dominance hierarchies where managers use a predict-and-control approach with workers. This has happened a lot. Workers in such systems get used to asking for permission or awaiting commands. They are typically treated like cogs in a machine, without any expectation of developing autonomy, nor any personal accountability for independent decisions.

In high performing teams, individual members are expected to develop autonomous behavior, which tends to reinforce a group culture of personal accountability. Individual follow-through on tasks in support of the team's shared goals makes self-management much easier. Some human teams even support self-management by keeping track of everyone's actions and having regular review sessions (see Accountability below).

Team Strategies and Processes

When teams are trusted and enjoy autonomy, they tend to come up with their own strategies for achieving their tasks. While a network of teams may generally agree on a shared goal, the exact strategy for how each team goes about achieving that goal (or their particular task) is largely left up to the team. This pattern holds within teams as well: if each team member is trusted to act with competency, and has access to relevant information, and is in regular communication with others, they can be trusted to 'get on with tasks.' Teams can thus determine and evolve their own strategies for approaching and accomplishing tasks, making numerous small decisions independently.

"Strategy happens organically, all the time, everywhere.  Decisions are frequent, small, imperfect, independent, local, and constantly updated."  – Tamsin Woolley-Barker 

Team strategies can be either internal or external facing. External strategies involve how the team interacts with the world outside the team itself. These might include foraging for food or resources, scouting, posting a lookout, reporting back to the team. Such strategies often involve using a team's collective intelligence to solve problems, or finding ways to leverage collective abilities to accomplish tasks productively. Where a single ant may not be able to retrieve a valuable resource, a team of ants may. External strategies may also include competitive interactions (like avoidance, tolerance, or aggression); or cooperative and helpful interactions that support alliances. A dolphin pod may avoid orcas; or show aggression toward sharks; or cooperate with whales so that everyone benefits, now and in the future.

Internal strategies involve processes that affect the interactions within a team. These might include idea-generation, workflow, meeting practices, or resolving internal conflicts. Thompson uplifts a common personal strategy of reciprocity, which he calls 'tit for tat': if I support you one time, you'll support me next time. Other internal processes include recruitment of new members; training in new capabilities; design, creation, and maintenance of new infrastructures (like communication or transportation systems); regular review of team strategies (including innovations, adaptations, or specializations) to improve productivity or success rates.

Tasks – 4 types

Ken Thompson outlines 4 ways teams commonly strategize to accomplish tasks. Depending on the context, a team might try any one of these approaches or a combination.

• Crowd work (same task, same time) – several individuals can work together on the same task at the same time. For example: flash mobs, ideation sessions, review meetings, transporting a heavy object.
• Group work (different tasks, different times) – teams can create a sequential division of labor. For example: assembly lines, registration then orientation, collect then store food, non-synchronous document editing.
• Solo work (same or different tasks, same or different times) – tasks can be completed by single individuals without help. For example: preparing a family meal, drafting a document before sharing, foraging.
• Team work (different tasks, same time) – several individuals can work on different tasks at the same time, requiring coordination. For example: a coordinated response to threat or opportunity, building projects, cleaning a living space, tending a garden.

Coordination

Coordination within or between teams can increase effectiveness and efficiency. For example: a honeybee hive is a network of teams with the shared goal of collecting and storing food. Teams can coordinate their efforts so that one team does not 'waste time' trying to harvest nectar from an area that has already been harvested by another team. Honeybees regularly communicate updates about which areas have already been harvested, and which areas currently have an abundant supply. Coordination can help teams more productively accomplish tasks, by avoiding the confusion that can ensue from overstepping boundaries. In this example, each team might have a specific geographic boundary, the area it has been tasked to forage. Coordination might look like respecting each team's sphere, trusting each team's competency and self-management to accomplish their particular task and contribute meaningfully toward the shared goal.

Coordination can also be helpful within a team. A hunting wolf pack might coordinate relative locations so as to channel prey in a certain direction. Prairie dogs might coordinate burrowing to prevent tunnel collpase. Any building project (like a beaver dam, wasp nest, or a fungal mycelium) might coordinate 'collaborative editing' to include additions or deletions contributed by each member. This allows everyone to make adjustments to each other's work, so that the final outcome benefits from the collective intelligence of the team.

Communication

If teams are expected to simultaneously make autonomous decisions and efficiently coordinate their efforts, they must have excellent forms of communication. Thompson argues that high performing teams rely on 'total transparency:' timely and honest communication of any important information. This contributes to everyone's ability to make informed decisions, and thus to autonomy and distributed leadership. Transparency is greatly assisted by developing the communication infrastructures that affect how information flows or gets stored; or that affect transmitting and receiving on specific channels or frequencies. Humans might use devices like intercoms or walkie-talkies; dolphins and whales use sonar; ants and bees use pheromones.

Ken Thompson describes communication at three levels. An individual can communicate 'privately' to one other individual; an individual can 'broadcast' a message to the entire host community; or an individual can 'broadcast' indirectly to the surrounding environment where the message will disperse even more widely. Communication is mostly transparent to everyone: ants and bees can't hide pheromones once they've been released; aquatic audio messages 'broadcast' by dolphins and whales are transparent to everyone.

photo by PollyDot/Pixabay                                                                                          photo by JD Truchement/Pixabay

Whole-group broadcast messages, that can be instantly transmitted and received by any team member anywhere, tend to convey information, not commands. They serve as one-way messages which can be acted upon as soon as they are received. They tend to be short and simple 'alerts' about threats or opportunities. Teams that have previously agreed ways to respond to such alerts can increase their effectiveness and the speedy coordination of their efforts. Teams might develop their own etiquette around broadcasting, or defining what kinds of behavior are appropriate or helpful upon receiving different kinds of alerts.

In human teams, communication is usually affected by several other factors. Many humans are used to dominance hierarchies where relationships are competitive, secret scheming is expected, honesty or dishonesty can be either rewarded or punished. Communications that are not transparent to everyone can lead to speculation: what did those two say? why are they keeping secrets? are they making plans to disadvantage us? Humans can spend lots of attention and energy mistrusting each other and intentionally miscommunicating. Teams that increase trust can free up lots of attention and energy for more truly helpful activities.

Roles – Commitment - Accountability

Much like how a network can self-organize by dividing a shared goal into tasks taken on by a number of teams, a team can self-organize by dividing into a number of roles taken on by individuals. It helps coordination, and avoids confusion, when roles have clearly defined boundaries, responsibilities, and expectations around interacting with other roles (see 2-1 Niches/Roles). In high performing teams Thompson notes that roles are defined less by achieving results and more by relational interactions. For example: honeybees clearly define several roles and their expected interactions: Guards are expected to allow entry to Foragers; Foragers are expected to provide nectar to Food-Storers; Food-storers are expected to secure nectar in Fanning areas; Fanners are expected to reduce nectar moisture to make honey; Nurses are expected to feed honey to Infants; Infants are expected to grow and mature into healthy adult workers who can take on a role.

An individual may be expected to commit to a certain role for an agreed amount of time. Commitment includes a focus on achieving the team's shared goal, as well as the particular responsibilites and expectations of the role. Role commitment allows a team to try out a certain configuration for a time and see how it goes (see 3-1 Rotate Roles). This can increase stability within a team (see Stability below). While individual focus on one role is common, some teams expect everyone to contribute ideas or feedback about any role, how it affects other roles, what adjustments might lead to improvements. The quality of role performance may vary by individual: one may be perceived as 'better at' a role than another. Perceived deficiency in role performance may be a subject of tension, conflict, or discussion during ideation sessions or team reviews (see 3-3 Feedback).

Ken Thompson proposes that high performing teams include clear, public, and transparent ways to hold every individual member accountable, especially once they have committed to a role. In human teams, this might look like keeping track of everyone's actions, and regular meetings or updates on processes and priorities. Accountability ensures that roles are performed adequately, agreed strategies are followed, milestones are reached, and that everyone is participating, so as to reduce free-riding or cheating. Instead of relying on domination or hierarchical authority, accountability can rely on the desire to maintain a positive reputation and good relations with others. Teams can increase performance and productivity whenever all team members trust each other. Individuals who follow-through on their tasks develop a good reputation as someone with trusted competency who can be relied on. Team members who perform less well might receive feedback about how they could improve (see 3-3 Feedback). This can help individuals increase self-awareness, supporting personal growth and development alongside overall team effectiveness (see 6-1 Maturation).

Diversity – Experimentation – Innovation

While teams usually find it desirable to have a degree of conformity around agreed processes and their shared goal, teams can also benefit from a degree of diversity. Human teams might develop their own internal processes around negotiating differences of opinion, or resolving conflicts between team members. These might arise during ideation sesions about how to best approach a particular task or problem, or how to improve someone's role performance (A 'young buck' might challenge an 'old stag' to lead the team in a different direction). Autonomy and modularity can lead to specialization in diverse approaches to achieving a shared goal. When problem-solving, individual team members might be encouraged to 'think creatively' to develop new ways of doing things that differ from previous ways. To replace older members as they retire, many teams regularly admit new members who may have fresh or differing perspectives. Newcomers may lack awareness about traditional team processes and invite questions about approaching them differently. Teams that cultivate diversity and creativity may eventually end up integrating new approaches or ideas (see 2-7 Diverse Expression, see 4-8 Integrate the Unexpected).

Self-managing teams often use experimentation to develop their own strategies, informed by what Thompson calls an 'action bias.' Instead of abstract deliberation or over-planning, such teams conduct real-world experiments, using a process of trial and error, 'rapid prototyping,' and consistently following simple rules. This can take some time. By allowing time for this process, teams can refine their strategies and produce effective solutions to complex problems. Because not every prototype is immediately successful, a prudent team adopts a 'wait and see' attitude. During a trial period, all team members might be invited to suggest improvements to a prototype via 'collaborative editing.' A prototype might go through several iterations (a version 2, version 3, and so on, similar to software releases), until the team is satisfied that it is in fact beneficial, tried-and-tested for real-world application.

Once a new idea or approach has been proven beneficial, a team commonly shares that innovation more widely. This is an important way that learning can lead to change in many living systems. At first, due to nestedness, a shared innovation might only affect neighboring teams, clusters, or modules. The most appealing innovations might spread throughout an entire host community or network. Such innovations might eventually become systematically normalized and passed on to future generations. This might look like being encoded in the DNA, or in a species' particular abilities, habits, or behaviors. Living systems, which are based more on cooperation than competition, rarely hoard beneficial innovations or reserve them for a single team (see Sharing Work and Wealth below). This relates to several principles covered elsewhere (see 8-5 Replicate Successful Strategies; see 6-5 Systematize Strategies; see 6-6 Lifelong Learning; see 5-2 Past Informs Future).

Emergence – Adaptation

The creativity that self-managing teams use to develop their own strategies can lead to rapid responses and unexpected innovations. Promoting a flexible attitude of 'expecting the unexpected' allows a team to better respond to unpredictable situations. For example: if unpredictable weather patterns result in an early flower bloom, a colony of bees might organize an early harvest. Many aspects of living systems that are typically predictable can become unpredictable. New patterns can emerge from unexpected changes. A change in weather might affect the timing of a migration, or the blockage of a familiar pathway, or the movements of a herd or shoal, or the patterns of hunters or foragers. While teams can expect such changes to happen, and prepare to a degree, no one can predict with certainty exactly what will happen, or what new patterns may emerge. It can be diffcult to predict how changes, large or small, might affect a team, its host community, or a wider network. The same attitude of embracing experimentation, protoyping, and creative problem-solving can help teams respond to the unpredictability of emergence. In human teams this can look like flexibility. A team can keep its strategy or approach flexible enough to be adjusted if circumstances change, or if something unexpected emerges. More on this elsewhere (see 8-8 Allow Emergence; see 6-8 Allow Change; see 4-8 Integrate the Unexpected).

In teams, as in networks, innovation often occurs at the margins. Newcomers may bring with them new ideas. Marginalized team members may make adjustments that more mainstream members don't. The margins are places where living systems interface with the most diversity, where changes and adaptation to changes are most necessary (sometimes due to emergence), and thus most common.

