Essentials of Political Ideas

Ecologism

PREVIEW

The term ‘ecology’ was coined by the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) in 1866, derived from the Greek oikos, meaning household or habitat. He used it to refer to ‘the investigations of the total relations of the animal both in its organic and its inorganic environment’. Since the early years of the twentieth century, ecology has been recognised as a branch of biology that studies relationships among living organisms and their environment. It has, however, increasingly been converted into a political term by the use made of it, especially since the 1960s, by the growing green movement.

As a political ideology, ecologism (also known as ‘green ideology’ or ‘green politics’) is based on the belief that nature is an interconnected whole, embracing humans and non-humans, as well as the inanimate world. This has encouraged green thinkers to question (but not necessarily reject) the anthropocentric, or human-centred, assumptions of conventional political ideologies, allowing them to come up with new ideas about, among other things, economics, morality and social organisation. Nevertheless, there are different strains and tendencies within green ideology. Some greens are committed to ‘shallow’ ecology (sometimes viewed as environmentalism, as opposed to ecologism), which attempts to harness the lessons of ecology to human ends and needs, and embraces a ‘modernist’ or reformist approach to environmental change. ‘Deep’ ecologists, on the other hand, completely reject any lingering belief that the human species is in some way superior to, or more important than, any other species. Moreover, green ideology has drawn from a variety of other ideologies, notably socialism, anarchism and feminism, thereby acknowledging that the relationship between humankind and nature has an important social dimension. Each of these approaches to the environment offers a different model of the ecologically viable society of the future.

CONTENTS

•Historical overview

•Core ideas and principles

–Ecology

–Holism

–Sustainability

–Environmental ethics

–Post-materialism and ecological consciousness

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Although modern environmental politics did not emerge until the 1960s and 1970s, ecological ideas can be traced back to much earlier times. Many have suggested that the principles of contemporary ecologism, or green ideology, owe much to ancient pagan religions, which stressed the concept of an Earth Mother, and to eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism. However, to a large extent, green ideology was, and remains, a reaction against the process of industrialisation. This was evident in the nineteenth century, when the spread of urban and industrial life created a profound nostalgia for an idealised rural existence, as conveyed by novelists such as Thomas Hardy (1840–1928) and political thinkers such as the UK libertarian socialist William Morris (1834–96) and Peter Kropotkin (see p. 104). This reaction was often strongest in those countries that had experienced the most rapid and dramatic process of industrialisation. For example, Germany’s rapid industrialisation in the nineteenth century deeply scarred its political culture, creating powerful myths about the purity and dignity of peasant life, and giving rise to a strong ‘back to nature’ movement among German youth. Such romantic pastoralism was most likely to surface during the twentieth century in right-wing political doctrines, not least the ‘Blood and Soil’ ideas of the German Nazis.

The growth of green ideology since the 1960s has been provoked by the further and more intense advance of industrialisation and urbanisation, linked to the emergence of post-material sensibilities among young people in particular. Environmental concern has become more acute because of the fear that economic growth is endangering both the survival of the human race and the very planet it lives on. Such anxieties have been expressed in a growing body of literature. Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring (1962), a critique of the damage done to wildlife and the human world by the increased use of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, is often considered to have been the first book to draw attention to a developing ecological crisis. Other important early works included Ehrlich and Harriman’s How to Be a Survivor (1971), Goldsmith et al.’s Blueprint for Survival (1972), the unofficial UN report Only One Earth (Ward and Dubois, 1972) and the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972).

Pastoralism: A belief in the virtues of rural existence: simplicity, community and a closeness to nature, in contrast to the allegedly corrupting influence of urban and industrialised life.

KEY FIGURE

Rachel Carson (1907–64)

A US marine biologist and conservationist, Carson did much through her writings to stimulate interest in scientific and environmental topics, contributing to the growth of the green movement. In her best-selling The Silent Spring (1962), she highlighted the malign consequences to humans, birds, fish and plant life of the widespread use of powerful toxic agents, especially chemical pesticides, within US agriculture, reflecting the extent to which agri-business and state sponsorship threaten ecological balance and therefore sustainability. Carson’s writings are suffused by a sense wonder at the integrity, stability and beauty of nature, especially as found in the sea; she viewed life as a ‘miracle beyond comprehension’, insisting that all forms of life deserve respect. However, although Carson condemned the idea of the ‘control of nature’, seeing it as a form of human arrogance, she adopted an essentially anthropocentric approach that emphasised that respect for ecology ultimately serves human interests. Her other books include The Sea Around Us (1951). For more on Carson, see above.

