Rational or Ridicule? A Journey Towards Subtle Agroecologies

Julia Wright is Associate Professor at the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, UK. Over the last decade she has co-developed a new academic discipline on Subtle Agroecologies, which she shares here with the Listening to the Land programme. 

It always seemed to me to be rational to farm organically. Why would anyone want to harm nature and human health? Yet the vast majority of colleagues in research and policy circles of the agricultural development sector in which I worked appeared to think differently, and so I spent the first 20 years of my work life listening and learning in an attempt to understand why they were right and I was wrong. Finally, on reflecting that – over that entire period – no rational argument had been presented for the continued practice of industrial agriculture, I had to acknowledge that I was right! 

The culmination of this enquiry came when writing up the conclusions to my doctoral research. Based at Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands, I had spent a year on field work in Cuba, interviewing over 400 Cuban farmers, researchers and government officials on their rationales for by and large not transitioning to organic farming in the face of the nation’s shortfalls in fuel, agrochemical and food supplies during the 1990s. Many of the incentives to ‘go organic’ were present in the country at that time – strong and nationwide agricultural education provision, state prioritisation of human and environmental health indicators, absence of a private sector and thus no vested business interests at play, and a very capable organic movement. 

Yet, whether at grassroots or government level, an industrialised mindset pervaded, one that appeared to be as much based on fear as on rationality. Government officials would explain that they could not support localised agroecology across the nation in case they lost control over farmers, and that, in any case, organic farming itself ran counter to the national food security policy of maximising crop yields. Farmers explained that farming without chemicals would lead to uncontrollable insect plagues or – again – low productivity. These fears – of not having enough or of losing control – were understandably valid reactions in the emergency situation that Cuba found itself in at the time. Yet even in this situation, for every Cuban interviewee who doubted the possibility of organic farming, another felt that it was possible and was achieving good and consistent organic yields in the same province and locality, at the same time. Clearly, even in Cuba (let alone other countries with lesser food security issues), farmers and other actors in the farming system were believing and experiencing different realities. I concluded that to further this line of enquiry would require a departure from the agricultural sciences and into the arts and humanities. 

It was some years later that I encountered the treatise of psychiatrist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist concerning the biohemispheric structure of the brain, and how the increasingly dominant left hemisphere, with its belief in secular-materialism, has given rise to a normalisation of an emergency footing in the everyday. This is played out in the international agricultural arena through the directive of having to ‘feed the world’, rather than enabling the peoples of the world to feed themselves through more sustainable, ecologically-based farming approaches.

The Metaphysics of Farming and Some Controversies

In contrast, it was during my time in the Netherlands that I also came across the nature communicator and metaphysical journeyman Michael Roads. Born into a farming family in Cambridgeshire, Michael had discovered the ability to communicate with nature at an early age. After emigrating to Australia in the 1960s he became a successful organic farmer and gardener, writing several books on the subject. As his metaphysical abilities and experiences grew, he started touring Europe and the USA, holding workshops on the metaphysics of nature, self-healing and the development of consciousness. At these workshops, as well as at other courses and events related to nature-connectedness, I’ve met hundreds of people who are able to have some kind of dialogue or exchange and reciprocal relationship with the other-than-humans of the natural world. 

These courses and experiences had a profound and positive effect on my worldview as well as on my health and wellbeing, to the point where I realised that if everything is one and interconnected, it would be incongruent to run one’s professional life on a different philosophical basis from one’s private life. Since then, from about 2014, I have been working to develop an appropriate philosophical and conceptual framework within which to couch research on the metaphysics of the farmed environment, for which I coined the term Subtle Agroecologies. This work is not my own, of course, for I have pinched and borrowed and developed ideas with and from others, and it is thus a collaborative (ad)venture.  

This work has been met with antipathy and even hostility from factions within the alternative farming sector as well as the natural sciences. For example, a charity promoting organic growing has voiced concern at losing membership support if it were seen to broach metaphysical issues, and although the permaculture movement has moved on since the days when Bill Mollison would decry the association of permaculture with any form of belief system, there remain vestiges of emergency thinking within the movement similar to that of the afore-described mainstream farming sector. 

