Integrated Health: For the Birds

One of the purposes of this blog is to explore issues of “integrated health,” but before doing so it is probably best to define the concept so we know what we are talking about. To some it may appear that what is at stake here is just a sound integration of mind, body, and spirit, the kind of description you are likely to run across in the pages of any number of self-help texts. While I want to affirm that good exercise, intellectual stimulation, and emotional stability are all essential to human health, I would like also to broaden the conversation. The assumption that we can achieve a state of well-being by simply harmonizing these three aspects of our human existence really relies on an Enlightenment understanding of what we are as human creatures. This perspective suggests that we are individuals first and we can freely choose to make associations with whatever community we deem most appropriate for our self-interests. This is perhaps best summarized by Voltaire’s Candide who at the end of that classic work concluded that everything would fall so neatly into place if everyone would just tend to their own gardens.

Unfortunately Enlightenment philosophy has long labored under the delusion that the whole – whether a human body or the body politic – can be adequately described as a sum of its constituent parts. More recent forays into the limits of human experience, however, have demonstrated that this supposition is not only false but also potentially dangerous. It fails to recognize the integral connections that exist among so many entities and on so many levels, from the micro- to the macrocosmic. The evidence these days suggests that, contrary to what our extreme individualism would have us believe, I am by virtue of my many relationships, whether I choose to acknowledge these or not. Similarly, what I do and how I live will have an effect, one way or another, on the innumerable beings with whom I share my life-world. Given this state of affairs, the notion of “health” must be broadened significantly so as to acknowledge that who I am and where I am are of a piece. The welfare of one will inevitably affect the well-being of the other.

An example of this revised perspective can be seen when we consider the surprising reach of something as simple as enjoying a morning cup of coffee. We are all familiar with the questions that might be raised from a traditional health perspective with respect to this ritual. How many cups are safe for me to drink per day? How will the caffeine affect my bodily functions? Is there a connection between this stimulant and heart disease, hypertension, even cancer? The beginning and end of this orientation is the human body and mind, how they function and what threats they might encounter as a result of excess or abuse. Our response to these questions will usually have only the well-being of the individual in mind. We may choose, for example, to decrease our coffee consumption because it keeps us up at night, or because it gives us horrendous breath. Whatever the case, the final criterion seems always to be me and my needs. This is a traditional orientation when it comes to the question of coffee and health.

A more integrated approach to this issue is what I’d like to call a “global humanitarian perspective.” In recent years the social injustices that accompany our morning java have been brought to light by a number of authors and community organizations, and many have begun to advocate the purchase of “fair trade coffee” in lieu of the cheaper and more readily available brands in our local supermarkets. Drinking fair trade coffee in itself makes a deliberate political statement. It speaks out against the displacement of indigenous peoples at the hands of multi-national corporations wanting to grow the addictive little beans on their land. At the same time, it offers a resounding “yes” to those few men and women who have been able to retain their ancestral farms and grow coffee to be sold on the international market. Their local cooperatives eliminate the need for the greedy middle man so that a fair price can be achieved and ultimately their families can be fed. True, we on the other end have to pay a little extra for each cup of joe. This is so counter-intuitive in our capitalistic society where our very raison d’etre is to reap the cheap, but the knowledge that we have struck a small blow against the human injustices brought on by globalization makes it all worth while. Some of us are willing to pay a little more so that others might suffer a little less.

Is this, then, the fully integrated approach to human health that we should advocate? Close, but not quite. While it is a step in the right direction, it nevertheless assumes that human well-being, and this on a worldwide scale, is the objective that informs the personal choices we make in the market place. A truly integrated health perspective, however, will recognize that there must finally be a concern for the nonhuman creatures and ecosystems that make up our life-world. We must also consider how our lifestyle choices affect them. This affirms that each and every human being is part of a highly complex ecological, and not just economic, web of life. What might this look like with respect to our morning coffee ritual?

It turns out that there are more than simply humanitarian concerns involved when deciding on what brand of coffee to bring into your household, business, or place of worship. There are in fact very sound ecological reasons for drinking a fair trade product. Whereas industrial coffee production in Central and South America often involves eradicating dense indigenous forests and sowing open fields with hybridized varieties of beans, fair trade producers tend to grow their plants in the shade -- the habitat to which they are naturally adapted -- and they usually work on a much smaller scale. Most employ organic and sustainable methods of fertilization and pest control. Beans are often harvested by hand instead of under the soil-compacting duress of heavy machinery. These farmers are caretakers of the land, preserving the forests -- and thus the biodiversity -- that so many large producers view as annoying obstacles to their profit motives.

So why should we care about this? The importance of rain forests in counteracting the effects of greenhouse gases is well known, but there are other reasons for being concerned about these habitats. As an avid bird watcher I have observed that over the past twenty years or so fewer species of songbirds appear to be making their springtime visits to the woods and fields around my house. Whereas the month of April used to be a time of delighting in the sounds and glimpses of the migratory species passing through our bioregion, it seems that lately the thickets have become a lot quieter. I know that many of the birds I look for – the warblers for instance – spend the winter months in the very forests of Central and South America where most of our coffee is produced, and I have to wonder about a possible connection. Does the demand for cheaper coffee among global consumers result in fewer forests in this part of the world? Since this is certainly the case, does the loss of this habitat mean also a loss of the songbirds that so brighten our spring? The evidence seems to suggest as much, though the variables involved are surely complex. Nevertheless, even if there is a perceived correlation, my next questions should be these: Which do I enjoy more, the sound of a Prairie Warbler calling out from a flowering dogwood, or the smell of cheap java brewing in the morning? Which is more important for maintaining the integrity of our biosphere? Which is more illustrative of a world approaching the ideal of a peaceable kingdom? Which best reflects the objectives of integrated health?

As someone interested in an understanding of human health as a function of a much larger system, I cannot downplay or ignore the ecological consequences of my actions, no matter how inconsequential they may seem. While I might want to believe that my personal well-being simply involves an optimum balance of body, mind, and soul, my experience as a global citizen seems daily to challenge this oversimplification. John Muir once said that if we tug at anything in nature we will find that it is connected to the rest of the world. Perhaps it is time – indeed, past time – for us to realize that the same holds true for our very lives: what we do and who we are inevitably affect the ecosystems of which we are a part, and in this highly globalized environment, this includes everything.

So, yes, integrated health is for the birds – and for the trees, the rivers, the atmosphere, our local human and nonhuman community, for the planet. It takes into account everything that makes up the vastly integrated living system of which we are a vital -- though oftentimes irresponsible -- part. Bringing our mind, body, and spirit into a balanced state of being is surely a worthwhile goal, but one that can be expanded upon in light of a revised understanding of who and what we are as human beings connected to the world. We are all related, not separated.

Questions for Further Discussion

1. Think about your current lifestyle choices and imagine what effects these are having on parts of the world that you may never see. Are there ways that you might resolve to become healthier in a more integrated manner?

2. If you are a member of a worshiping community, how might your congregation be a better representative of integrated health in the context of your local community? Are there ways that these issues might be incorporated in a meaningful way into your worship experience?

3. What connections do you see between integrated health and Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of God?

4. Can you purchase fair trade coffee and other similar items in your town? If not, how might you change this?

5. Reflect on the last statement above: we are all related, not separated. What does this mean for you?

Related Links:

Seattle Audubon Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign

Global Exchange

Forest Stewardship Council