"Teams adapt to change at the edges, all the time, in little bits of work done by everyone."  – Tamsin Woolley-Barker

Teams can recognize this and develop processes for such changes to become tried, tested, improved, integrated, and normalized. A systematically normalized innovation, widely adopted throughout a network, can become an adaptation. Adaptations are often answers to a strategic question: How to conserve body heat in the winter? How to move efficiently through water? How to migrate thousands of miles every year? How to support those who have asked for help? Adaptations can become encoded so as to be passed on to future generations, either via biological genes (DNA) or cultural memes (behavior). Over time, the collective remembering and expression of such adaptations affect learning, growth, development, and evolution.

Stability and Group Cohesion

Caution! Hazard: if you were raised in a culture that is more risk-averse, or if you have negative experience of instability (like living with the threat of armed conflict), you may have some bias about stability. This has happened a lot. You may prefer when things are more certain and stable; and you may feel uncomfortable with uncertainty. You may favor things that seem to increase stability, and disfavor anything that seems to reduce stability. You may use either-or terms like 'us or them,' 'black or white.' You may strongly disagree with those who see 'shades of grey.' You may struggle to understand relativism, or how any situation could possibly be 'both-and.' Living systems benefit from both adaptability and stability. Living systems grow and develop over time; and adapt in response to changing conditions. And, stability helps a living system maintain core aspects of its characteristics and behavior, allowing relationships and connections to establish and become truly supportive.

The stability that arises from a period of consistent membership allows the small group dynamics of a team to reach a 'high performing' stage, when all team members are confident and comfortable in their roles. Everyone knows what to do, and how to do it. Tasks are accomplished, goals are achieved, everyone is satisfied with how things are going, everyone benefits. Stability can also benefit collective memory, when some (or even all) members remember previous processes and agreements. There is no need to 're-invent the wheel,' nor any newcomers (with new ideas or lack of awareness) to orient. Periods of stability support productivity and group cohesion.

Caution! Hazard: if you were raised in a modern westernized society, you may have limiting beliefs about group cohesion. This has happened a lot. You may not have had many positive role models, or only witnessed teams based on dominance hierarchies. You may have a dismissive attitude, like 'it never lasts,' or 'it's doomed to fail.' You may hold a socially conditioned belief that individualism is correct or inevitable, and that it will always trump any collective attempt at group coherence. This can be viewed as one extreme of an 'individual-group' polarity. The other extreme has similar limitations. A group can over-emphasize collective well-being and severely restrict individual expression. Groups can become over-invested in collective decision-making, leading to paralyzing 'group-think' attitudes and behaviors. A more connective approach would aim to balance this 'individual-group' polarity, either simultaneously or sequentially.

Teams usually benefit from the 'right amount' of group cohesion. Too much can result in a rigidity that reduces creativity and autonomy – 'group-think' dominating diversity and experimentation. Too little can result in a looseness that reduces efficiency and productivity – tasks getting done slowly, sloppily, or not at all. This can also endanger individuals – straggling away from the herd makes you more vulnerable to predators – or endanger a larger group. A bee colony can only survive the extreme cold of winter by sharing body heat in a large coherent group; smaller or looser clusters would not survive.

A team typically develops group cohesion by first building trust among team members. In human teams this might look like certain practices used during meetings: having a 'check-in,' or a 'weather report;' normalizing how to offer feedback; 'sorting tensions' or tending conflicts by ensuring everyone is 'clean and clear' with each other. Human teams also benefit from being motivated to focus on their shared goal, and reminded about shared values. Over time, such practices tend to strengthen relationships, increasing team members' willingness to take risks with each other, and increasing a sense of interdependence. In a network of teams, group cohesion might look like a dolphin 'super-pod', an ant colony 'super-organism,' or an oak tree as a 'holobiont' (see 1-5 Interdependence). When such networks span large distances, they may even resemble communities of practice (see 2-5 Webs of Belonging).

In human teams, Ken Thompson suggests that the 'right amount' of group cohesion can show up as:

• Looking out for each other's well-being.
• Expecting to share equally in any team achievement or adversity: “One for all, and all for one”.
• Perceiving each member as accountable to all the others.
• Staying motivated by perceiving their shared goal as important, worthy, or meaningful.
• Maintaining optimistic, resilient, 'can-do' attitudes about achieving their shared goal, despite adversity or setbacks.

image by TyliJura/Pixabay

Sharing Work and Wealth

Team members can support each other by sharing in various ways. Reciprocal relationships are reinforced when individuals support those who have previously supported them. Team relationships benefit from sharing in a balanced or equal way. A sense of giving and receiving equally can increase trust and group cohesion. Among humans, this might look like each player on a football team getting an equal amount of on-field game time. Or everyone might be asked to contribute equally to a task, instead of 'higher-ranking' and 'lower-ranking' individuals contributing more or less.

Team members can also support each other by asking for help, giving and receiving it. Teams might develop various group cultures around asking for help. Some human teams view asking for help as a way to renew relationships, to participate in a continuous flow of reciprocity. Because last time I asked for your help and you gave it, I now owe you a debt. When you ask me for help next time, the strength of our relationship means that you can count on me to respond positively. When I give you help, and you receive it, this renews and strengthens our relationship. I may even over-compensate slightly, so that you now owe me a debt. That way, we can both look forward to the next time I ask for your help.

Team members believe that if they need help they can ask for it and it will be freely offered. They believe that asking for help, in moderation, actually increases their standing within the team rather than diminishing it. They also believe something is badly wrong if somebody is struggling along and not asking for help, or is asking for help but being ignored by the team.  – Ken Thompson

The principle of Collaborative Teamwork uplifts the values of reciprocity, social connection, and mutual aid. Long-term relationships are valued more than short-term transactions. Any interaction that might end a relationship or sever a connection is considered dangerous or undesirable. Individuals are encouraged to contribute toward team wellbeing, or to the 'common good,' as a form of mutual aid. This might look like supporting each other's basic needs, sharing work, reciprocating, exchanging resources or services, sharing equally in whatever benefits the team accumulates. Such shared wealth might be tangible (food, medicine, shelter) or intangible (knowledge, skill, wisdom). This is why teams that are part of a network typically share any innovations that prove beneficial. If all networked teams are encouraged to share anything that might benefit everyone, then the entire network is more likely to benefit, including every individual (see 4-5 Collective Responsibility).

This aspect of Collaborative Teamwork relates to the princple of Interdependence, or mutually relying upon each other (see 1-5 Interdependence). Teams can have low, medium, or high levels of interdependence. Thompson argues that those with lower levels tend to be least effective and productive; while the highest performing teams have the highest level of interdependence. When team members consistently rely upon each other for help, well-being, and shared benefit, they tend to trust each other more, and are more willing to take risks for each other. When my well-being is mutually entangled with yours, it makes sense to share our work and wealth.

'Collaborative Teamwork' and 'Cooperation' are related yet distinct principles. Cooperation can be viewed as a longer-term relationship, typically formed between two or more species. For example, flowering plants and their pollinators have co-evolved to cooperate long-term, over multiple generations of each species involved. Cooperation can involve two unrelated species becoming entangled in each other's long-term wellbeing and survival (see 1-4 Cooperation). While forms of inter-species teamwork do happen, the principle of Collaborative Teamwork is most often seen in same-species teams. Teamwork can be viewed as a typically shorter-term same-species arrangement for achieving a shared goal. Teams might form for a season, or an individual lifetime, or only until a goal is achieved. Compared to long-term cooperations, which rely on stability and consistency, teamwork arrangements can be more flexible so as to more rapidly respond to changing circumstances or unexpected emergence.

Designing with Collaborative Teamwork in Mind

The principle of Collaborative Teamwork can inform designers in some very practical ways.

• Build trust. Foster a 'one for all and all for one' attitude of mutual support (see 4-7 Ecology of Support).
• Design for transparent communication. Support honesty, feedback, and optional instant whole-group messages (see 3-3 Feedback).
• Design for the right size, scope, and scale. Plan for how a team might grow or modularize (see 6-7 Change Scale, see 3-2 Modularity, see 3-5 Strucutural Integrity/Limits to Growth).
• Design for the 'right amount' of group cohesion. Avoid both rigidity and looseness (see 7-7 Self-organize).
• Distribute leadership, commit to roles, share accountability. Clarify role boundaries, reponsibilites, and how they are expected to interact with others (see 2-1 Niches/Roles, see 3-1 Rotate Roles, see 4-5 Collective Responsibility).
• Design for some autonomy (trusting everyone's competency) and some coordination. Trust members to 'get on with tasks', while communicating and sharing updates (see 6-4 Empowerment).
• Design for redundancy. In case of illness or injury, allow for substitutions. Plan for replacements (see 7-6 Resilience/Redundancy).
• Develop strategies to achieve your shared goal. Encourage creative problem-solving and innovation (see 4-8 Integrate the Unexpected, see 6-5 Systematize Strategies, see 6-8 Adapt to Change).
• Rapidly prototype. Experiment with real-world solutions for a trial period. Invite feedback, make improvements, and replicate successes (see 7-2 Experiment in Low-Risk Contexts, see 8-5 Replicate Successful Strategies)
• Leave space for emergence. Make a plan ahead of time, and don't be super attached to every aspect of it. 100% of your plan may not happen exactly as you planned. Be prepared to adjust the plan in response to new information or changing real-world situations (see 8-8 Allow Emergence)
• Stay motivated, resilient, and optimistic.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." – Margaret Mead

Questions to Consider:

How have you experienced teamwork? What teams (groups working to achieve a shared goal) are you currently part of?

How do you show that you trust someone's competency? How do you prefer someone to show that they trust yours?

Who do you trust to lead a team? Why? When might you step into a team leadership role?

How do you feel about committing to a role? What sorts of roles are easier to commit to? Harder?

What is your relationship to personal accountability? How has accountability shown up in your life?

How do you feel about taking risks? About leaving space for unpredictability?

What is your experience of transparent communication? How comfortable are you with offering your opinions or feedback to others? With receiving feedback?

Which of the team strategies and processes mentioned here feel familiar? Which feel edgy? Which are you curious to try?

References

Arrien, Angeles (1991). "Lessons From the Geese." https://www.toolsforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/geese.pdf

Hofstede, Geert. (2003). "Six Dimensions of Culture." https://geerthofstede.com/

Simard, Suzanne (2021). Finding the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest. Knopf.

Thompson, Ken (2005). "Key Traits that Characterize Successful Bioteams." https://bioteams.com/2005/04/06/bioteaming-a-manifesto.html

Thompson, Ken (2005). "The Seven Beliefs of High Performing Teams." https://bioteams.com/2005/08/29/the-seven-beliefs.html

Thompson, Ken (2006). "Teamwork: Learning From Dolphin Pods." https://bioteams.com/2006/01/24/teamwork-learning-from.html

Thompson, Ken (2008). Bioteams: High Performance Teams Based on Nature's Most Successful Designs. Meghan Kiffer Publishing.

Thompson, Ken (2014). "The 4 different types of Teamwork in Nature." https://bioteams.com/2014/09/25/top-teams-understand.html

Wikipedia. "Mutual Aid – Organization Theory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)

Wikipedia. "Reciprocity – Social Psychology)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)

Wikipedia. "SCOBY." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOBY

Wikipedia. "Teamwork." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamwork

Woolley-Barker, Tamsin (2017). Teeming: How Superorganisms Work to Build Inifinite Wealth in a Finite World. White Cloud Press.

