Society featured

The Eco-Civilization Framework

January 25, 2024

Originally published as part of the forum “What’s Next for the Global Movement” by the Great Transition Initiative: https://greattransition.org

As the planet burns, authoritarian populists dominate politics, oil executives direct the COP process, and the wealthy elite pull further away from everyone else, it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that the movement for a beneficial future is failing. We clearly need to do something very different.

Is there a better way to organize the movement for positive change? Since, as Paul Raskin wisely observes, a Global Citizens Movement may be conceptualized as a “polycentric ecology,” perhaps we can take inspiration from how ecosystems themselves organize.

A key underlying principle of ecosystems, along with other complex adaptive systems, is reciprocal causality: all the disparate parts work together to form a coherent whole, while the system as a whole gives cohesion to the activities of each of the parts. In a natural ecology, systemic coherence emerges from a myriad of prior evolutionary adaptations. In human systems, the coherence arises in the form of an organizing idea or ideas. For example, as the Scientific Revolution emerged in early modern Europe, there were many different discoveries and theoretical breakthroughs, each of which reinforced each other’s impact through building on the cohering metaphor of “nature as a machine” and following Francis Bacon’s clarion call to “conquer nature.”

In more recent times, we can learn from the rise of what is arguably the most successful transformational movement in modern history: neoliberalism. When the Mont Pelerin Society formed in 1947, it laid the conditions for powerful reciprocal causality by encouraging diverse perspectives expressed through a shared manifold of meaning: the primacy of individual liberty. The society declared in its Statement of Aims that its objective was “solely, by facilitating the exchange of views among minds inspired by certain ideals and broad conceptions held in common, to contribute to the preservation and improvement of the free society.”

At that time, the ideas presented by neoliberal thinkers were utterly rejected by mainstream culture. Yet, as a result of a carefully orchestrated strategy, placing neoliberal opinion-shapers in the centers of powerful networks where they could seed conversations around their ideas, they succeeded over a few decades in shifting what became known as the Overton window: the set of ideas considered acceptable to mainstream political discourse.

Our only hope for a viable future is to shift the Overton window ourselves—not just back to where it was before neoliberalism, but into completely different terrain. The most important driver of that shift will be an alternative shared manifold of meaning: the idea of an Ecological Civilization (Eco Civ) built on life-affirming principles, setting the conditions for all people to flourish on a thriving, living Earth and leading to profoundly beneficial changes in virtually every aspect of society.

The vision of an ecological civilization invites an integrative conceptual architecture for diverse progressive groups worldwide. Giving a common name to a multiplicity of movements has the potential to unite people from around the world in a common undertaking.

In the broadest terms, an ecological civilization encompasses themes of multiple groups from around the world. It incorporates Indigenous concepts such as buen vivir and ubuntu, insights from ecological economics and commons theory, and principles from the permaculture, Transition Towns, degrowth, and agroecology movements. It reflects spiritual underpinnings of Deep Ecology, engaged Buddhism, and universalist Christian theology. It embraces ideas from the anti-globalization, eco-socialist, social justice, LGBTQ rights, and Rights of Nature movements, among others. Ultimately, it has the potential to catalyze globally dispersed “blessed unrest” into a coherent, benevolent force for societal transformation.

However, an idea by itself, no matter how powerful, is not enough. As the Mont Pelerin Society understood, an organizing principle must be manifested through a concerted long-term strategy—in their case, seeding new ideas throughout the academy, then converting them into policies through a series of think tanks, new media outlets, and alliances with the business community and broadcast media.

There are of, course, significant differences between their approach and what is needed now. The Eco Civ movement would need to be heterarchical rather than hierarchical and would need to incorporate widely diverse populations rather than mostly elite white males. Our source of power is not so much financial as in the hearts and minds of the billions of people around the world who desire a better future for themselves and their offspring. And while the Internet age can create dangerously separate silos, it also enhances the potential for stunningly rapid transmission of new ideas.

The systems thinker Ilya Prigogine once famously described how, when complex systems transition from one stable state to another, the character of the subsequent state is influenced by “small islands of coherence in a sea of chaos” which have “the capacity to lift the entire system to a higher order.” These “islands of coherence” already exist throughout the world—generated by distinct visionary ideas, grassroots movements, and community initiatives laying down pathways toward a life-affirming future. However, as suggested by the principle of reciprocal causality, while these “islands” may form autonomously at grassroots levels, their collective power is significantly enhanced by a cohesive framework that amplifies their energy and supports their trajectory—a “transformation catalyst” in the words of Sandra Waddock.

