Hello fellow list members:
Below is an article "Deep Ecology Perspectives", appearing in issue #32,
Fall 2003 of Synthesis/Regeneration, a US magazine of Green Social Thought.
This article, along with selected other articles from the same issue, is on
the web site at
http://www.greens.org/s-r/index.html
The article comes out of a number of talks in Nova Scotia, often to
university students, about the importance of deep ecology, as well as
showing some of its contradictions. The talks also discussed, as does the
article, the emergence of left biocentrism as a theoretical tendency within
deep ecology.
Best, David Orton
-------------
Deep Ecology Perspectives
My background is that of a Leftist, but since the late 70s environmental
work has become my major focus in life. I worked first on forestry and
wildlife issues in British Columbia but later moved across the country to
Nova Scotia. I came to define myself as a "green" in 1983. For the last 20
years, I have been living with my family as simply as possible on an old
hill farm, which has gone back to forest. From my values perspective, it
seems to me to be a paradise, but we are surrounded by the ravages of
industrial capitalist forestry.
By 1985 I had accepted the philosophy of Deep Ecology and seen the
importance of moving beyond the human-centered values of the social
democratic, anarchist, communist, and socialist traditions, in order to
express solidarity with all life, not just human life.
I began applying this philosophy in environmental and theoretical work:
trying to understand what it means to "think like a mountain", that is to
extend one's sense of self-identity so that it comes to include the
well-being of the Earth. I believe Deep Ecology has captured what should be
our relationship to the Natural world. Deep Ecology is part of the larger
green movement -- the first social movement in history to advocate a lower
material standard of living, from the perspective of industrial
consumerism. Any honest presentation of this fundamental point means that
green electoralism is a non starter.
Left biocentrism
My existential anguish on deep ecology comes not only from the real
ambiguities and contradictions to be found within Deep Ecology but also
from the fact that since the mid 80s I have been part of a theoretical
tendency within Deep Ecology called "left biocentrism" or "left
ecocentrism" (the two terms are used). Left biocentrism functions as a de
facto "left wing" of the Deep Ecology movement, upholding its subversive
potential and opposing any "accommodation" to industrial capitalist
society. (See on our web site, the ten-point Left Biocentrism Primer, the
end result of a protracted collective discussion in 1998, among a number of
those who support left biocentrism and Deep Ecology.)
There are others who have been on a similar left wing deep ecology path,
under different names: for example, the "Deep Green Theory" of the late
Richard Sylvan, the "Revolutionary Ecology" of the late Judi Bari, the
"Radical Ecocentrism" of Andrew McLaughlin and the "Green Fundamentalism"
of the late Rudolf Bahro.
"Left" as used by left biocentrists (left bios) means anti-industrial and
anti-capitalist but not necessarily socialist. Industrialism is seen as
having a capitalist or a socialist face. Some left bios are socialist but
others are not. All left bios support the eight-point Deep Ecology Platform
drawn up by Arne Naess and George Sessions and see their work as
endeavouring to strengthen the deep ecology movement. The "leftism" of left
biocentrism is seen as a necessary concern with class issues and social
justice, but this is subordinate to its biocentrism/ecocentrism.
Left biocentrists oppose those who elevate social justice above the
concerns of the Earth and all its many creatures. Animals and plants and
the general ecosystem have to be treated on the same moral plane as humans.
The labour theory of value implies that Nature has no value or worth,
unless humans transform it through their labour. But for left bios, Nature
has value in itself. Nature is the principal source of human wealth, not
labour power. The positive ideas from the Left, which are still relevant,
e.g. the concern for social justice, have to be part of the left biocentric
synthesis of ideas.
The activist and social ecology philosopher John Clark wrote in the third
edition of the 2001 college reader, _Environmental Philosophy: From Animal
Rights to Radical Ecology_, of what he sees as a "common ground" between
social and Deep Ecology. Clark speaks positively of "the emergence of a
‘left biocentrism' that combines a theoretical commitment to deep ecology
with a radical decentralist, anticapitalist politics having much in common
with social ecology."
Key deep ecology ideas
Most people who are potentially sympathetic to Deep Ecology do not come to
their position through "intellectual conversion", that is through
university lectures, Deep Ecology books, or by having some worked-out
perfectly logical and consistent philosophical positions.
Basically, Deep Ecology supporters identify with the Natural world and
all its creatures; see this world is being destroyed and want to do
something about it; and measure our own human concerns as important
although fairly insignificant in comparison. Where Deep Ecology literature
and talks can be very useful, is for those who already see themselves in
some way as "thinking like mountains" based on their empirical experiences.
Exposure to Deep Ecology ideas then presents a world view which suddenly
makes sense. As one local seasoned environmental activist said several
years ago, about coming in contact with Deep Ecology: "It's everything I've
ever believed in," she replied, "but I never had the language before."
(Sharon Labchuk from Prince Edward Island, quoted in Tim Falconer's 2001
book, _Watchdogs and Gadflies: Activism From Marginal To Mainstream_, p.130.)