Root Cuthbertson

loves dancing, music, poetry, public libraries, matching needs with resources, monofloral honeys, generously inclusive humor, and stories about healing and hope. He has studied social change movements, comparative religion, needs-based approaches, de-colonization, and liberation for all. He holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Education, and certificates in Sustainable Curriculum Design, Participatory Facilitation, and Ecopsychology. A certified trainer in ‪Gaia Education eco-social design, Root designs experiential opportunities for learning by creating strong containers for the graceful facilitation of group energy. With his wife Deborah Benham, he has delivered trainings on ‪Sociocracy, Culture Repair, and the Connection 1st online courses: “Introduction to Regenerative Community Building,” “Designing for Peace,” and "Pathways to Village Building.” Former Training Coordinator for ‪Transition Network, he is the co-author and curator of collections on ‪Personal Resilience, Conflict Resilience, Group Culture, and Social Justice. With ‪Jon Young and Deborah, he is co-authoring a series of e-books on regenerative community design. With his ear to the ground, Root’s guiding question is: ‪“What is most needed here now?”‬

article by Root Cuthbertson 2023  

part of a series on Regenerative Design Principles

Interdependence is a vital principle of living systems and of all known ecosystems. It means mutually depending on or relying upon one another. Every living thing relies upon something to survive, and every living thing provides a resource that helps the survival of something else. Almost all known species depend on others to some degree.

"Interdependence – the mutual dependence of all life processes on one another – is the nature of all ecological relationships, a basic principle of ecology.  The behavior of every living member of the ecosystem depends on the behavior of many others."  – Fritjof Capra

Ecosystems

The interdependence of different species contributes to the overall functioning of the ecosystem as a whole. At the ecosystem level, various organisms rely on geophysical factors (temperature, moisture, pH, salinity) and biological processes (like nutrient cycling or availability, waste production or decomposition). In an ecosystem, interdependence and cooperation sustain many cyclical exchanges of energy and resources (see 1-4 Cooperation). Waste for one organism is often food for another, so that, as a whole, the ecosystem has no waste (see 8-3 Recycling materials). Organisms in living systems tend to associate, connect, cooperate, and even live inside each other interdependently (more on that later).

Interdependence is characteristic of networks, ecosystems, and complex adaptive systems. Any member of such a system both affects and is affected by others, both within the same system, and within neighboring systems (see 1-2 Nestedness). Ecosystems are often networked with neighboring ecosystems, mutually relying on interconnected structures, processes, or functions (often with multiple feedback loops) related to stability, productivity, or biodiversity (see 1-7 Networks). For example, a network of terrestrial plants can rely on the neighboring underground fungal mycelium to exchange information and resources. Such systems are composed of interdependent individuals and components, which can be quite diverse, interacting in a variety of ways. Interdependent feedback loops can amplify disturbances so they ripple and spread throughout an ecosystem (see 3-3 Feedback). Based on communication or exchanged information, individuals can adapt and update their strategies in response to others, or to changes in conditions, or to aspects of the wider system. This can lead to living systems self-organizing and evolving new patterns.

Examples

Maria Popova provides several examples of paired interdependence:

• The gutless marine tubeworms of the genus Riftia, who cluster in the hydrogen-sulfide-rich waters near geothermal vents, and can only obtain nutrition from the bacteria that live inside them.
• The Convoluta roscoffensis flatworms in coastal Brittany who rely on hosting Platymonas green algae within their cells.
• The Mastigias jellyfish whose tiny green umbrellas are animated by single-celled zooxanthellae.
• The giant clam, Tridacna gigas, which orients its entire colossal body toward the light for the benefit of the greenhouse of algae living inside it.
• The Bay of Naples jellyfish, described by Lewis Thomas, which becomes permanently affixed as a vestigial parasite to a nudibranch sea slug’s mouth.

Examples of multi-species interdependence include:

• Coralline algae that depend on sea urchins to exclude kelps.
• The Plachobranchus snail that hosts within its cells a garden of photosynthetic microbes.
• The many plant species of grasslands and heathlands that depend on migrating herds, like cattle, to exclude trees and shrubs.
• The many species of migratory birds that depend on various species within both tropical and temperate habitats.
• We humans, who, for proper digestion and absorption of nutrients, rely on a variety of microbial species, including E. coli, that live within our gut microbiome.

Coevolution

The examples of interdependence visible today have arisen over time as species co-evolve in relationship to each other. Co-evolved species reciprocally affect each other, often creating an interdependent relationship where everyone mutually benefits. Coevolution can be pairwise, between exactly two species; or it can be multi-species, when several species evolve alongside each other. For example: many species of flowering plants have coevolved with several species of pollinators. Coevolution is a process of members of living systems interacting and adapting, often becoming increasingly reliant on each other.

Some species are co-evolved so closely, and have become so dependent on each other, that if one declines, so does the other; the extinction of one can mean the extinction of the other. For example: when populations of the Indian rubber tree declined, its co-evolved pollinator wasp declined to near extinction. Another example is the coevolution of various pollinator species who cooperate to survive harsh conditions. Whenever one of these species declines, any interdependent species also decline, which can lead to a simultaneous population collapse.

A common form of disturbance in ecosystems is when such a decline or extinction happens, especially in a keystone species. Whenever key relationships are disrupted, ecosystems can become more vulnerable to declines, collapses, or even extinction cascades, involving many interdependent species throughout an ecosystem. And, the converse is true: whenever a declined keystone species is re-introduced to a degraded ecosystem, the entire ecosystem can recover.

For example: when authorities at Yellowstone National Park re-introduced wolves to reduce elk populations, many habitats recovered and began thriving, since plants could more easily grow along the riverbanks, stabilizing the soil, preventing erosion, and changing the course of the Yellowstone river. For example: when Monterey Bay authorities began protecting sea otters, the otters reduced the sea urchin population, allowing kelp forests to re-grow, providing habitat for more fish and marine wildlife.

This is an important point: species that co-evolve interdependently often come to rely upon each other so much that they cannot exist without each other.

Kelp forest ecosystems, where sea otters are keystone species, are interdependent with redwood forest ecosystems.

image by Jack Drafahl/Pixabay                                                                image by Freepik                  photo by Veena Avinash/Pixabay

Reliance, Uncertainty, Trust

Caution: Hazard! If you were raised in a westernized society, you may hold some limiting beliefs about reliance, and may easily confuse reliance with trust. This has happened a lot. You may have been conditioned to believe in separation and individualism, scarcity and competition. You may believe (consciously or unconsciously) that self-reliance is best, and that relying on others is risky. You may aim to reduce your reliance on others as much as possible; to assure a future where you can more predictably control favorable outcomes, where you can maximize your own self-interest. You may prefer to avoid uncertainty whenever possible. If you must rely on others (which involves uncertainty), you may assume that a 'predict-and-control' approach will be most advantageous for you. The principle of interdependence suggests an alternate view. The future is often uncertain. Uncertainty can be easier to face together. What if relying on others were reframed from being a weakness, to being a strength? How might your relationships with and reliance on others serve you well? Might they make it easier for you to find support in times of need? Might they even help you to find more meaning and fulfillment?

Since you are alive, and all living beings are dependent on others, you do not have a choice about your reliance. You may also have, ultimately, very little control over your reliance. You do, however, have a choice about where you place your trust. Trust is different from reliance in several ways. Trust is part of many human interactions, since it involves an attempt to resolve the fears of dependency by creating an alternative to control. Instead of controlling you to do what I want, I can trust you to do something we can both agree on. This involves accepting the risk of being betrayed. If you do not act as we agreed, I may feel betrayed. This differs from reliance, which can be disappointed, but not betrayed. For example: if I rely on a migrating species to arrive every spring, and it does not arrive, I would not feel personally betrayed. I would feel disappointed, and suffer the consequences, likely sharing my suffering with everyone else who also relies on that migration.

Identity

“The exquisite interdependence of nature — an elemental awareness of which we so easily and habitually lose sight – is an awareness which, when fully apprehended, dissolves the very notion of a discrete self.” – Maria Popova

Living systems are full of interdependent relationships that make it very difficult to discern where one identity ends and another begins. If who I am is dependent on my relationships with a host of 'others,' like the multitude of bacteria living in my gut microbiome, how is my identity defined? How does the principle of interdependence affect the concept of identity?

In westernized societies, identity is commonly framed as an 'either-or' opposition: self and other are viewed as separate, distinct, mutually exclusive, often in competition. The principle of interdependence suggests re-framing this view toward a 'both-and' integration: self and other are viewed as interconnected, co-created, mutually dependent, often in cooperation. This may also re-frame how much it is possible for 'others' to exist separately from an individual 'self.'

john a. powell and the team at the Othering and Belonging Institute show how the process of 'othering' has led to many of the social divisions and polarizations of modern times. They suggest as an antidote a process of 'bridging' socially constructed divides so as to create a world where everyone can feel 'belonging.' Because in the living world, and in any living system, everyone actually does belong (see 2-5 Webs of Belonging).

Ubuntu

The philosophy of 'ubuntu' is found in cultures across western, central, eastern, and southern Africa. With some variation, it generally includes the concept of an individual's identity being nested within a community context. In this expanded view of identity, each individual is simultaneously a whole entity unto itself, and a member of a larger whole (see 1-2 Nestedness). Often conveyed by the Zulu phrase “I am because you are,” ubuntu can be viewed as one way to express the principle of interdependence.

Ubuntu distinguishes 'individualism' from 'individuality.' The western construct of individualism tends to overfocus on the self's identity as separate from all others, reinforcing egotism, narcissism, and sociopathy. By contrast, ubuntu promotes individuality by suggesting that personal growth, maturation, and achievement is greatly helped (and maybe even only made possible) by the support an individual receives from their community. All individuals are nested within, and largely dependent on, a wider community. Because individuals rely on such relationships, they tend to honor those relationships. With some variation by culture, this may look like reciprocation, exchanges of equal value, fulfillment of duties, honoring of obligations, or other forms of mutual aid that recognize an individual's responsibilities as a community member. In some cultures this extends to include both human and non-human relationships in the natural world.

Ubuntu can include these key points:

• Individual well-being is interconnected with, and often reliant on, the well-being of others, especially those who share a community context (see 4-1 Health).
• Community well-being is promoted through an unconditional recognition and appreciation of individual uniqueness and difference (see 2-1 Niches/Roles).
• Individuals within a community mutually support each other to self-actualize and mature (see 6-1 Maturation).
• Relationships, even when broken or disharmonious, can still be valuable and authentic. By promoting ways to repair relationships and restore harmony, a community can aim to address individual imperfections, since individual redemption is always possible and worth investing in. (see 4-7 Ecology of Support/Holistic Repair)
• All beings, humans and non-humans, are co-creators in a balanced ecosystem. Individuals are responsible for maintaining this balance (see 4-5 Collective Responsibility).
• Individuals within a community recognize the value and importance of others, and the mutual responsibilities everyone has toward each other (see 1-1 Connection).
• Identity is not embedded in any one individual. Because we participate in each other's co-creation, we owe our identity to each other; we belong to each other.
• The individual self is not a rigid subject, but a shared dynamic co-creation dependent on relationships with others, and the continued co-creation of 'otherness' outside and beyond the individual.
• An individual 'self' is affirmed and intersubjectively co-substantiated through recognition of an 'other's' uniqueness and difference.

Interbeing and Contingency

These last few points overlap with the concept of interbeing, articulated by Buddhist monk and author Thich Nhat Hanh and promoted by regenerative design researcher Daniel Wahl. Hanh's ideas about interbeing were influenced by Lewis Thomas's articles on biological interdependence. Hanh liked Thomas's description of symbiosis, seeing how it could expand from the micro level (my body is composed of interdependent cells) to the macro level (every living thing is like a cell in the body of planet), so that nothing truly exists independently. For Wahl, embracing the concept of interbeing involves a shift in perspective. 'Self' and 'other' can be re-framed as interbeing, mutually depending on each other. Ultimately, we all depend on relationships with others in a 'delicate reciprocity.' Wahl emphasizes the importance of such relationships, that we are always in a 'process of relating' with our human and non-human neighbors. Kriti Sharma agrees, adding that individuals are complex webs of such 'processes of relating.' Because each individual can only exist within a web of interdependent relationships, anyone's existence is contingent upon those relationships. All individuals are interdependent to such a high degree, that we bring each other into existence, and cannot exist without each other.

