Hello,
I have just completed the bulletin "My Path to Left Biocentrism: Part V - Deep Ecology and Anarchism". It is available on our web site: http://fox.nstn.ca/~greenweb/GW72-Path.html
This bulletin looks at the relationship between deep ecology and anarchism. It is about 6,300 words with footnotes (41 kb). (Anyone who wants it in ascii format, can obtain it from us.)
These are the sections of the bulletin:
- Introduction
- Role of the State
- Many Anarchisms
- Human-Centredness
- Social Ecology, Anarchism and Deep Ecology
- Some Other Considerations
- Social Environmentalism and Earth First!
- Contemporary Implications and Conclusion
Best,
David Orton
<[log in to unmask]>
**************************
Green Web Bulletin #72
My Path to Left Biocentrism: Part V
Deep Ecology and Anarchism
By David Orton
"If the periodic stress on strong central institutions -
in tension with the emphasis on decentralization elsewhere -
is removed, then what Naess does begin to outline of Deep
Ecological social arrangements is _anarchistic_ in character."
Richard Sylvan and David Bennett,
_The Greening of Ethics: From Human
Chauvinism to Deep-Green Theory_ (1)
Introduction
Activists sympathetic to anarchism associate this perspective with concepts and ideas like the personal freedom to live your own life; direct action; support for the good but not the comfortable life; hostility to the state and to taking part in the electoral process; hostility to large centralized organizations; mutual aid and free co-operation through voluntary communal organizations; social reforms before political reforms; decentralization and some form of bioregional confederation controlled by and accountable to a citizen base; hostility to "property" and support for distribution of wealth according to need; a belief that humans are social and tend naturally towards 'goodness' and that governments negate this; support for the organizational principle that "nothing should be done at a higher level than can be done at a lower level;" etc. However attractive, these are all social, not ecological, ideas and belief in them illustrates criticism of the social dysfunctionali!
ty!
of industrial capitalist society and contemporary civilization. How humans interact with the Earth is both a social and an ecological question. (I would also say that many of the listed ideas are common to both radical supporters of deep ecology and of social ecology.) Those with an ecological understanding see that this same dysfunctional society has led most humans from being part of Nature, as in animistic societies, to the belief of many that our species is no longer part of it.
Questions arise as to whether 'anarchist' ideas reflect in some way the biological/natural/universal world out there, and whether these ideas are useful to activists, in their fight against the industrial mega machine, and for an ecological, organizational, and political alternative to this Earth-consuming industrial society.
This essay is an examination of the interrelation of anarchism and ecocentrism. It was precipitated in part by reading the article "Ecocentric Anarchy" by Daktari, in the 20th Anniversary Edition of the _Earth First! Journal_. (2) The article by Daktari concluded by stating, "For all the internal stress it can bring, eco-anarchy is EF!'s greatest strength and the best hope for a future ecotopian society." I felt this article, marking 20 years of Earth First!, was laying out an apparently uncontested philosophical future, previously represented in more fragmentary form in past articles. But rather than taking this for granted, the fundamental question which this essay attempts to address is whether or not anti-industrial activists who try to follow deep ecology can or should also be raising the anarchist banner.
The deeper green movement builds on a history of thinkers that have gone before. Of the major published deep ecology theorists/philosophers that I am aware of, only one, the late Australian Richard Sylvan (1935-1996), a brilliant and iconoclastic critic, "bad boy" of the deep ecology philosophical community and advocate of "Deep Green" theory, identified publicly with anarchism. (3) Sylvan was also associated editorially with the journal _Anarchist Studies_.
Others, such as the German green philosopher Rudolf Bahro, called for the setting up of a network of spiritually-inspired communes as Liberated Zones, as an alternative to the industrial mega machine. Bahro's vision was extra-parliamentary, that is, Greens should focus their organizing outside of parliament. He was called an "ecoanarchist theorist" by Robyn Eckersley, a green writer and deep ecologist. (4) But Bahro himself, in his last major book _Avoiding Social & Ecological Disaster_, did not discuss anarchism except to say "totalitarianism and anarchism have been far too intimately interwoven with each other." He also wrote, of "individualism extreme to the degree of anarchism." (5)
The late Earth First! organizer Judi Bari, towards the end of her too short life, was actively developing a left theoretical position based in deep ecology. She was critical of right-wing tendencies within this philosophy, but also influenced by Marxism and expressed support for anarcho-syndicalism (the Wobblies) and ecofeminism. (6)
Robyn Eckersley, in her 1992 book _Environmentalism And Political Theory: Toward An Ecocentric Approach_, extensively discussed ecoanarchism, including the hierarchy-focussed social ecology of Murray Bookchin. (She ultimately comes out against ecoanarchist political forms of organization as a primary focus and upholds the role of what is called the "enabling State.")
A number of other writers who have influenced green and environmental thinking have been linked to anarchism, e.g. Ed Abbey, E. F. Schumacher, Kirkpatrick Sale and Christopher Manes. Some of the members of the internet discussion group "left bio" are also supporters of anarchism.