This is also true of the agroecology movement. Both the permaculture and agroecology movements profess to embrace Indigenous knowledge and practices, yet there is little consideration for Indigenous worldviews, which almost ubiquitously affirm the sentience and conscious connectedness of all beings including those that are not visible and those that inhabit animal, plant, rock, the elements, the cosmos, and so on. A recent paper by Victor Toledo (academic peer of Miguel Altieri) recognises this schism:  

“So far, agroecology has… neglected the ontological dimension. The ontological perspective leads to spirituality. Recognizing and integrating spirituality into agroecological practice would reinforce agroecology as a socially and environmentally liberating activity”.  

A similar critique of the alternative farming sector is made in a position paper by an international group of indigenous leaders and organisations. Titled ‘Whitewashed Hope’. It stresses the need to “shift away from viewing humans as the problem and shift towards experiencing the Earth as a communion of beings, all of whom are alive and conscious, with humans an integral part and well able to maintain relationships of balance”. In this light, it’s important to recognise biodynamic farming as the only contemporary Western production approach that does exemplify and embrace such a holistic worldview as well as set of practices.

Regarding antipathy to the concept of Subtle Agroecologies from the natural sciences, this came from a number of quantum physicists as well as agricultural scientists. About a decade ago, pioneering US agronomist and researcher, Hugh Lovel, wrote a book titled ‘Quantum Agriculture: biodynamics and beyond’, in which he shared a wealth of physical and metaphysical farming knowledge. This inspired me to use the term Quantum Agriculture for my own work, only to be met with disapproval from the quantum physicists to whom I reached out to seek collaboration. I was told, for example, that there was no relationship between quantum biology and farming because the former operated at a sub-microscopic level. Having scraped through O-level physics exams, I didn’t feel equipped to defend this term within academic circles and so refocused to using concepts and methodologies from the social sciences, arts and humanities, including for example, transpersonal psychology and ethno-anthropology. Nevertheless, key principles of quantum mechanics seem tantalisingly relevant for the subtle realms, including wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and quantum entanglement and non-locality.  

The social sciences do make sense as an exploratory approach because, with all life forms being conscious, they become subjects rather than objects of investigation, and thus potential participants in the research. Further, rather than give lip service to the concept of ‘working in harmony with nature’, we may do so through building an active, communicative relationship with the other-than-human agricultural world, for has anyone worked in harmony with another human being with whom they have no communicative relationship?

Defining and Validating Subtle Agroecologies

Rather than being a farming system in itself, I’ve defined Subtle Agroecologies as superimposing a non-material dimension upon existing, materially-based agroecological farming systems. Importantly, it is grounded in the lived experiences of humans working on and with the land over several thousand years to the present. This means that, no matter how much or little ‘scientific evidence’ is present, it can be validated through the longevity of its practice and by knowledge holders in society. This protects it from the dogma of scientism: the belief that natural science is the best or only way to understand the world. 

Working in the academic research sector, I’ve also been compelled to define Subtle Agroecological Research: applied research on post-material and supersensible methods applied to agriculture. This entails the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the non-material world through observation, communication and experiment, drawing on a combination of vibrational-energetic aspects of quantum sciences, consciousness studies, Indigenous and neo-indigenous studies and embodied practices and methodologies. The underlying assumption that sets this apart from secular-materially-based research is that all of nature holds sentience or consciousness.

Because of the applied nature of this field, I’ve also provided simple suggestions for an Ethics of Care around which to develop new techniques and technologies. These ethics are:

• Care for humans and the ‘other-than-human’ 
• Based on inclusive participatory approaches
• Consideration for the past, present and future.

It also seems ethically important to both seek permission and maintain an attitude of gratitude prior to and during the practice of more subtle techniques (though in fact this is true of any technique).