“We live in an interdependent world.  Every life form is interdependent with all of the others in its ecosystem.  When living systems are undamaged, this interdependence is seamless; there are no absolute distinctions among parts.” – Carol Sanford 

Community and Success

A community is a collection of interdependent individuals (often with some similarities) who form relationships and interact regularly over time. Communities can form on any level of scale. Micro level communities include the human gut microbiome, or any kind of SCOBY; meso level communities include the underground fungal mycelium, or oceanic plankton; macro level communities include multispecies ecosystems like forests, deserts, or grasslands. For example, a forest ecosystem – itself a distinct community – may include several other communities nested within it: a tree community, a soil community, an insect community, a bird community, an animal community – each with several different species.

Interdependence in a community shows up in relationships and interactions. For example, in a forest ecosystem, plants provide animals with food, shelter, and oxygen. Animals help plants by providing carbon dioxide, nitrogenous waste, soil disturbance, pollination of flowers, and dispersal of seeds. Microbes may help by fixing atmospheric nitrogen, decomposing dead organic matter, or allowing nutrients and minerals to flow and cycle through the ecosystem.

image by brgfx/Freepik

According to the holistic theory developed by Frederic Clements, a community is defined by the relationships and interactions of its members. Each individual contributes toward community well-being, often by assuming a particular role or niche (see 2-1 Niches/Roles). Many (and often most) of these roles are vitally important for collective well-being, due to interdependence. Clements viewed communities as non-random formations with discrete edges or boundaries (see 3-4 Membranes/Thresholds) that arise due to coevolution, even likening them to superorganisms (like bee, ant, or termite colonies).

Fritjof Capra suggests that interdependence provides and incentive for individuals in a community to tend relationships in several dimensions: “between members, between the community as a whole and its natural environment. Nourishing the community means nourishing all these relationships.”

“The success of the whole community depends on the success of its individual members; while the success of each member depends on the success of the community as a whole.” –  Fritjof Capra

As in ubuntu, individual success is interlinked with (and interdependent on) the success of the community. Daniel Wahl expands this view to include the whole biosphere: “Our individual and collective success depend on the health of the whole and the community of life” (see 1-2 Nestedness; see 1-8 Wholeness; see 4-1 Health).

Microbiome

Half of the Earth's biomass is made up of trillions of single-celled microbes that live, literally, everywhere – in all the waters and oceans, in all types of soil, within the bodies of plants and animals, in the atmosphere, in places without any oxygen; even in the vaccuum of space. Collectively called the 'microbiome', these simple creatures are still today the dominant form of life on Earth, as they have been for millions of years. They represent the majority of biodiversity on the planet, despite more complex life forms having been studied and researched more. We humans have only begun to learn about these many diverse micro-organisms.

Throughout her career, evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis explored a tiny fraction of the microbiome, challenging and expanding our understanding of what is possible. Her pioneering discoveries, which contradicted the prevailing neo-Darwinist views of the time, were ridiculed at first before eventually gaining widespread acceptance. We owe much of what we now know about microbial interdependence to Margulis and the many researchers she inspired.

“We animals, all thirty million species of us, emanate from the microcosm. The microbial world, the source and well-spring of all life, informs our own survival. A major theme of the microbial drama is the emergence of individuality from the community interactions of once-independent actors. The tendency of 'independent' life is to bind together and reemerge in a new wholeness at a higher, larger level of organization.” – Lynn Margulis

Attempting to fill in some of the gaps Charles Darwin left in his theory of evolution, Margulis proposed that cooperation, much more than competition, is the basis of evolution and speciation (see 1-4 Cooperation). Pointing to the many examples of mutually beneficial symbiosis she found in the microbiome, she suggested that 'symbiogenesis' – becoming symbiotically interdependent – is common for the majority of microbial life. Since single-celled organisms are everyone's shared ancestors, this must hold true for all life on the planet. Margulis asserted that interdependent cooperation is the baseline pattern for every living system, a successful survival strategy continuously employed for millenia up to today. While competition also occurs, it is less frequent, less important, and less often a driver of evolution. Her theory, which contradicted dominant capitalist ideas promoting individualism, was unapologetically influenced by socialist thinkers like Peter Kropotkin, who coined the term 'mutual aid,' and whose ideas prefigured symbiosis.

Microbes form many kinds of symbiotic relationships, often resulting in interdependence. In a 2023 review of Margulis' work, Salome Rodeck writes:

“Increasingly, microbes are seen as indispensable symbionts to all other forms of life, including humans. They provide essential nutrients and break down organic material. Every ecosystem on the planet, it seems, is dependent on the wellbeing of microorganisms. The knowledge that humans are dependent on their symbioses with invisible critters has captured the attention of many who advocate for a new worldview that emphasizes cooperation and indeed commune-like ways of living by considering symbiosis as a guiding principle."-- Salome Rodeck

image by Freepik                                                                                                   image by Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

Endosymbionts

Lynn Margulis theorized that all forms of multicellular life originated when single-celled organisms began cooperating so much that they became interdependent. The story goes like this: long ago, one ancient single-celled organism engulfed a smaller one, and instead of breaking it down for parts and digesting it, the host integrated the newcomer, intact and whole (now called an 'endosymbiont'). They began to interrelate, and over generations, they coevolved to become interdependent.

Plenty of evidence supports this theory. Every animal cell contains organelles called mitochondria which evolved from endosymbionts. Mitochondria reproduce independently from their host cells; they contain their own separate DNA; they have a double membrane, as if their ancestor were ingested long ago. Every plant cell contains organelles called chloroplasts (plastids), which are remarkably similar to photosynthetic cyanobacteria. The only reason plants can photosynthesize at all is because their cells contain these endosymbionts.

Once researchers started looking, they began to find endosymbionts all over the place. Many fungi host bacteria, including one that produces a toxin to defend against nematodes. Nearly all plants host bacteria without which they cannot live. All vascular plants host a bunch of endosymbionts including viruses, bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and microalgae. Each symbiotic relationship helps the host plant to grow and develop, absorb nutrients, or defend against stressors; one even enables the sequestering of toxic metals and pollutants.

Collective Genome

Many hosts and their endosymbionts coevolve to share a 'collective genome.' This often means they can no longer survive on their own. An endosymbiont typically reduces its genome so that it only has a handful of essential genes, relying on its host to provide for all its other needs. For example: an endosymbiont may lose the ability to synthesize certain molecules on its own, and rely on its host to produce them. In return, the endosymbiont may focus on producing only one nutrient (an amino acid, say) that the host relies on.

One of the most bizarre ways that this can happen was found in a species of cicada which hosts a bacterial endosymbiont. Because cicadas can spend up to seven years dormant underground, this gives their endosymbionts lots of time for many generations to evolve in strange new ways. In this case, the bacteria 'fractionated' the collective genome into three distinct, and mutually essential, parts. Each of the three groups of bacteria reduced its genome by two-thirds, relying on the other two groups to provide the missing essential genes. The host cicada is likewise dependent on the collective genome, so it relies on each of the three fractionated parts being present.

The notion of a collective genome raises more questions about identity. Once again, the principle of interdependence makes it difficult to discern the boundaries between 'self' and 'other'. If I rely on a collective genome shared with several species in my gut microbiome, how am 'I' distinct from those microbes? And because those microbes are constantly interacting with microbes in the wider environment, how am 'I' distinct from my environment?

Holobionts

Many hosts and their symbionts coevolve to form an interdependent 'holobiont.' This term relates to the 'holon' described by Arthur Koestler and Ken Wilber, as well as the principle of Nestedness (see 1-2 Nestedness). A holobiont is an entity unto itself which includes a number of smaller symbionts nested within it. This is similar to how multicellular organisms are comprised of cells, each of which can be viewed as a discrete living entity, interdependently interlinked with all the other cells of the organism. For example: corals have formed a holobiont with a photosynthetic algae on whom they depend for long-term survival. Humans have formed a holobiont with the many symbiotic micro-organisms who live in and on our skin, our lungs, and along our entire digestive tract – who moderate and regulate our daily interactions with millions of microbes in our environment.

A holobiont can also be viewed as a network of multiple species (see 1-7 Networks). Components of a holobiont include a multicellular host; any symbiotic organisms that live on it or inside it that contribute toward the functions of the whole; its virome (the collective of all symbiotic viruses); and its microbiome (symbiotic bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, or microalgae). A holobiont differs from a superorganism, which is typically a collective of many individuals of the same species, like a colony of bees, ants, or termites. A hallmark of a holobiont is an interdependent diversity of species interacting in complex ways.

Holobionts use 'infochemicals' to communicate or signal to their various components about how to buffer stressors, provide defense, uptake nutrients, grow or develop. In terrestrial environments, these signals can be received somewhat slower than in aquatic environments, since many microbes have aquatic origins. Compared to terrestrial ones, aquatic holobionts can be more diverse and more flexible; cycling of carbon can be swifter; functioning can have more plasticity; dispersal barriers can be lower, so that microbial communities can shift more rapidly.

Microbial communities shift and change all the time, so a host's microbiome can have some inconstancy alongside some stability. Microbes may be transmitted across many dimensions, coming into or out of a holobiont, providing regular interaction with microbes in the host's environment. Such interactions allow holobionts to adapt and change over time.

Like network science, holobiomics – the study of holobionts – focuses on the interconnections, interactions, and relationships between components, instead of the individual parts of the system. In recent years researchers have begun exploring the dynamics of holobionts like soil microbes, seaweeds and marine invertebrates, and the human gut microbiome. Exciting discoveries may lead to ways to improve health and nutrition, carbon capture, or climate change mitigation.

Holobionts represent a shift in perception, a recognition of the principle of interdependence in all living systems. Life organizes itself symbiotically. Lynn Margulis argued that symbiotic relationships occur at every level: from the microbiome to the ecosystem. Alongside geochemist James Lovelock, she developed the Gaia hypothesis, effectively viewing the entire planet as a holobiont, full of interdependent relationships.

Designing with Interdependence in Mind

The principle of interdependence encourages us as designers to adopt an ubuntu-informed approach. We can raise awareness of our responsibilities as co-creators. We can re-frame our reliance on 'others' as a form of symbiosis. We can see symbiotic relationships everywhere, especially in the microbiome, where we may find fantastically organic and elegant solutions to many of the complex problems of modern times.

Questions to consider:

How many identities do you have? In your context, how does perceived identity affect people? How has it affected you?

How have you experienced dependence? Who relies on you? Who do you rely on?

In your context, what does mutual responsibilty look like? Is it affected by trust? Who do you trust to be responsible alongside you? Why? Who don't you trust? Why?

How have you experienced community success? How does it relate to individual achievement?

In your context, what kinds of design might begin to increase people's trust of each other? What would be a small start? What might inspire people to imagine something on a larger scale?

References

Capra, Fritjof and Pier Luigi Luisi (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press.

Communication Generation. “What Is the Spirit of Ubuntu? A Journey into African Philosophy.” https://www.communication-generation.com/what-is-the-spirit-of-ubuntu-a-journey-into-african-philosophy/

Eze, Michael O. (2010). Intellectual History in Contemporary South Africa. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hanh, Thich Nhat (1987). Interbeing: Fourteen Guidelines. Parallax Press.

Indigenous Knowledge Institute (2023). “Interdependence in the Environment.” https://indigenousknowledge.unimelb.edu.au/curriculum/resources/interdependence-in-the-environment

Leigh, Egbert (2020). “Neglected Problems in Ecology: Interdependence and Mutualism” in Unsolved Problems in Ecology, edited by Andrew Dobson et al. Princeton University Press.

Margulis, Lynn (1981). Symbiosis in Cell Evolution. W.H. Freeman.

Margulis, Lynn and René Fester (1991). Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis. MIT Press.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002). Acquiring Genomes - A Theory of the Origin of Species. Basic Books.

Physics Wallah (2022). “Ecological Interdependence and Interactions.” https://www.pw.live/chapter-organisms-and-their-environment/ecological-interdependence-and-interactions

Popova, Maria (2018). “How a Jellyfish and a Sea Slug Illuminate the Mystery of the Self.” https://www.themarginalian.org/2018/10/25/lewis-thomas-the-medusa-and-the-snail-self/

Popova, Maria (2022). “Symbiosis and the Unself: Evolutionary Biologist Lynn Margulis on How Interbeing Shapes Life on Earth.” https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/12/21/lynn-margulis-symbiotic-planet/

powell, john a (2024). The Power of Bridging: How to Build a World Where We All Belong. Sounds True.

