Greetings fellow list members:
Some of you may be interested if my review of the book below given the
focus of this list. Please feel free to repost it should you so desire.
Best and for the Earth,
David
********
The Ecocentric Transformation
A review essay by David Orton
_Nature, Environment and Society_
by Philip W. Sutton, Palgrave Macmillan, published in
conjunction with the British Sociological Association,
2004, 214 pages, paperback, ISBN 0-333-99568-6
"Ecocentric theorists are right to argue that human beings are NATURAL
beings, but they are wrong to suggest that the biological is somehow more
'real' than the social. Such a view remains a serious obstacle to
ecocentric
theories of self and society as well as to any accommodation between
ecocentric and sociological approaches to environmental issues." p. 114
Introduction
I found _Nature, Environment and Society_, written by UK sociologist
Philip Sutton, who teaches at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, a small
but helpful, very interesting and intensely political book. Sutton examines
the impact of environmentalism and the Green movement on sociology, the
study of society. This book is not just for sociology students.
The book has nine chapters - which include an Introduction, a chapter on
"The Ecocentric Challenge for Society and Sociology", and a very extensive
bibliography. As Sutton says, sociology is "arguably the most
anthropocentric of the social sciences." (p. 9) He points out:
"Because sociology developed initially during a period of rapid
industrialization and strong economic growth, many, though not all,
of its theories took for granted that nature simply forms the backdrop
for human activity but does not shape it." (p. 175)
Sutton also looks at what sociology can contribute to our understanding
of the natural world and the ecological crisis. This book is a sympathetic
yet critical examination of environmentalism and the challenge that
ecocentrism or deep ecology poses to mainstream sociology and its
self-definition. For deeper ecocentric Greens, the natural world and the
ecological crisis are real, but how these are seen by society IS socially
conditioned and this can determine what becomes lifted into societal
consciousness. The "social construction of reality" perspective, taken from
sociology, if seen as not denying the material reality of the natural
world, has something very useful to contribute.
Evaluation
This is a review of current sociological literature related to the
environment. Reading this book also forces us to confront how the "self" is
formed; this as the Green social movement attempts to move beyond
anthropocentric consciousness and consumerist self-identity.
Sociologists study how human societies function, and try to unmask or go
beneath apparent social realities. Disenchantment with official views of
existing social realities can result from this "sociological imagination".
Historically, sociology defined itself as human-centered and, as Emile
Durkheim (1858-1917), the French sociologist, argued, in opposition to
biology. In today's world, sociology has to accommodate in some way to the
natural world and to ecocentric thinking. For sociology, says Sutton, "The
main threats to human societies stem from their relationship with the
natural world." (p. 15) This would be a basic point of unity for deep Green
activists, with _Nature, Environment and Society_.
Students trying to acquire a sociological consciousness are often told
that, following the influential German sociologist Max Weber (1863-1920),
sociology strives to be "value free." But surely today, as a starting
point, to aspire to this as an ideal requires the inclusiveness of an
ecocentric consciousness, not one that is human-centered? Sutton wants to
bring nature into sociological theories. However, the central focus of the
book is the late response taken by sociology to the upsurge in
environmental awareness and the rise of Green consciousness in modern
societies. The author argues that it is only within the last ten years or
so that the views of radical ecologists have entered sociology. Sutton,
like many of us, sees that there is a post-industrial political realignment
underway with "'Nature' or 'Life' becoming the central political cleavage
rather than class, inequality and wealth distribution." (pp. 31-32) At the
same time, as the deep ecologist Frederick Bender has noted in his recent
book:
"I do not think ecology sufficient to explain every aspect of human
culture...We must also discover how human culture evolved, how
social, political, and religious factors, etc., became predominant at
various times. Ecological models frame such factors' significance,
but do not replace them." (Bender, _The Culture Of Extinction:
Toward A Philosophy Of Deep Ecology_, p. 102)
The ecocentric endeavour that many of us are engaged with, seems to have
had a spreading impact not only on sociological theory. Three recently
published books that I have read, illustrate this widespread impact. These
books include Sutton's book, Judith McKenzie's _Environmental Politics in
Canada_, and Bender's _The Culture Of Extinction_. The three books all take
deep ecology (or ecocentrism or ecologism - here used synonymously), as
setting a defining bar and theoretical stage for analysis of the world
around us, even if Sutton or McKenzie would not, perhaps, call themselves
personal supporters of deep ecology philosophy. But we do see, with these
authors, that deep ecology is becoming an orientation, not only in
university teaching subjects - here sociology, as in Sutton's book, but
really throughout contemporary culture and politics.
An Anomaly
An anomaly and disturbing counter current to the above deep ecology
trend, is the fourth edition (2004) of the undergraduate reader,
_Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology_, senior
editor Michael E. Zimmerman. This edition has totally dropped the section
on Deep Ecology, edited by George Sessions, which was part of all previous
editions. This fourth edition has an expanded Ecofeminism and Social
Justice section; more emphasis on social ecology and "ecofascism" (an essay
by Zimmerman attempts, by innuendo, to link ecofascism to deep ecology) in
the Political Ecology section, and a new, rather obscure section called
"Environmental Continental Philosophy." We are told, pathetically, by J.