While the relationship between ecoanarchism and ecocentrism/biocentrism has only recently become a major concern for myself, this has not been true for others within the deep ecology movement. Sylvan, in the book he wrote with David Bennett, _The Greening of Ethics: From Human Chauvinism to Deep-Green Theory_ makes the point: "none of non-violence, pacifism, and organized anarchism are compulsory fare for supporters of deep-green theory." (7)
To call for activists, and for the public, to rally to the black flag of anarchy, and not to the deep green or some other flag, is a major ecological, political, economic, and social statement. It is not something to be undertaken lightly. After all, we are saying that this is the way forward for all of us, against Earth destruction and for a socially just society, which deals with the complexities of life today.
Deep ecology provides us with a non-human-centred philosophical relationship to the natural world. This is an interdependence of humans with other life forms, on a basis of equality, with all of Nature - humans are not set apart from Nature. According to deep ecology, the further people are removed from Nature, the more that humans value themselves, the more Nature is devalued and/or treated as nothing but a commodity. Deep ecology says that through a fundamental revolution in consciousness, we can change existing human relationships of attempted _dominance_ over the natural environment. This is deep ecology's profound and unique contribution to our time. But the most appropriate social, political, cultural, and economic relationships for such a world are yet to be determined. (There is a spectrum of social and political positions within deep ecology!)
While the reality of a deteriorating ecology will ultimately force all of us to accept an Earth-centred value structure, is a belief in anarchism part of the way forward? Is the black flag the future? The answer given to these questions will steer activists towards certain political priorities, such as, for example, attempting to use or to boycott the State. A public discussion on this question is needed within the radical environmental, green, and alternative movements.
...............
***************
Selected Footnotes
1. Richard Sylvan and David Bennett, _The Greening of Ethics: From Human Chauvinism to Deep-Green Theory_, (Cambridge, UK: The White Horse Press, 1994), p. 128.
2. Daktari, "Ecocentric Anarchy" in the _Earth First! Journal_, Samhain 2000. I identify with and for many years have considered myself part of Earth First! Over the years, I have written a number of articles for this paper.
3. See in particular the essay by Richard Sylvan "Anarchism", in Robert Goodwin and Philip Pettit, _A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy_, (Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishers, 1993), pp. 215-243.
4. Robyn Eckersley, _Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach_, (Albany, US: State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 77 and 150.
5. Rudolf Bahro, _Avoiding Social & Ecological Disaster: The Politics of World Transformation_, (Bath, UK: Gateway Books, 1994), p. 256.
6. See her essay "Revolutionary Ecology: Biocentrism & Deep Ecology", available at http://www.judibari.org/revolutionary-ecology.html Judi Bari sent me an early draft of her essay in 1995 and asked me to comment on it. My response in a letter dated Feb.12, 1995, stressed our essential agreement on the centrality of deep ecology and its revolutionary essence, and that we were on the same road, noted that I was already plagiarizing her article in talks, but raised a number of friendly criticisms of her paper. Judi was struggling with the same kind of theoretical questions from within deep ecology, with an overall Left viewpoint as myself, but had not broken free of "workerism" or the influence of anarcho-syndicalism on her new thinking. She did not see that loggers and fishers have a stake in industrial society and cannot be a revolutionary social base. I raised in my letter that deep ecology goes beyond what she called ancient native wisdom, which is ultimately human-centred!
-!
but can be characterized perhaps as "deep stewardship". I also criticized her position on ecofeminism and said I did not think this was the same as ecocentrism. We needed a general theory, I wrote to Judi, that was not gender-rooted and ultimately splitting.
7. Sylvan and Bennett, ibid., p. 152. I first contacted Richard Sylvan in 1987 and in a letter dated July 30th, this is how I described my feelings about anarchism, with which Richard identified: "I'm not an anarchist. Much of what anarchism stands for I can support - emphasis on small scale, decentralization, basic democracy etc. But I find there is a bias against organization, among conscious followers of anarchism. This makes it difficult to divide up work, sustain an organization etc. I don't have any trouble delegating authority, providing the person/group is competent, accountable and trustworthy. However, anarchism has a history, although one would never know this from reading the various green publications. I do not support the anti-communism of anarchist leaders.' Personally, I have always felt that anarchism ... appeals to the lack of discipline of intellectuals and their unwillingness to work under a collective. One of the many problems of the green/deep ecology !
mo!
vement is that the full theoretical/organizational implications of an anarchist position are not discussed, but simply taken for granted."
...........
******************
March, 2001
Acknowledgements: I am indebted to the internet discussion group "Left Bio," where many discussions have taken place over a period of almost four years. Insights from such discussions are part of this bulletin. I would also like to particularly thank the approximately ten left bios who read a first draft and provided thoughtful comments. A number of their insights have been incorporated into the final text.
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
|