Rodeck, Salome (2023). "Symbiotic Worlds. Theories and Practices of Coexistence in Lynn Margulis and Donna Haraway." https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/research/projects/symbiotic-worlds-theories-and-practices-coexistence-lynn-margulis-and-donna

Sanford, Carol (2016). "Understanding the Nested Nature of Living Systems." https://sustainablebrands.com/read/organizational-change/regenerative-business-part-5-understanding-the-nested-nature-of-living-systems

Sharma, Kriti (2015). Interdependence: Biology and Beyond. Fordham University Press.

Thomas, Lewis (1979). The Medusa and the Snail. Viking Press.

Wahl, Daniel (2016). Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press.

Wikipedia. “Coevolution.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution

Wikipedia. “Community Ecology.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_(ecology)

Wikipedia. “Complex Adaptive Systems.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

Wikipedia. “Ecosystem Ecology.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_ecology

Wikipedia. “Endosymbiont.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont

Wikipedia. “Holobiont.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holobiont

Wikipedia. “Interdependent Networks.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependent_networks

Wikipedia. “Mutualisms and Conservation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualisms_and_conservation

Wikipedia. "Reciprocity – Social and Political Philosophy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_and_political_philosophy)

Wikipedia. "Reciprocity – Social Psychology." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)

Wikipedia. "Symbiogenesis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

Wikipedia. "Symbiosis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

Wikipedia. “Trust – Social Sciences.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)

Wikipedia. “Ubuntu - Philosophy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy

Root Cuthbertson

loves dancing, music, poetry, public libraries, matching needs with resources, monofloral honeys, generously inclusive humor, and stories about healing and hope. He has studied social change movements, comparative religion, needs-based approaches, de-colonization, and liberation for all. He holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Education, and certificates in Sustainable Curriculum Design, Participatory Facilitation, and Ecopsychology. A certified trainer in ‪Gaia Education eco-social design, Root designs experiential opportunities for learning by creating strong containers for the graceful facilitation of group energy. With his wife Deborah Benham, he has delivered trainings on ‪Sociocracy, Culture Repair, and the Connection 1st online courses: “Introduction to Regenerative Community Building,” “Designing for Peace,” and "Pathways to Village Building.” Former Training Coordinator for ‪Transition Network, he is the co-author and curator of collections on ‪Personal Resilience, Conflict Resilience, Group Culture, and Social Justice. With ‪Jon Young and Deborah, he is co-authoring a series of e-books on regenerative community design. With his ear to the ground, Root’s guiding question is: ‪“What is most needed here now?”‬

article by Root Cuthbertson 2023  

part of a series on Regenerative Design Principles

“Life is a symbiotic and cooperative union that allows those who associate to succeed.” -- Lynn Margulis

Caution: Hazard! If you were raised in a westernized society, it may be easy to assume that competition, not cooperation, is the baseline or norm everywhere. This has happened a lot. While competition does play a role in living systems, its role may have been over-emphasized -- possibly by those who misinterpreted Darwin's evolutionary theory (consciously or unconsciously). This may have been part of a worldview that reinforces dis-connection and separation (consciously or unconsciously). Such a worldview can affect everyone, even those aiming to explore and describe living systems – even the author who is telling you this now! A more regenerative worldview might consider competition alongside cooperation. While in the past, in many places, any focus on cooperation may have been considered politically dangerous, radical, or controversial; this article intentionally uplifts cooperation. What if, in living systems, cooperation were viewed as the baseline or the norm? And what if competition were viewed as a strategy used more rarely, or only when necessary?

One of the basic lessons of 20th-century ecology is symbiosis. It is often simplistically described as a relationship between two organisms that can either be:

( + / -) positive for one and negative for the other (parasitism)

( + / 0) positive for one and neutral for the other (commensalism)

( + / +) positive for both (mutualism).

This article focuses on mutualism, when both organisms benefit from a relationship, which is one important way that cooperation happens in living systems. There are plenty of examples of inter-species and same-species mutualism. This article describes mostly inter-species relationships and gives a few same-species examples; same-species teamwork is covered in a separate article (see 1-3 Collaborative Teams).

In living systems, mutualisms are remarkably common; some researchers believe that every organism, at some point in their life, is involved in a mutualism.

Same-species cooperation

On the cellular level, Egbert Leigh described cooperation occurring within a genome, what he calls a “parliament of genes.” Sometimes, when a small “cabal of selfish genes” arises and seeks to dominate the genome, a counteracting and larger “commonwealth” of genes will cooperate to actively suppress the selfish genes. While in this example Leigh's 1971 worldview is very much based on competition, it is noteworthy that he included cooperation at the genetic level. (This was during a time when many scientists believed that “unlocking the genetic code” would provide illuminating answers. It did not: when the human genome was fully de-coded in 2022, it provided only more questions.)

On the microbial level, bacteria cooperate in a incredible number of ways. Keep reading to learn about some of their most mind-boggling behaviors. In same-species populations, bacteria can cooperate by "quorum sensing," often coordinating a response to their environment to conserve their efforts. For example: making certain products ("common goods") is only worthwhile to do collectively, when a "quorum" of bacteria is present. Bacteria can "sense" whether their population is too low, and suppress that activity; and they can also sense when their population is sufficient for that activity to be beneficial for the entire population.

“Crown-shyness” is a curious and not-yet-well-understood form of cooperation among trees. While this can happen between species, it is definitely observed in same-species populations. While growing to an optimum height, trees ensure enough space between themselves, so that their highest parts do not touch: their “crowns” are “shy” of each other. There is often a distinct gap between trees growing near and next to each other. No one knows exactly why this happens. Theories include: a cooperative sharing of sunlight with plants closer to the ground; ensuring rainwater falls in ways that tree roots can easily access, or that prevents problematic soil erosion; ensuring that the wind is channeled between trees so as to prevent harm to branches. Science fiction author Becky Chambers suggests that older trees may even be consciously saving space for younger trees to grow up into. While this may seem fanciful, what if trees were actually cooperating in this way? What if a worldview based on competition was preventing us from seeing how cooperative trees can be?

“Buffering” is another common form of same-species cooperation. During times of plenty, a group cooperates to set aside a stash of resources to share during times of shortfall. For example: ants may store and share food within a colony; plants may store and share nutrients via their root systems.

Inter-species cooperation

Root systems are involved in one of the biggest and most widespread forms of cooperation ever. It occurs in every terrestrial biome on the planet, and is the result of one of the greatest evolutionary events in the history of Life. A cooperation between fungi and plants, which began around 470 million years ago, enabled plants to colonize pretty much all land on Earth. Fungi share an underground network called “the mycelium,” which allows connection and communication over vast amounts of land area. Plants, by sharing some of the sugars they produce, can tap into this network via mycorrhizae in their roots: structures which allow cooperation between a plant and the world-wide fungal network in the soil. An estimated 80% of land plants rely on their cooperation with fungi to provide certain inorganic compounds and trace elements. Because of this long-standing relationship, and access to this network, plants are also able to cooperate with each other, sending messages, information, nutrients, or support.

Another root-based kind of cooperation is the "rhizome" that forms between leguminous plants and rhizobia bacteria. The bacteria take nitrogen out of the air and produce ammonia, which the plant can absorb. Within a root-nodule, the plant provides shelter and protection for the bacteria, and may share other beneficial nutrients like water and oxygen. Plants can also restrict access to such nutrients from bacteria who aren't holding up their end of the bargain; and may likewise reward bacteria who do.

Lichens are a form of cooperation between a fungus and a sugar-producing photosynthesizer, usually a green alga or a cyanobacteria. In exchange for sugars, the fungi provide water retention and increased surface area. About 20% of all known fungal species form cooperative associations like this, with one or both species dependent on the other for survival (see 1-5 Interdependence).

Peter Wohlleben describes tree friendships, which can be same-species or inter-species. Trees prefer not to be alone, and typically reach out and form cooperative relationships with their neighbors. Trees can cooperate by growing supportively, or making space for each other, sharing sunlight, or providing underground nutrient support via their mycorrhizal connections. In tropical forests, they may share or channel rainwater; they can coordinate the release of water vapor at certain times in order to create fog or clouds; tree branches can provide a habitat for rain-catching epiphytes and their associated tiny aquatic plants. In temperate forests, ground moss may cooperate by supporting tree seedlings, reducing stress, cleaning water, and enhancing their likelihood to develop fully. In boreal forests healthy trees may support those damaged by frost. In the Sonoran desert, young saguaro cacti rely on the shade and moisture provided by neighboring 'nurse trees' (often palo verde or mesquite).

Several kinds of gut bacteria cooperate symbiotically with their hosts, in relationships that, in some cases, have been ongoing for 150-200 million years. Aphids receive several essential amino acids; termites get help digesting cellulose; and nematode roundworms are mutually interdependent with their bacteria – one cannot exist without the other (see 1-5 Interdependence). The human gut microbiome relies on a cooperative relationship with a collective of bacteria including E. Coli. Simo and Massana add: "Humans are in close cooperation with millions of microbes that inhabit the stomach, the mouth, the skin, and that carry out tasks essential to our health."

Clownfish and sea anemone have a three-way mutualistic cooperation with an alga that lives in the sea anemone's tentacles. Waste ammonia from the clownfish feeds the algae. The clownfish actively defend the sea anemone from being eaten by butterflyfish. And because the clownfish have developed an immunity to the tentacles' sting, the sea anemone provides the clownfish protection from predators.

Clownfish and sea anemone photo by Unrealimages (AI)                          Moray eel and cleaner shrimp photo by Deborah Benham  

 Forest moss photo from Forrento                                                                              Crown-shy trees photo by Vinicius Henrique

Ants protect tiny aphids from predators like ladybugs, in exchange for a sugary taste of the honeydew aphids make as a by-product of feeding on plant sap. Ants also cooperate with fungi by actively promoting one strain inside their nests that provides useful resources, and actively removing others that are incompatible.

Bird alarm calls, indicating that a predator in nearby, benefit other same-species birds, as well as any other species who can hear and interpret the alarm calls, including humans.

Cleaning is a paired form of mutualistic cooperation seen in several species – oxpecker birds with zebras; wrasse cleaner fish with salmon; cleaner shrimp with moray eels; plover birds with crocodiles. The cleaner receives a source of food; and the host benefits by having unwanted debris or pests removed.

Some researchers view herbivory by grazers as a form of mutual cooperation. The animal receives a source of food; the plant, while being temporarily cut back, is stimulated to re-grow and often over-compensates to produce more biomass. Entire prairie and grassland ecosystems, covering enormous areas, have evolved around the peregrinations of grazing herd species (like aurochs, cows, horses, bison, wildebeest).

Another widespread form of mutualistic cooperation is between a multitude of flowering plants and their animal pollinators. Astonishingly, plants and pollinators form cooperative networks with very similar patterns and structures (see 1-7 Networks), even in different ecosystems, on different continents, with entirely different species. Often these networks minimize competition between pollinators, reduce harm in several ways, and enhance ecosystem stability, especially when conditions are harsh. Many of these cooperative relationships are old enough that the plant and animal have come to rely upon each other. They are responsible for the co-evolution of distinctive flower shapes and the corresponding (sometimes unique) animal forms that allow them access.

Characteristics of cooperation

Long-standing cooperative relationships often lead to co-evolution: when different species adapt and evolve alongside each other to facilitate continuing a mutually benefical relationship. These relationships may be the drivers of the evolution of many forms of biodiversity. For example: the particular shape of the proboscis and length of the tongue of the hummingbird-moth allows it to feed on certain flowers with a long tube-like shape. Those flowers have evolved their shape in order to encourage pollination by that moth, and to discourage other shorter-tongued pollinators. Some flowers are so specialized and co-evolved that there is now only one specific pollinator that can access that flower (see 1-5 Interdependence). Other flowers may take a more general approach, allowing for a variety of pollinators.

photo by Deborah Benham

Sometimes a network co-evolves, with populations of several species cooperatively interacting. In a field of red and white clover, honeybees (with shorter tongues) visit white clover (with shorter tubes), and bumblebees (with longer tongues) visit red clover (with longer tubes). Since these four species are often found in similar habitats, they can benefit from cooperating. If one patch of clover fails for some reason, the bumblebees might follow honeybees who have found an alternate patch of clover nearby.