Baird Callicott who is responsible for the Environmental Ethics section in
this edition, that deep ecology "now seems", "vaguely anti-intellectual",
and that since September 11, 2001, "responsible environmental philosophers"
wish to "distance themselves" from "militant ideologies associated with
groups that have used illegal and even violent means to achieve their
ends." (Callicott also falsely asserts that "deep ecology has been
integrated into the ecofeminist section", yet this philosophy is merely a
prop for some of the ecofeminist theorists featured, e.g. Mary Mellor.) It
seems that some US eco-philosophy academics do not mind having their
careers partially obligated to the Green and environmental movements, but a
post September 11th "blow back" is not part of the price they are prepared
to pay. In the US, is deep ecology and its radical "field practice"
becoming too subversive for academic textbooks?
Some issues raised
Reading _Nature, Environment and Society_ raised a number of issues for me.
- Ecocentrism's overall impact on sociology
Sutton says that in sociology, there have been two basic responses to
the impact of the ecocentric Green movement and radical ecology. As someone
reading this book and not knowing the actual literature which Sutton
evaluates, I would characterize the overall responses or "ideal types"
within sociology as follows:
One is of acknowledgement and partial accommodation to the ecocentric
theoretical perspective, what Sutton calls "critical realism." This is
where his own sympathies clearly lie, and the early writings of Marx and
Engels have been important influences. But this a minority and less
influential tendency. For Sutton, this perspective approaches the
environment in ways that diverge from the viewpoint of mainstream
sociology. Critical realists assume "natural processes have a reality
outside human categorization and that the way in which humans know of these
processes allows them to exert some measure of control over their impact on
society." (p. 177)
The other response to environmental issues comes through as one of
downplaying or minimization, officially called "social constructionism."
This is a majority tendency among those sociologists paying attention to
the Green movement. This tendency insists on the social creation of
environmental issues in a significant sense, hence, in Sutton's and my own
view, tending to minimize the overall influence of the natural world and
the growing ecological crisis on human societies. It needs to be
remembered, for the ecocentric activist influenced by deep ecology,
"society" is not just human society, but also includes other animal and
plant societies and the Earth itself. In past animistic societies this was
the situation. Left biocentrists like myself, strongly believe we need to
find a way to bring this animistic-type spiritual consciousness back, if
there is to be any chance of turning around this culture of biological
extinction which envelopes us all. So while ecocentrism is closer to the
critical realism perspective than to social constructionism, these still
seem only preliminary steps on the deep ecological path forward and to a
more inclusive definition of "society."
- Is ecocentrism a New Social Movement?
Is ecocentrism "new", that is, a qualitatively different social movement
from what has gone before? Or does ecocentrism have some kind of continuous
history going back to the English romantic poets of the late 18th century
and early 19th centuries (Wordsworth, Blake, Coleridge, and Shelley), and
the US transcendentalist philosophers (Emerson)? Sutton argues in his book
that for ecocentrism: "most of its main tenets can be found in earlier
periods." (p. 22) What is the "new" aspect for this author is that
ecocentric ideas today are reflected in much larger populations than in the
past, where the social base was an educated elite. Most deep ecology
supporters in North America had seen the initial formulation of this
ecocentric philosophy by Arne Naess as something quite unique, although
Naess himself has always stressed that deep ecology existed before he
introduced the terms "shallow" and "deep" in the now famous 1972
presentation "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A
Summary." I do not believe that Sutton really understands the scope and
depth of deep ecology, and why it is qualitatively different from the
writings of the romantic poets, even though the appreciation for the
natural world is a common bond. For myself, nature poems or paintings, to
be considered ecocentric works, must also be political, that is, designed
to arouse others to change the world in the general direction we want to
head. I believe, unlike Sutton, that ecocentrism needs to be characterised
as a New Social Movement, the view apparently generally held in Europe.
- The formation of the Self
Sociology teaches its students that personal identities are SOCIALLY
given and sustained. So how can the personal self become an ecological
Self, with a strong sense of place, which includes all other plant and
animal beings and the planet itself? What are the roles of social and
cultural (and political and economic) factors in all this for personal and
societal change? These are important questions for ecocentrism. Sutton's
book brings sharply into focus the question "What are the social components
of the ecological Self" as understood in a deep ecology sense? An important
point which is brought out, is that societies which are anthropocentric
stress how humans DIFFER with the rest of the natural world. Ecocentric
theorists tend to see the evolutionary SIMILARITIES or continuities of
humans with other planetary life forms, as humans are natural beings.
Questions that remain to be answered are: How can deep ecology, while
giving primacy to the relationship with the natural world in the formation
of an ecological Self, incorporate social components? What are these
components for the Earth-caring society which needs to come on the
historical stage? And how can this be fostered as a necessary social trend
by ecocentric activists?