The formulation of a provisional DE world view was first sketched out in a
1973 document by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, "The Shallow and the
Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary."
"Shallow" here means thinking that the major ecological problems can be
resolved within and with the continuation of industrial capitalist society.
Another term that I use for shallow would be "managerial environmentalism."
"Sustainable development" is for me the main contemporary ideology of
shallow ecology. In his article, Naess defines the Shallow-Ecology
movement: "Fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central
objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed countries."
"Deep" means to ask deeper questions and not stay on the surface in
discussions and struggles. This deep orientation understands that
industrial capitalist society has caused the Earth-threatening ecological
crisis.
Today what has been called the "heart of Deep Ecology" (Andrew
McLaughlin) is the eight-point Deep Ecology Platform worked out by Naess
and George Sessions in 1984. This Platform has received widespread
acceptance by supporters of this philosophy. It is fairly abstract and does
not tell activists what to do in specific situations, but it requires them
to think it through for themselves.
The Platform says all non human life forms have intrinsic value, not
dependent on human purpose. The concept of "vital needs" is introduced but
not defined. Marshall Sahlins, in his 1972 book _Stone Age Economics_,
said: "There are two possible courses to affluence. Wants may be ‘easily
satisfied' either by producing much or desiring little." Desiring little is
the DE path, which also means far less control by the industrial capitalist
system over the individual. Consumer society, part of the illusory
permanent growth machine, has entire industries devoted to expanding an
individual's needs and promoting them as "vital." The DE Platform does not
mention non-violence, which is important to some deep ecology supporters.
The Platform emphasizes population reduction. DE supporters stress this is
to be done without personal coercion. There is no mechanism for changing
the Platform, or for further developing it.
Deep Ecology is by its nature difficult to pin down and conceptualize and
this seems to have been deliberately built into the philosophy. Naess
maintains that precision and ambiguity are needed by the philosopher. This
is done in part so that the follower of deep ecology has herself or himself
an interpretative role to play:
"To be a great philosopher seems to imply that you think precisely, but do
not explain all the consequences of your ideas. That's what others will do
if they have been inspired." Arne Naess, _Is It Painful To Think?_, p. 98
Some basic questions are, unfortunately, not dealt with by the DE Platform:
Deep Ecology does not sufficiently address the "use" of Nature by humans.
How ought we to "use" the world? What percentage of the planet should be
permanently put aside for other life forms to continue evolving? What
percentage for humans? What lifestyle? How many humans?
Another problem that Deep Ecology does not give a view on, is the type of
economy, or how we should relate to each other in the human social world.
At this time, there is no new political or economic vision coming from
within Deep Ecology. This philosophy stresses too much that "change" is
individual, not collective or social. Deep Ecology can seem to suggest that
only through individual consciousness raising and personal change will we
move to a deep ecology-influenced world.
There is a contention of ideas within Deep Ecology, with various
theoretical tendencies, including that of left biocentrism. What the
social, economic or political evolution of deep ecology will eventually be
is yet to be determined.
There are three key ideas from deep ecology which need to be highlighted:
(1) non-human centeredness; (2) the necessity for a new spiritual
relationship to Nature; and (3) opposition to the idea of "private
property" in Nature.
Humans do not have a privileged position. For me this is the central
contribution of DE. As a species, we are just one member of a community of
all beings. There is no belief in a hierarchy of organisms, with humans on
top. Nature is not seen as a "resource" for human use. We should share the
planet on a basis of equality with other life forms. Our everyday language
is taken-for-granted human-centered. Here in Nova Scotia, for example,
trees, fish, etc. are "resources" for human use. Industrial forestry
considers insects as "pests". Trees are described as "decadent" and
"overmature" when they are considered past their prime from a human-use
perspective. Morality just concerns "humans" in a human-centered universe.
In order to try and turn around the ecological "Armageddon" and to
prevent the ensuing social disaster, a profound transformation is required
in our relationship to the Earth. This will include re-sacralizing Nature,
so that we as societies come to see the Earth as alive and part of
ourselves. A future Earth-centered society will need to be organized around
an ecocentric morality that has an essential spiritual or sacred dimension
and is not based on economics. Re-sacralizing the Earth is seen in DE as a
concern with spirituality, not as establishing some new institutional
religion. In order for industrial capitalism to commodify the Earth, its
spirituality had to be undermined. Addressing this is one part of any
serious green politics in the 21st century.
The Earth owns us, we are its creatures. One species (humans) cannot
"own" Nature. These are just bizarre social conventions which need to be
overturned. I have written about "usufruct use" instead of so-called
private ownership of the Natural world. This means that there is the "right
of use," but one is ultimately responsible and accountable to some form of
ecocentric governance much wider than human society. Nature must remain a
Commons and not be privatized.
Conclusion
Whatever its contradictions, I believe that Deep Ecology does present the
basic philosophy, incomplete as it is, to start sketching out alternative
visions to those offered by the defenders of industrial capitalism. There
is plenty of work for all of us to take up.
David Orton, Fall 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/
Our e-mail address is now <[log in to unmask]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