Mentioned earlier in this article are several examples of protection and resource-sharing, which are common forms of cooperation. These will be affected by dynamics in the ecological context – harshness of conditions, scarcity or abundance of resources, level of competition for resources – and by aspects of the groups involved – size, reliance on a particular resource, or ability to store resources long-term. Groups may be more likely to cooperate when conditions are harsh (sharing body heat in cold conditions); or when facing a common threat (large inter-species herd migrations to reduce vulnerability to predators). Groups may be less likely to cooperate if resources are scarce (water in the desert); or if they are feeding a large family.

Robinson and Barker distinguish cooperation from tolerance, which is a temporary expansion of the 'in-group.' Some groups will cooperate temporarily to face a shared threat together, which can increase tolerance for a limited time.

“The benefits of cooperation arise simply from having more individuals contribute.  For example, multiple ant nests combine defensive activities when any one of the nests faces the threat of echidna predation.  External threats can promote inter-group cooperation when groups have some degree of shared interests or interdependence." -- Robinson and Barker

Robinson and Barker also describe "identity effects” in both within-group and between-group cooperation. For example: social insects like ants, organized with several nests belonging to the same colony, can distinguish at least three levels of identity: nest-mate, colony-mate, and outsider. When cooperating, ants can discriminate between these levels to show favoritism to those with the most similar identity. In groups with stronger identity effects, inter-group cooperation is often less likely. In groups where identity is more fluid, and changing group membership is a possibility, inter-group cooperation may be more likely. Such groups may even exchange members as a form of cooperation. Individuals with multiple identities, who can be a member of more than one group simultaneously, tend to show more tolerance toward non-members or outsiders.

This is an important idea: being able to distinguish the identity of group outsiders from insiders. Historically, among humans, perceived differences in identity have been used to promote intolerance, oppression, slavery, and genocide. Even where populations are geographically, linguistically, and ethnically similar, human groups still make fundamental distinctions in identity between themselves and the people in the next valley, or across a neighboring river, or over a nearby mountain. If you are not one of us, you must be an outsider – and possibly an enemy. Insiders are typically treated preferentially or uplifted; while outsiders are typically treated unfairly or disparaged. There are many human stories about insiders becoming tolerant of outsiders, and eventually being willing to cooperate with them. Some are cautionary tales with unpleasant outcomes (“see what misery happens when you interact with those people.”); and sometimes the story ends favorably, much to everyone's surprise. Humans in westernized societies, by and large, have a dim view of cooperation. Usually it can only succeed in limited circumstances, among insiders (“you can only trust family”); and cooperation with outsiders is seldom expected to be successful.

Reciprocity is a form of cooperation seen in several social species, including humans, where individuals mutually exchange with each other, mirroring the positive or negative nature of the interaction. Robinson and Barker suggest “Humans typically expect reciprocity to occur with in-groups only (‘bounded generalized reciprocity’), and thus expect benefit from cooperating with in-group, but not out-group, members." Individuals are more likely to be cooperative with those who act cooperatively towards them (or who have a reputation of being cooperative). Different species can take different time periods to reciprocate an action, it might be short or long-term: a tree might have a longer-term view than a bacterium.

Direct one-to-one reciprocity can be embedded in a long-term relationship (like an adult child caring for an elderly parent; or a flower and a pollinator cooperating). In one-to-many and many-to-one (like rotating hosting a supper club, or a bridal shower, or a barn-raising) reciprocity is also direct: the beneficiaries are identified, and contributors know exactly what they can expect in return. When group membership is fluid, or can change easily, this can become less predictable or defined (who is a bride next? who needs a barn next?). Reciprocity can also be indirect: it can follow a long chain of exchanges -- in which A gives a benefit to B, who passes on a similar benefit to C, and so on -- each party expecting that if they contribute, they will eventually receive benefit. In a large network (like a fungal mycelium), members may contribute without any specific expectation other than the continuation of the network itself, investing in "benefit for the common good."

Reciprocity is most easily understood (by folks raised with a westernized worldview) as an exchange between individuals with a shared identity. So what happens when individuals can have multiple identities, belonging simultaneously to distinct groups? And what happens when it's not so clear whether someone is a group insider or an outsider? Or when a superordinate identity (regional or national) becomes more important than a subordinate one (municipal, local)? (In sports this happens when the best players from – usually competing – municipal teams are asked to cooperate to form a national team for a special event like the Olympics). This relates to the principle of Nestedness: how individuals in living systems always have both local and regional, micro and macro identities at once (see 1-2 Nestedness).

Margulis and Mutualism

This blurring of the lines that distinguish identity is the basis of Peter Kropotkin's 1902 concept of mutual aid. Writing within the context of the Russian revolution, Kropotkin was initially dismissed (as an outsider) by many westerners who found his ideas either alien or dangerous. Only later was he credited for anticipating key biological concepts like mutualism and altruism. He was rejected at first, because the idea that individuals can contribute to benefit each other, and the larger collective to which they all belong (sometimes with no apparent immediate benefit to themselves), contradicted prevailing neo-liberal capitalist views. Any idea that originated with socialists, Marxists, Leninists, or anarchists (outsiders), was suspect. Anyone who uplifted such ideas was labelled radical, contrarian, or ridiculous.

Throughout her career, biologist Lynn Margulis was labelled all of these, since her ideas challenged the prevailing neo-Darwinist views of the time. Inspired by Kropotkin (among other outsiders), many of her theories, initially considered heretical, have since been substantiated and are now accepted as mainstream. She asked: what if the basis of evolution and speciation were cooperation, not competition? How would we view the world differently? As designers, how could we begin to re-imagine human social systems that emulate the bacteria who began successfully cooperating millions of years ago, and continue to this day? What can we learn from some of the simplest forms of Life on the planet?

Lynn Margulis                        Peter Kropotkin              Endosymbiosis 3 by BioNinja        James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis by Hummingbird Films

Margulis suggested – and proved – that bacteria can employ (and have for millions of years) a transformative form of cooperation called fusion. This happens when two or more distinct bacteria – often with very different characteristics from entirely different species – integrate to form a new entity. Simo and Massana report that “a fusion of four types of bacteria generated an evolutionary leap, since they could do together what they could not separately." All multicellular Life is based on this bacterial capability to cooperate. The evidence is found within important organelles that manufacture sugar within every plant cell (plastids) and energy within every animal cell (mitochondria). These organelles retain their own DNA, reproduce independently, and have a double membrane. Once upon a time, they were independent bacteria that were ingested, and, instead of being digested, they were incorporated into the biology of our ancestors' bodies. Margulis hypothesized that this cooperative pattern is how all Life evolves, and how most new species come to exist. She thought it would make sense for the pattern to hold true at both the micro and macro levels, and that it may even explain several unsolved mysteries, like evolutionary leaps, 'random genetic mutation,' and observations of bizarre interactions.

Margulis enjoyed collecting such observations, using them to discredit neo-Darwinist theories based on competition. “Well, if your theory is true, then how do you explain this?” she would say. For example: bacteria can reproduce in a variety of ways, both by simple cell-division (asexually) and by exchanging some of their DNA (sexually). They do not have true species separation, since they can (and do) exchange DNA with any other bacteria regardless of species. If they are not truly separate species, then bacteria cannot become extinct; so the definition of extinction may not even apply to bacteria. They may instead cooperate, fuse, and co-evolve into a new form. Margulis observed that, cooperating with algae, protozoans, and fungi, bacteria can form extensive mats and matrices, often visible for miles along a continental coastline. Following this logic, if all bacteria on the planet can interact and exchange, then we could view all bacteria as belonging to a single species, or even a single super-organism.

The Gaia hypothesis, co-created by Margulis and geo-chemist James Lovelock, suggests a planetary form of regulation based on the cooperation of many individual partners. Often misinterpreted by detractors as a utopian vision, its science is firmly based on Margulis' theories. If single-celled organisms can cooperate in planet-wide associations; if inter-species cooperation is an observable characteristic of many living systems; then it is not much of a leap to imagine the planet itself as a living system, or even a super-organism. Its various biomes and habitats can be viewed as its organs (forests as lungs, water-cycle as circulatory system), and individuals like cells within those organs. This view would align with the principle of Nestedness: all forms of Life viewed as cooperative partners, collective members of one living planet. For neo-liberal capitalists, ultra-nationalists, and fundamentalists, this is a dangerous idea, allowing local identity to be superseded by a planetary identity. If difference – that driver of competition – is a fiction, it calls into question the basis of the entire worldview of separation.

Designing with Cooperation in Mind

As designers, the principle of cooperation invites us to consider more needs-based approaches. If we release the basic assumption that everyone must compete for scarce resources (and all its associated patterns), we can begin with an alternate set of assumptions. The Earth has an abundance of resources. There is enough, and sometimes plenty, for all. Everyone can share in the bounty. Everyone deserves a share, even those who are different or viewed as unpleasant. Everyone can get their needs met. Peaceful coexistence (or at least tolerance) is possible. This may involve cooperation via resource-sharing, or re-distribution, or taking turns. A cooperative design can help get everyone's needs met. A shift toward more cooperative mindests, attitudes, and behaviors, will help too.

More cooperative attitudes and behaviors make sense in a world of living systems that are both Nested and Networked (see 1-2 Nestedness; see 1-7 Networks). As designers, we are wise to keep in mind the many ways that living systems interlink and interact. We can learn a lot from our bactierial ancestors, and our many present-day symbionts. In the past, cooperation has affected the entire planet, and may play an impotant role in the future as well.

Questions to consider:

In your context, what old habits, patterns, or beliefs might be obstacles to cooperating? For you personally? For other folks in your area? How might you approach changing those old habits, patterns, or beliefs?

In your area or context, how does reciprocity look now? What patterns of exchange already exist? How might you reference those, or build on them, to encourage more cooperation or reciprocity? How might reciprocity look in the future?

In your context, how are insiders (group members) treated differently from outsiders? Are there any examples of outsiders who have become insiders? If so, what was involved in that process? If not, what would a pathway toward membership look like? How could an outsider become an insider?

In your context, how is identity fixed? How are people expected to mostly keep the same identity for much of their lives? How is identity fluid? How can people change their identity, or have multiple identities?

How might you introduce – to someone who is having some resistance – the benefits of cooperating with people who are outsiders, or who have a different identity?

In your context, when in the past has it made sense to cooperate with 'others' to work toward the 'common good?' What circumstances or conditions led to such cooperation? How might it happen again?

References

Berdugo, M.B., Dovciak, M., Kimmerer, R.W. et al (2023). “The Roles of the Moss Layer in Mediating Tree Seedling Environmental Stress, Mercury Exposure, and Regeneration in High-Elevation Conifer Forests.” Ecosystems 26, 909–923 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-022-00806-0

Chambers, Becky (2022). A Prayer for the Crown-Shy. Tor

Kropotkin, Peter. (1891, 1902, 2006). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Dover Publications.

Leigh, Egbert (1971). Adaptation and Diversity. https://www.statedclearly.com/videos/genetic-conflict-and-the-parliament-of-genes/

Logan, Paul (2022). "Symbiogenesis: The fringe belief of cooperative evolution." https://laulpogan.substack.com/p/symbiogenesis-the-fringe-belief-of

Margulis, Lynn (1981). Symbiosis in Cell Evolution. W.H. Freeman.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (1986). Origins of Sex: 3 Billion Years of Genetic Recombination. Yale University Press.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002). Acquiring Genomes - A Theory of the Origin of Species. Basic Books.

Nanyang Technological University blog (2021). "Lynn Margulis." https://blogs.ntu.edu.sg/hp3203-2021s2-u09/home/

Robinson, Elva and Jessica Barker (2017). "Inter-group cooperation in humans and other animals." Biology Letters, March 2017 Volume 13, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0793

Rodeck, Salome (2023). "Symbiotic Worlds. Theories and Practices of Coexistence in Lynn Margulis and Donna Haraway." https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/research/projects/symbiotic-worlds-theories-and-practices-coexistence-lynn-margulis-and-donna

Simard, Suzanne (2021). Finding the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest. Knopf.