We need a life-affirming, up-to-date version of the Mont Pelerin Society: an Ecological Civilization Coalition. This could be conceived as a loosely organized alliance of prominent changemakers with connections to a more focused central hub. The hub could be organized on sociocracy principles to avoid hierarchical leadership. As a focused organization, it could source funds from donors seeking transformative change and funnel resources to identified “islands of coherence” in various domains of society. A team of dedicated professionals could work with these “islands” to identify and help disseminate best practices and principles for planetary-wide adoption in a process of “fractal scaling.” Finally, as a media hub, it could facilitate a coherent articulation of the Eco Civ concept in mainstream media outlets to help shift the Overton window.

Whether we can reweave the strands of our unraveling civilization into a flourishing future will only be known on the other side of the turmoil that lies ahead this century. But as each climate disaster brings our current system closer to collapse, we have an overriding obligation to future generations, and to life itself, to shine a directional beacon through the darkness of our times to a potentially brighter future—and to help lay down a trail toward it.

Jeremy Lent

Jeremy Lent is an author and speaker whose work investigates the underlying causes of our civilization’s existential crisis, and explores pathways toward a life-affirming future. His upcoming book, Ecocivilization: Making a World that Works for All, will be published on May 26. He is founder of the Deep Transformation Network and co-founder of the Ecocivilization Coalition. His previous two books were The Web of Meaning and The Patterning Instinct.

Comments

Welcome to the new Resillience commenting system!

We have moved from the former Disqus commenting system to a new system as of September 10, 2026.

  • Your past comments have not disappeared.
  • You can log in with your old Disqus credentials, as well as Gmail credentials or a Resilience account (formerly Resilience+). Login with Facebook and other credentials is coming soon.

We made this change because of privacy concerns regarding Disqus. It's also part of a set of changes to bring more services to the Resilience community under a single login: commenting, (coming September 2026), and online courses (coming 2027). Unfortunately, your old Disqus comments may not reliably link to your account in this new system. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
James R. Martin
2 years ago

“Instead of “islands of coherence” awaiting direction from a team of professional visionaries, how about we imagine the transformative potential of local communities that, all on their own and each in their own way, set about the business of becoming as self-sufficient as possible?”

As much as I am in agreement with so much of the spirit of this commentary here, especially the very decentralized and local collaboration angle on what is being advocated for, I’m really not sure the commentary is entirely fair to what Jeremy Lent actually seems to be saying, by my reading.

It is all too easy to assume that by “a team of dedicated professionals” Jeremy Lent might be referring to a cabal of self-proclaimed elites of the sort which Walter Lippmann proposed ought to rule the “bewildered herd” using various methods of propaganda and control from on high. But I sincerely doubt that this is what Lent had in mind when he proposed creating “a team of dedicated professionals” of the sort he was advocating for. See Chomsky on Lippmann’s “bewildered herd” here.: https://chomsky.info/mediacontrol03/

Educators are, after all, professionals. So why not also have professionals who assist (not command) in nudging a much more distributed and decentralized, egalitarian and free, form of local governance into being?

I suppose what I’m pushing back against here–with, I hope, a kind gentleness–is the phrase “awaiting direction from a team of professional visionaries”. Awaiting direction is, I think, very far from what Jeremy seems to have had in mind to convey. And it is, I think, unfair to assume that because someone is “professional” — or being paid for their time and effort — that they must resemble the sort of anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic intentionality as found in Walter Lippmann’s agenda for the world.

Nurturing and facilitating community development is not, I would say, identical with manipulating the community against its better judgement or intentions.

I think I find myself agreeing with both you, Brian, and Jeremy. And I doubt that you disagree as much as you might believe, Brian.

Brian Lloyd
Brian Lloyd
2 years ago

You seem to be arguing mainly with Walter Lippmann here, but I will concede that “awaiting direction” probably put a darker spin on the thing than Mr. Lent intended. I accept, and appreciate, that recalibration. I do think we should try as hard as we can to count ordinary folks, even the ones now bewitched by the likes of Trump, as potential allies from the start rather than people who are going to have to be drawn into a process initiated by better educated others. Political loyalties aside, rural and small town people share many values and aspirations with inhabitants of indigenous communities and ecologically-minded activists and writers. The academic language moves us off that common ground and the strategy he advocates, in my view, makes it less, rather than more, likely that people will be able to find their way back to it.