But what are the techniques and practices that comprise Subtle Agroecologies, and do they work? One of the many fortunate occurrences encountered along this journey was the appearance of an enthusiastic student, Janus Bojesen Jensen, who not only wanted to do a PhD in this subject but also had the funding and lived locally. Together, we compiled an eclectic mix of what might be considered subtle farming techniques, gathered from various sources including traditional knowledge, complementary medicine, and biodynamic and shamanic practices. Though not exhaustive, these techniques comprise the following:

• homeopathic treatments
• biodynamic preparations
• astronomical planting calendars
• electro-magnetic and laser treatments 
• sound/acoustic treatments
• ritual-based practices
• intuitive and meditative practices
• rock dusts and paramagnetism
• geomancy
• communication with nature intelligences. 

For some of these techniques, instruments and devices could be used, whilst others are more embodied approaches. Some techniques we considered to be more socially acceptable than others. For example, dowsing is used by several large water companies in the UK, and horse whispering is an acceptable practice within the equine sector. Further, whether using a device or not, all these practices ought to be influenced by consciousness or conscious intention, even when the practitioner is not aware or accepting of this influence. 

Based on this compilation of techniques, Janus then undertook a systematic review of the existing scientific evidence of their effectiveness in the farming context. He initially found over 30,000 academic papers that named these techniques, and after screening for scientific robustness, resulted in 201 high-quality, empirical papers. 

The results of this review are yet to be published, but in short, six practices had some robust scientific evidence to support them: use of astronomical planting calendars, electromagnetic and sound energies, rock dusts and paramagnetism, ritual-based practices, biodynamic preparations, and intuitive/meditative practices. The majority of these studies focused on plant growth and health, and a lesser number on livestock health and soils and compost. Most crucially, this review found that the application of these practices had a positive effect on the subject matter in 76% of the screened papers. 

It can’t be stressed enough that this review, as well as all the studies reviewed, would not exist if the researchers involved had not been open to such possibilities. Thus there could be more evidence if there were more interest and more studies.

The Future for Subtle Agroecological Research

The development of the field of Subtle Agroecologies is an exciting journey to be on. Although as yet largely unrecognised in the food and farming sector, one only needs to scratch the surface to reveal some treasure. 

Still, this work does necessitate some risk-taking. The masculinised industrial agricultural research and development sector in Europe does not take kindly to subtle and ethereal phenomena. I know of several direct cases where biodynamic farming researchers have either lost their jobs or been warned to desist from further exploration. In 2021 the Italian government voted not to give biodynamic farming legal status on the strength of a petition by scientists who claimed that this farming approach was “witchcraft”, “esoteric” and “pseudoscience”. Very recently, retired staff from Wageningen University were forced to cancel an elective short course on Subtle Agroecologies after an outcry on social media by some university researchers who expressed similar beliefs to those held by the Italian scientists. 

Throughout my career I have found attempts to promote organic farming to be met with ridicule from the mainstream research and development sector, and perhaps the ridicule directed at Subtle Agroecologies is only an exacerbated version of this. It is curious that a minority of people, holding the relatively new paradigmatic belief of objective rationalism, feel qualified to shut down the lived experiences of everyone else on the planet over the history of humanity.  

As in the case of Cuba, one could attribute this attitude to being at least in part driven by underlying fears and insecurities, and psychologist Anne Baring traces this to the loss of respect for nature and the feminine that was instilled by the Abrahamic religions over the last four millennia. Baring explains that ‘we no longer have access to other levels or modes of consciousness because our ‘rational’ mind has, over the last four centuries, increasingly ridiculed, disparaged and repressed what it has been unable, so far, to accept, prove or comprehend’.

To move beyond this impasse, Baring suggests that we embrace a cosmology that unites life, consciousness and the cosmos. Importantly, before we can expect a flourishing agroecosystem to open up, there is first a need to heal the land and the people. As ‘Whitewashed Hope’, the position paper referenced earlier, states, “recognizing and healing all of our own traumas IS healing Earth’s traumas, because we are ONE”.