- Postmodernism
The sociology of knowledge (one of its leading proponents is Karl
Manheim), has always fascinated me, instructing as it does that ideas and
thought generally are socially grounded, and that understanding this is a
necessary part of any evaluation of their efficacy. The postmodernism path,
which is in essence fundamentally at odds with a deep Green ecocentric
world view and politics, has been significantly influenced, in a negative
way, by the sociology of knowledge - although I appreciate the "critical"
postmodernist viewing lens. For Sutton, radical ecology and postmodernism
have in common an appreciation of "diversity, plurality and difference."
(p. 169) But the fundamental dispute with Green politics by the
postmodernists, is over the existence of non-human nature and whether or
not it is knowable: "Poststructuralism does not accept that nature forms
any kind of grounding for self-realisation nor does it confer political
legitimacy." (p.170) Mainstream culture is "deconstructed" by
postmodernism, the source of many scholarly articles, but no alternative
way forward is offered. Essentially, with postmodernism, Sutton argues, the
ecocentric alternative to the destruction of the environment arising from
Western industrial 'civilization' is undermined. I like the way he put
this: "Philosophical arguments which suggest that 'anything goes' usually
mean that 'everything stays the same.'" (p. 171)
Criticism
While overall it is extremely positive towards ecocentrism and deep
ecology, there are some criticisms of Sutton's book.
1. The biological world is more real than the realities of the social
world, at the end of the day - a position which Sutton, as a sociologist,
cannot accept, although his book reaches out to ecocentrism.
2. Sutton is too sympathetic to reform environmentalism. For example,
his view on ecocentric Greens joining with reformists to work with
so-called sustainable development. (p. 145)
3. Overall, Sutton seems lacking in practical experience in the
ecocentric Green and environmental movements, which I believe influences
his assessment of various situations. His view is that the population issue
has receded in importance, as high consumption in the industrialized North
is stressed (pp. 167-68), whereas ecocentric Greens influenced by deep
ecology would say that both consumption and population issues are crucial.
Another example which would have activists shaking their heads, is Sutton's
mystification about Green politics and environmentalism being
"characterised by ideological diversity," which, he says, is "far from
clear, at least to me." (pp. 79-80)
4. Sutton is influenced by the Andrew Dobson's _Green Political
Thought_. Overall, this is very positive. Dobson shows, in a convincing
manner, the revolutionary implications of what he calls "ecologism."
However, as noted by me in previous articles, Dobson has an essentially
negative view of the environmental movement. He does not see the
"mainstream versus radical" struggle within the environmental movement, in
which many deep ecology influenced environmentalists are involved. Of
course most environmental activity does not fundamentally challenge the
dominant industrial capitalist paradigm. So for Dobson and Sutton,
environmentalism somehow is equated with light green and is contrasted with
ecologism. Sutton states that the British Green Party attracts a "higher
proportion" of those influenced by ecocentrism than are to be found in
environmental organizations. (p. 49) This I find hard to believe. In my
experience in Canada, reformists flock to Green parties. Those who want a
total ecological and social transformation of industrial capitalist
society, as some do in the environmental movement, tend to keep their
distance from Green electoral politics. The experience of the
fundamentalist green philosopher Rudolf Bahro (1935-1997) in the early
1980s, showed the self-imposed reformist limitations of the Green electoral
road in Germany. Although a co-founder of the West German Green Party,
Bahro resigned from it in 1985.
5. Sutton states that "A politics of nature is just as likely to be a
politics of the right as that of the left..." (p. 83) I believe this to be
a fashionable, but basically incorrect view. Fascists or rightists
prioritize some grouping of humankind. But deep ecology supporters do not
elevate the human above other species in their view of Earth preservation.
Ecocentrism, with its continually affirmed support for biological
diversity, while often siding with the left on social justice issues, is
not on the left/right continuum, and is basically democratic in human
sentiment and supportive of social diversity. An interesting issue among
left biocentrists, who identify with the social justice component of the
left where "justice" includes all species and the planet itself, is trying
to see how ecocentric principles can be expressed in social organization.
The non-ecocentric left itself normally has a human-chauvinist view towards
the welfare of other species, although, unlike the right, it is humans
generally who are given priority, not some specific grouping of humankind.
The left is ready to sacrifice other species and their habitats, if these
conflict with human interests.
Conclusion
My general overall impression, after reading _Nature, Environment and
Society_, is that the radical ecocentric environmental or Green activist
entering the field of sociology could have a hard time indeed being taken
intellectually seriously. Because, to be taken seriously, means mainstream
sociology expanding its human-centered world view, far beyond its present
comfort zone. Those sociologists who are prepared to embrace the ecocentric
imagination, and not just "deconstruct it", seem to be a small minority.
The one-time inspiring "sociological imagination" of the US sociologist C.
Wright Mills needs an ecocentric upgrade. Sutton's book shows that the
"consensus" of sociology today is not yet ready for a deep ecology
ecocentric make-over.
This book makes an important contribution, in that it raises for the
Green ecocentric movement the sociological perspective, with its correct
insistence that different social and cultural factors, reflected in
different societies, have differing environmental consequences. This is a
book for the thinking environmental and Green activist and I have no
hesitation in recommending it to others. There is much to learn from it
that can help in more effectively subverting industrial capitalist society.
October 2004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/
Our e-mail address is <[log in to unmask]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