Simó, Rafel and Ramon Massana (2021). "When we learned that competition was not the only driver of evolution." https://www.icm.csic.es/en/news/when-we-learned-competition-was-not-only-driver-evolution

West, Stuart, Griffin A, Gardner A (2007). "Evolutionary Explanations for Cooperation." Current Biology Volume 17, Issue 16, 21 August 2007, Pages R661-R672. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207014996

Wikipedia. "Cooperation – Evolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_(evolution)

Wikipedia. "Microbial Cooperation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_cooperation

Wikipedia. "Mutual Aid (Social work with groups)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work_with_groups

Wikipedia. "Mutualism – Biology." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology)

Wikipedia. "Reciprocal Altruism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

Wikipedia. "Reciprocity – Social Psychology." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)

Wikipedia. "Reciprocity – Social and Political Philosophy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_and_political_philosophy)

Wikipedia. "Solidarity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity

Wikipedia. "Symbiosis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

Wohlleben, Peter (2016). The Hidden Life of Trees. Greystone Books.

Root Cuthbertson

loves dancing, music, poetry, public libraries, matching needs with resources, monofloral honeys, generously inclusive humor, and stories about healing and hope. He has studied social change movements, comparative religion, needs-based approaches, de-colonization, and liberation for all. He holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Education, and certificates in Sustainable Curriculum Design, Participatory Facilitation, and Ecopsychology. A certified trainer in Gaia Education eco-social design, Root designs experiential opportunities for learning by creating strong containers for the graceful facilitation of group energy.  With his wife Deborah Benham, he has delivered trainings on Sociocracy, Culture Repair, and the Connection 1st online courses: “Introduction to Regenerative Community Building,” “Designing for Peace,” and "Pathways to Village Building.” Former Training Coordinator for Transition Network, he is the co-author and curator of collections on Personal Resilience, Conflict Resilience, Group Culture, and Social Justice.  With Jon Young and Deborah, he is co-authoring a series of e-books on regenerative community design.  With his ear to the ground, Root’s guiding question is: “What is most needed here now?”

by Deborah Benham

Jul 12, 2021

Earlier this year I attended an excellent online conversation hosted by Yes! magazine, titled “An Ecological Civilization: The Path We’re On” with Winona LaDuke, Leah Penniman, Jeremy Lent, Zenobia Jeffries Warfield, and Andrew Schwartz. At one point Andrew asked the question above, providing a launch point for this article — the ideas for which had been brewing for a long time.

As change-makers facing escalating and interconnecting crises, how do we choose where to apply our energy?

The panelists offered perspectives on this which I found helpful. Jeremy shared that existence is fractal, and whatever change-makers do, it ripples out across all other nested levels of scale. Change-makers can choose the level of scale they feel best able to work at - as it’s all needed. Winona suggested change-makers start with their own part, as everyone has something different to offer, not trying to do it all. Both speakers also highlighted the importance of relationships. To “be like that mycorrhizal fungal network of all the different changes happening underground”. Leah added that change-makers can use helpful frameworks such as the Transformative Social Justice butterfly — whose four wings describe four potential areas of work: Resist, Reform, Build and Heal — to choose where to apply their energy in a way that feels like a good fit.

As an individual, and as a member of various non-profit, sustainability, and change-making organisations, I’ve struggled with the question of how best I can show up in these times of deepening and escalating crises. Times which are also rich with possibility and potential.

Wrangling with these questions often leaves me feeling exhausted and confused, depleting my energy and creativity. This feels like a waste. I have also seen individuals and organisations arguing with each other over these questions. Competing and polarising over what is considered the most important or most urgent work that’s needed now. I do not believe this approach best supports change or changemakers to thrive and succeed.

And ultimately, I want us to succeed! I’ve seen, and taken part in, so many incredible ideas and solutions already manifesting in response to the interconnected problems humanity faces. I would love those of us involved in regenerative change to weave these principles, practices, and approaches into a rich ecosystem of change-making, where a wide diversity of contributions are welcome, valued, and in mutually beneficial relationships with each other.

PART 1: THREE MAIN FIELDS

1.DESIGN WITH AND AS NATURE IS IMPORTANT

“Cultural biomimicry is roughly defined as the idea that to figure out what we’re supposed to be doing as humans, we should be paying attention to our elder brothers and sisters, to the Earth”. Leah Penniman

My first love is nature. My background is in ecology and nature education, and my work has mostly been in the field of environmental non-profits. I have a passion for, and a bias toward, solving problems using ecological principles based on natural systems. In nature, a healthy ecosystem involves a diversity of species, each fulfilling its part; inhabiting niches and carrying out processes which inter-relate. This leads to emergent properties of health and functioning, which cannot be created by any single part of the system alone.

This is how I would invite change-makers to frame themselves and each other.

Firstly, I would love to see change-makers re-learn how to design with and as nature — inspired and guided by the patterns and principles which support Life to thrive.

Secondly, I would like change-makers to recognise that when they work as diverse members of a networked ecosystem of change (modelled on natural systems), they create emergent properties that are powerful and could never be predicted by looking at the individual members or change initiatives.

Thirdly, I would like change-makers to strengthen and value their relationships and connections with each other, across their fields and specialties, across their diverse and sometimes challenging perspectives and lived experiences, and to stand strength to strength, learning from, uplifting and amplifying each other’s work.

(Daniel Wahl, and Fritjof Capra & Per Luigi Luisi, provide in-depth analyses of the principles of ‘designing as nature’, and ‘emergent properties of complex living systems’ in their books Designing Regenerative Cultures (Wahl, 2016) and The Systems View of Life (Capra & Luisi, 2014)).

2. DECONSTRUCT AND DECOLONIZE — A LIFE’S WORK

Designing human systems using nature’s principles and patterns is critically important for life on earth to be restored to health and to thrive, …however it is not enough. There must also be recognition of the harm being done by current human systems, and action taken to dismantle and heal from this.

I am relatively new to Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion work. As a white woman living in the U.K. I receive many benefits from the dominant culture. I have biases in my understanding and gaps in my awareness. I’m on a learning journey, which will likely continue for the rest of my life. I now recognise that as a (white, privileged) change-maker, I cannot pay attention solely to one aspect of the challenges humanity faces. Working to protect and repair the natural environment — habitats, soil, water, biodiversity — will not succeed from within a silo, and will likely create unethical, uninformed and harmful consequences in relation to oppression, injustice, power, and participation.

The temptation I have experienced in myself (and observed in other environmentally-oriented folks or organisations) is to say that if people restore the natural environment, and design with and as nature, we can create a healthy and regenerative world for all. But designing with nature, or living as part of nature, though a huge and very worthwhile challenge, is not enough. The systems of domination, oppression, and extraction — of both people and the rest of nature, — continue to create massive harm. In addition to being informed and guided by ecological principles toward a regenerative human presence in the world, we also need to deconstruct and decolonize the degenerative, and currently dominant, cultures and systems.

Many others have spoken of the interconnection of social justice and environmental issues much better than I could, so I will not attempt to do so in more detail here.

3. PARTICIPATE

A third aspect I see as being important within an ecosystem of regenerative change, is shifting approaches to power and participation. Many people, including me, have grown up in a westernised culture which trains us to be passive consumers, or to compete for power and success, or if trying to make positive change, to approach it from the archetype of the hero or saviour.

There is an emerging body of work — all of which I see as related — which explores how change-makers can work with power, leadership, governance, decision-making, personal development and participation in change, in a more distributed and accessible way.

Part of this is becoming active co-participants, who take an appropriate level of responsibility — recognising it as a marathon not a sprint — while also recognising personal limitations, areas where different individuals can best contribute, and times for rest and replenishment. Another part is being willing to experiment with new principles and practices such as shared governance, consent based decision making, participatory democracy and more.

PART 2: A FRAMEWORK

Here’s a simple framework I’ve been using to orient myself to the question “where and how can I best offer my energy to change-making”? In it, I propose there are at least three main fields of work needed to support regenerative change, including (1) designing with and as nature (building regenerative systems), (2) acknowledging and repairing harm done by current and past systems (decolonisation and dismantling of systemic oppression) and (3) facilitating shifts in power and participation (from domination and hierarchy, to relationship based partnership and networks of cooperation) — supporting many more people to connect and become active in regenerative change.

FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS

Outer Circle: The wider context of Regenerative Change work to pay attention to.

Simultaneously Deconstruct & Decolonize damaging current systems which dominate and oppress people and the rest of nature, and Design, Support & Scale regenerative systems, which value partnership and reciprocity between people and people, and people and the rest of nature.

This looks like supporting shifts out of and away from expressions of colonised cultures and worldviews. While consciously designing, implementing and scaling regenerative attitudes, cultures, narratives, systems and practices.

Inner Circles: Parallel & interwoven bodies of work to focus on and/or uplift and support.

  1. Ecological principles: Use nature’s patterns and principles (i.e. the blueprint for life to thrive), to create

   regenerative rather than degenerative human systems and cultures.

  2. Social justice, healing and reparations: acknowledge, make reparation for and work to heal the damage

   done by current and past systems of oppression, marginalisation and colonialism.

  3. Repairing power and becoming good participants: Move from domination — power over or saviour/hero

   approaches, to relationship based partnership — power with/distributed power — shared/community

   /cooperative approaches to leadership and participation.

ROOTED IN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE & REFLECTIONS

Once I see myself as part of a wider ecosystem, part of a whole, with a variety of different functions happening in an interwoven and mutualistic way, it becomes easier for me to answer the question ‘Where am I located?’ and ‘What is mine to do’? The answer to this question is a deeply personal one.

For me the answer has sometimes been ‘where I see most need/urgency’ — however when I use this as a compass to navigate by, I have repeatedly found myself doing work that I do not thrive within, which is draining and where I end up burning out (a sprint, rather than a marathon). I recognise this is sometimes needed — however, I also believe that as changemakers, it’s important to recognise that the issues we are engaging with are challenging enough — and that if we work in areas that do not provide a channel for our genuine love and creativity, then we are much more likely to burn out quickly. In my experience, when I identify the piece of the puzzle which excites and inspires me most and put my energy there, the work in itself becomes energising and replenishing, rather than depleting. Which means I can do it over a much more sustained period and with much deeper impact.

However, even when I choose to do what I love, I’m still sometimes left with feelings of guilt, shame or self doubt — ‘is it ok to do what I love and feel called to do?’ — ‘what about all the other important pieces of work that need doing?’

More recently this has started to shift. As I’ve moved around and worked within different parts of the change-making ecosystem, I’ve been delighted to find that in every niche there are people contributing there, who genuinely feel called to that work. And just like when I bring my best to my work, they are bringing their best to this other niche. This gives me confidence and the courage to locate myself where I feel aligned. However, and this feels important, it does not mean I ignore, demean or downplay the importance of other areas of work. Quite the opposite. In fact, with my self doubt and shame reduced, I feel much better able to learn about, celebrate, amplify and continue relating with these areas of work and the change makers energising them.

As I come to the final editing of this article, I’ve recently given myself permission and time to clarify and focus on my personal area of inspiration and motivation — that of transformative education based on living systems principles. Developing and sharing the framework in this article has dissolved many of my psychological and emotional blocks and released more creativity and energy in my work again.

A STRATEGY FOR NAVIGATING COMPLEXITY

The strategy that the framework offers is,

(1) to locate myself where I feel love, creativity and energy, and where I can bring my best, and then,

(2) to actively build and be in relationship with other parts — people, organisations and issues — within the wider ecosystem.

My intention is that from a place of being deeply rooted in, and resourced by my work, I can better offer support and solidarity to other areas of the wider network. I can also continue to be informed by and learn about these areas, and amplify or share stories about their work and aims.