But where to next for research in Subtle Agroecologies? Each of the aforementioned Subtle Agroecological techniques would benefit from further research, and in this regard, I would envisage a network of research and demonstration farms and gardens across the UK. In particular, efforts to learn more about biodynamic practices and their impacts on the vitality of the farm and food produce would both contribute to healing the land (in particular through the use of the biodynamic preparations) and deepen our understanding of the relationship between soil, plant and human health. 

Of course, new and adapted methodologies are also required in order to capture phenomena that fall outside of the prevailing natural science paradigm. What’s exciting now is that we are seeing the emergence of new theories, methodologies and disciplines that could support such Subtle Agrocological research. One major methodological strand is more embodied, phenomenological enquiry based on the use of human supersensible perceptions. For example, a new discipline has emerged of Intuitive Interspecies Communication (IISC). Developed by Professor MJ Barrett at the University of Saskatchewan, it refers to a conceptual shift in anthropology and other social sciences seeking to avoid human exceptionalism. Instead, it extends the social to other entities, whether they be plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, or even viruses. Two years ago, Barrett and colleagues organised the second International Multispecies Methods Research Symposium: Intuitive Interspecies Communication, at which 45 presentations on IISC were made by researchers and practitioners from across the globe. Although the main focus was on domestic animals and horses, there is clearly scope for introducing the farmed environment into this emerging academic discipline. 

Finally, inspired by the writings of Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee, Sufi teacher and author, my overall learning throughout this journey so far has been that it is our birthright as human beings to have a reciprocal, co-creative, communicative relationship with the land (and the cosmos), and that when we do (or are) this we connect with (or re-become)  true, spiritual power. No one can take this away from us, try as they might, and any other kind of power is fool’s gold. This power of – and in – the land is simply there for us to reclaim.

References:
Wright, J. (2009) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity, Lessons from Cuba. London: Earthscan. https://www.routledge.com/Sustainable-Agriculture-and-Food-Security-in-an-Era-of-Oil-Scarcity-Lessons-from-Cuba/Wright/p/book/9780415507349?srsltid=AfmBOor8QDSbrNsNzL1YOMDXLbq2hRYHKFHsAOblorfKfFFMBAQxYdmK McGilchrist, I. (2019) The Master and His Emissary, the Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World,  New Expanded Edition. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press
Michael Roads – Books
Toledo, V. M. (2022). Agroecology and spirituality: reflections about an unrecognized link. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 46(4), 626–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2027842
Indigenous Worldviews
Lovel, H. (2014) Quantum Agriculture: Biodynamics and Beyond. Blairsville, Georgia: Quantum Agriculture Publishers.
Wright, J. (2021) Subtle Agroecologies, Farming with the Hidden Half of Nature. CRC Press – Taylor & Francis. 384pParisi G, Abbracchio MP, Ciliberto G, Tagliavini M, Metzlaff K, Schulman A. Italy: scientists petition against biodynamic farming law. Nature. 2021 Jul;595(7867):352. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-01886-z. PMID: 34257436.
Speek, T. (2025) Even leek de wichelroede terug aan de Wageninse Universiteit. NRC Handelsblad. Rubriek. 12 February 2025.
Baring, A. (2020) The Dream of the Cosmos: a Quest for the Soul, 3rd edition. Dorset: Archive PublishingBarrett, M. J., Hinz, V., Wijngaarden, V., & Lovrod, M. (2021). ‘Speaking’ with other animals through intuitive interspecies communication: Towards cognitive and interspecies justice. In A. Hovorka, S. McCubbin, & L. VanPatter (Eds.), A research agenda for animal geographies (pp. 149–166). UK: Edward Elgar. doi.org/10.4337/9781788979993.00018
Multi-Species Research Symposium
Vaughan-Lee, L. (2019) Spiritual Power: How It Works. AmazonUs/INDPB; Second edition