Mr. Lent and I surely do agree about many things, as I read The Patterning Instinct not long after it came out and continue to read his essays when I come upon them online. I have learned much from him. I am just trying to return the favor by offering a word of caution that he, and indeed all of us, would do well to ponder.

Paul Heft
Paul Heft
2 years ago
Reply to  Brian Lloyd

Along the lines of including “ordinary folks”, I think Jeremy should think twice before aiming our communications to “progressives”—a rather polarizing term in the US (and the UK too?).

James R. Martin
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul Heft

“The academic language moves us off that common ground and the strategy he advocates, in my view, makes it less, rather than more, likely that people will be able to find their way back to it.”

I’d say that context is everything here. When speaking with people who feel alienated by multi-syllabic words (which are not always “academic,” per se) , it may be wise to use these sparingly. When speaking with folks interested in theoretical conceptualization concerning political and social transformation, that level or kind of language might be fine and appropriate.

Personally, as one convinced that we’re not going to make any cultural or political transformation headway without addressing our habits of ontological and epistemological orienting in the world, I’d rather us all make frequent use of these “academic” terms, and thus render them ordinary and everyday words that need not intimidate or be off-putting.

Even simple country folk (or simple rural or suburban folk) don’t really want to be talked down to. And one way of not talking down to folks is to throw in an occasional word and concept they might actually benefit from learning.

Indeed, we can all benefit from expanding our vocabulary, whoever we are.

James R. Martin
2 years ago

I agree with both you, Paul, and Brian, in suggesting that we should not rely on “existing institutions” of the mainstream / conventional / establishment sort. These are the institutions which are doing all they can to maintain our ecocidal and socially exploitative systems of oppression, domination and hegemony.

Jo de Riva
Jo de Riva
2 years ago

I appreciate everyone’s commitment to this common aim and intelligence in looking at how in reality to progress things. I see value in Brian’s flagging of what James sees already covered in Jeremy’s essay. So rather than needing to “defend” Jeremy I feel Brian’s reading of the article needs to be highlighted. In any discourse there is a trap of an us v them that the writer needs to be cautious of. Particularly to do with who holds the correct knowledge. Perceptions matter. I have read the local manifesto in part and I can identify with the small pockets of remnant rural settings where the values needed remain. And the local action approach fits These groups would NOT readily relate to any of the language used in these forums. So this is what James is saying perhaps is the role of the professional.. or educator .. I would use the term facilitator..

Brian Lloyd
Brian Lloyd
2 years ago

I’m with you until you move from idea to strategy. From that point on, all manner of abstractions begin to creep in – “heterarchical,” “Overton window,” “sociocracy,” “fractal scaling.” I am guessing that is why the need for a “team of dedicated professionals” eventually surfaces in your argument. Ordinary folks are not going to know what any of this means and will not be much inclined to have it explained to them, even by someone brimming over with good intentions.

If all that was necessary, then I guess we would have to set our jaws and soldier on. But it is not. It only becomes necessary when you imagine “transformative change” as something that can be accomplished using existing institutions – think tanks, mainstream media, the business community, and, judging from your choice of the word “policies,” existing state institutions. Those are the places where fresh initiatives, especially if they are truly transformative, go to die. We might call it, with all due respect, the Bill McKibben Syndrome, and it channels our best hopes and energies into a reform process hardwired for futility and heartbreak.

Neoliberalism represented a tweaking, not an overturning, of an existing system of exploitation.
The strategy employed by those who shoehorned those ideas into the halls of power cannot be a model for those trying to create another kind of system, and wield a genuinely democratic kind of power, altogether.

Instead of “islands of coherence” awaiting direction from a team of professional visionaries, how about we imagine the transformative potential of local communities that, all on their own and each in their own way, set about the business of becoming as self-sufficient as possible? Instead of pressuring corporations and the governments that do their bidding to do the right thing, we render them irrelevant to our lives. There is a vision that will appeal to a far wider range of folks than any plan pitched, as yours is, to “progressive” change-makers alone, who must then go out and bring light to the untutored. It might even appeal to those who know damn well that his system cares nothing for them and are lining up behind public figures who give rude and impious voice to their cynicism. If faith in existing governments to fix things is unfounded, then it is the progressives who need some tutoring.

I do agree that ideas, without a strategy for implementing them, cannot do work in the world. For a strategy of change-making that proceeds from “localist” premises, please visit occupythehearth.org.

Brian Lloyd

Jo de Riva
Jo de Riva
2 years ago

Brian have you shared your local manifesto on the deep transformation network .. I’d like to see it looked at there