This is similar to how the plants and the mycelium - the mycorrhizal fungal relationships and plant root systems in a forest - exchange information and resources for the health of the whole. They form webs of relationship and communication, each fulfilling their roles and functions, while sharing and exchanging what is needed for all to thrive. This wood wide web, is a wonderful example of a complex and interconnected system, the pattens of which can help us inform the design of human systems and communities.

LINEAGE

I am not the first person by any means to use the terms ‘ecology of change’ or ‘ecosystem of change’, or to explore the concepts mentioned in this article. The main reference I’m aware of which uses this term is This is an Uprising. The authors propose that,

“ In a healthy “ecology of change,” you have both shorter-term movement uprisings and longer-term organization building… that work a little bit differently from one another — and that by creating greater understanding, it might help break down some of the suspicion and hostility that sometimes emerges between people who come from different schools of thought about creating change. We hope that, instead of having different methods of change working against each other, they can be more creative in supporting one other and advancing common goals.” Mark Engler & Paul Engler

Other resources and authors who have profoundly shaped my thinking are Carol Sanford’s ‘Regenerative Business’ and ‘The Regenerative Life’, Frances Moore Lappé’s ‘EcoMind’, Merlin Sheldrake’s recent ‘Entangled Life’, and the works of Jon Young, Fritjof Capra, Joanna Macy, Lynn Margulis, adrienne maree brown, Daniel Wahl, and Robin Wall Kimmerer.

PART 3: A COLLECTIVE REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

When I first started mulling over this set of concepts and the visual framework, it was to help orient myself within a wider field of regenerative change and so cope with my own feelings of overwhelm and impotence. During that time I was part of a two year Community of Practice for sustainability practitioners, called the Boundless Roots Community (BRC), hosted by Forum for the Future and funded by KR Foundation. I am also a staff member at Transition Network — the UK based charity which supports the international Transition (towns) movement (www.transitionnetwork.org). You can read a report summarising the BRC journey and approaches over the last two years here.

Participation in this community, and my roles exploring Practices of Change and Regenerative Culture Learning for Transition Network, were a wonderful opportunity to help shape and test my ideas. This was with some trepidation as my way of communicating these topics felt, and still feel, new and half formed. However, the feedback I received from other change makers included comments such as ….

“(Its) interesting to hear you say (the concepts and frameworks) are complex and you’re worried about just adding complexity’. For me, they’re helping me to navigate complexity. Your image has helped. As a climate activist, sustainability practitioner, entrepreneur etc. it’s helping me see the big stuff happening that I feel I need to embed in my work, but feels so big and hard to integrate. You have given me a concise image that I can work with. Those themes are in front of me as one picture. I see practices behind those words, I have a sense of some of what it needs and requires. Secondly — having this picture helps me answer the question — what do I do? It helps me work with my frustration that I can’t be everywhere at once, and my anxiety that I am not part of everything. It helps me understand my position — if I am there — who is over there? And also, which part of my work is regenerative and building, and which part is decolonising? And if I have gaps — then I can reach out to people more in those other areas and say ‘we can do more, if we do it in awareness of each other and together’”. Leila Hoballah, entrepreneur and activist.

 

“When Deb showed the various circles it helped me acknowledge that we don’t need to be everywhere — we can have relationships in those places, but actually it’s a vast ecology to have awareness of, and relationships across, and not try to do everything”. Louise Armstrong, Forum for the Future

The concepts of an ecosystem of change and the ecology of change (see definitions below) were also finding traction within my work at Transition Network. We started to use these terms more in our funding applications and as part of our dialogues with the wider movement regarding the impact, potential and relevance of Transition. What I observed is that others quickly picked up and started to use these terms, as the ideas embedded within them seemed to resonate for many people. These comments and the feedback from the systems I’m part of, gave me courage to share these ideas in this article. They indicated that other changemakers faced similar challenges to my own, and that my thinking could help.

IN SUMMARY

What I’m sharing here is a simple (I hope) set of concepts, and a visual framework, to start exploring the question and pain-point experienced by many changemakers of, in amongst complexity, urgency, competing demands and escalating crisis…where and how do I place my energy and focus?

The invitations made by this article and framework are,

(1) to reframe regenerative change as an ecosystem, with many roles and niches — working in a mutualistic and beneficial way towards thriving for the whole system and,

(2) to allow ourselves as changemakers to locate ourselves in the area of change which most sings to us, while amplifying and supporting other aspects of the wider change network.

TALK TO ME?

What I offer here is just one perspective and one contribution amongst many. I’m curious to know how these ideas land for you.

In what ways might the ideas within this article support you as a change maker? What is missing or would make this framework or these ideas feel more helpful? What would your version of this be?

If we took a networked, cooperative, ecosystem approach to change making? What might come next? What might be possible?

What could be added to or change about the visual framework? I know it’s oversimplified and could be more detailed, for example by adding the principles and practices nested within each of these areas of work. It could also be visualized differently as parallel and interweaving strands, or literally as a map of an ecosystem with different areas of work and functions described in more detail. This is something I would like to explore more in the future — preferably with a group of people embedded within these various spheres of change.

Please do leave your comments below or email me if you would like to offer feedback and/or get involved in progressing these ideas. deborahmbenham(at)gmail.com

Thank you for reading and for all that you are and do in service to a regenerative future.

•  •  • 

APPRECIATIONS

Many thanks to Leila Hoballah at Boundless Roots and Louise Armstrong at Forum for the Future for the very practical support of time, financial resources and good conversation, for helping me have the courage to share these emerging ideas, and for their belief in building practitioner capacity. I’m grateful for coaching and support from Dr Anna Birney at the School of System Change. For sharing with me the concept of a reflective practitioner and for helping me develop and clarify my ideas. I’m grateful for the idea all three shared, that our own lives and changemaking activities can be approached as action learning, and that through mini experiments, personal reflection and feedback from the nested systems we are part of, that we can grow and develop our abilities, resilience and capacity as practitioners. This feels important to me, as the challenges we face feel huge, and to enable us to keep showing up and engaging with them, I believe we need to keep developing ourselves and our networks of support.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Regenerative change — change which leads to life being able to repair, regenerate and perpetuate itself, providing health and stability for the entire system (ecological and social). A further step than sustainability which aims for maintaining what is already present. Autopoiesis (Varela & Maturana) is a way that life and other self-organising systems can be defined. The word means “self making or self-production”. It refers to a system which can balance, reproduce and sustain itself. Which can transform energy and matter to repair and replace needed components. Systems which contain active permeable boundaries — in constant relationships of exchange and support with other parts of the system.

Ecology of Change — using ecological principles and patterns to design and/or describe change making approaches. Using a living systems approach to designing human systems and societies. A Living systems approach (Capra & Luigi) is focused less on structures and more on networks, processes and relationships. Life is determined by metabolic processes and the relationships between different parts of a living system — whether a cell, plant or animal body or an entire ecosystem. The same principles and patterns show up in human social systems and communities. By using the patterns and principles which show up repeatedly in natural systems e.g. networks, relationships, nestedness, cooperation, fractal levels of scale, feedback loops, adaptive cycles, circular/no waste processes — we can facilitate the emergence of human systems and communities which operate within planetary boundaries and provide conditions where all groups of people, and all species and habitats, can thrive in mutually beneficial relationships.

Ecosystem of Change — seeing change makers and change making organisations, across different fields of ecological and social change, as interrelated parts of a wider system, working towards shared/interrelated aims, and fulfilling different niches which are in relationship with each other. The whole system working synergistically to create ‘more than the sum of its parts’ — also known as emergence. Emergent properties cannot be predicted by looking only at the parts or their sum. Emergent properties create unexpected jumps in evolutionary potential and can be very powerful. By working together as an ecosystem we have more chances to create emergent properties which can lead to bigger shifts in society, than we could create alone.

LINKS and RESOURCES

Yes! magazine webinar — An Ecological Civilization: The Path We’re On. https://www.yesmagazine.org/video/ecological-civilization-sustainability (recording & transcript)

Leah Penniman & SoulFire Farm. https://www.soulfirefarm.org

Winona La Duke. https://www.winonashemp.com/ and https://www.winonaladuke.com/

Jeremy Lent. https://www.jeremylent.com/

Sociocracy for All. https://www.sociocracyforall.org/

Introductory Sociocracy Course: https://learning.sociocracyforall.org/empowered-learning-circle-sociocracy-basics-learn-the-basics-of-sociocracy-with-a-group

The Wood Wide Web https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/wood-wide-web-underground-network-microbes-connects-trees-mapped-first-time

BBC News — video The Wood Wide Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWOqeyPIVRo

Suzanne Simard on TED. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un2yBgIAxYs

Books

Buck, John and Sharon Villines (2007). We the People - Consenting to a Deeper Democracy. (Sociocracy.info)

Capra, Fritjof and Per Luigi Luisi (2014). The Systems View of Life- A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press.

Engler, Mark and Paul Engler (2016). This is An Uprising. Nation Books

Rau, Ted J. and Jerry Koch-Gonzalez (2018). Many Songs, One Voice- Shared Power with Sociocracy. (Sociocracy for All)

Wahl, Daniel Christian (2016). Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press

Find out more about Shark Skin inspired anti-bacterial surfaces and Sponge Cities.

I’m particularly interested in systems level biomimicry, and additionally, how we can take biomimicry to the social and cultural levels by developing ecologically inspired mindsets, values and practices across society.

As an ecologist and naturalist I’m filled with wonder every time I learn about a new example of interconnection and mutual benefit in nature. One of my favourite examples is how forests on land support the health of ocean life. For my PhD I studied sea otters in the kelp beds of central California and came to understand their keystone role in the health of this ecosystem. Otters eat urchins which graze on kelp, thereby keeping these predators in balance and helping the kelp to survive and thrive. The healthy kelp creates nurseries for young fish, which supports marine species higher up the food chain, including in fisheries that humans rely on. What I was surprised and in awe to discover years later, was that redwood forests also play an important role in this system. By concentrating nutrients, leaching these into groundwater, which then reaches rivers, which flow into the sea, the redwoods provide crucial nutrition that kelp needs to grow.

Nature is full of examples like this, where disparate and even distant elements have evolved into highly interconnected and mutually beneficial networks.

For me this raises the questions — ‘How can people be part of creating conditions for life to thrive? and ‘How can we (as individuals, communities, business, society) engage in the ecosystems around us in a way which makes a net positive contribution? This exploration feels much more motivating and empowering than continuing to contribute to extraction, pollution, biodiversity loss and other harmful impacts.

Two wonderful examples of humans acting as a helpful species (1) The fishermen in Japan who figured out the relationship between the health of the forest and the health of the ocean and fisheries they rely on. By replanting the forests and restoring the health of the watershed they have restored the health of the fisheries, even creating resilience in the face of massive disasters such as the tsunami, earthquake and nuclear event of several years ago. (2) The businesses taking part in Biomimicry 3.8’s Project Positive — exploring the question, ‘How can a factory act like a forest’? This leading edge collaboration, including businesses such as Interface, Google and Ford, guided by some of the best Biomimicry practitioners in the world, measures the ecosystem services of neighbouring healthy ecosystems, then presents businesses with the challenge of creating the same level of benefits (for people and nature) from their factories, operations and services. Its a massive jump forward from net zero to net positive.

Both the redwood/kelp and fishermen’s forest examples can be found in this wonderful film Call of the Forest. Find out more about Project Positive here.

Its important to mention that there are many more examples of humans behaving as a helpful and intrinsic part of living systems, in particular in indigenous and land connected cultures. 80% of the world’s most biodiverse habitats are in indigenous lands. This is because in these cultures, these values and practices have been the norm for thousands of years. One example of this is the cool burns managed by aboriginal people in Australia, which helps care for the bush, increases biodiversity and reduces the occurrence of forest fires. By excluding people from their traditional lands, damage is caused to these long standing and mutually beneficial relationships, creating harm both to the people and the land.

These are just a few examples of how nature, and people cooperating with nature, can help create conditions which support life to thrive. There are many more avenues to explore. My intention is to start sharing more of these stories and examples and I would love to hear how these land for you. Do you find principles or inspiration in these which are relevant to your life, organisation, business or community? Would you like me to share more like this? Would you be willing to share examples you are finding with me?