A new generation of activist pressure groups have also developed – ranging from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to animal liberation activists and so-called ‘eco-warrior’ groups – campaigning on issues such as the dangers of pollution, the dwindling reserves of fossil fuels, deforestation and animal experimenta-tion. Together with established and much larger groups, such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature, this has led to the emergence of a high profile and increasingly influential green movement. From the 1980s onwards, environmental questions have been kept high on the political agenda by green parties, which now exist in most industrialised countries, often modelling themselves on the pioneering efforts of the German Greens. Environmental issues have also become an increasingly major focus of international concern and activity. Indeed, as discussed in the final section of the chapter, the environment could arguably be regarded as the global political issue. The UN Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, was the first attempt to establish an international framework to promote a coordinated approach to environmental problems. The idea of ‘sustainable development’ (see p. 168) was advanced in the 1987 Brundtland Report, a product of the work of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, and by the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992.

CORE IDEAS AND PRINCIPLES

ECOLOGY

The central principle of all forms of green thought is ecology. Ecology developed as a distinct branch of biology through a growing recognition that plants and animals are sustained by self-regulating natural systems – ecosystems – composed of both living and non-living elements. Simple examples of an ecosystem are a field, a forest or, as illustrated in Figure 8.1, a pond. All ecosystems tend towards a state of harmony or equilibrium through a system of self-regulation. Biologists refer to this as homeostasis. Food and other resources are recycled, and the population size of animals, insects and plants adjusts naturally to the available food supply. However, such ecosystems are not ‘closed’ or entirely self-sustaining: each interreacts with other ecosystems. A lake may constitute an ecosystem, but it also needs to be fed with fresh water from tributaries, and receive warmth and energy from the sun. In turn, the lake provides water and food for species living along its shores, including human communities. The natural world is therefore made up of a complex web of ecosystems, the largest of which is the global ecosystem, commonly called the ‘ecosphere’ or ‘biosphere’.

The development of scientific ecology radically altered our understanding of the natural world and of the place of human beings within it. Ecology conflicts quite dramatically with the notion of humankind as ‘the master’ of nature, and instead suggests that a delicate network of interrelationships that had hitherto been ignored sustains each human community, indeed the entire human species. Green thinkers argue that humankind currently faces the prospect of environmental disaster precisely because, in its passionate but blinkered pursuit of material wealth, it has upset the ‘balance of nature’ and endangered the very ecosystems that make human life possible. This has happened in a broad variety of ways. These include the exponential growth in the world’s human population; the depletion of finite and irreplaceable fuel resources such as coal, oil and natural gas; the eradication of tropical rain forests that help clean the air and regulate the Earth’s climate; the pollution of rivers, lakes and forests and the air itself; the use of chemical, hormonal and other additives to foodstuffs; and the threat to biodiversity that has resulted from the thousand-fold increase in species extinction that has coincided with the dominance of the human species.

Ecology: The study of the relationship between living organisms and the environment; ecology stresses the network of relationships that sustains all forms of life.

Homeostasis: The tendency of a system, especially the physiological systems of higher animals, to maintain internal equilibrium.

Ecologism provides a radically different vision of nature and the place of human beings within it, one that favours ecocentrism and challenges anthropocentrism. Human nature is viewed not as an entity in its own right, but as part of a larger and more significant entity, nature or the world itself. Human nature is thus inseparable from what can be called ‘non-human nature’. However, green or environmental thinkers have applied ecological ideas in different ways, and sometimes drawn quite different conclusions. The most important distinction in the environmental movement is between what the Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Arne Naess (1912–2008) termed ‘shallow ecol-ogy’ and ‘deep ecology’. The ‘shallow’ or ‘humanist’ perspective accepts the lessons of ecology but uses them essentially to further human needs and ends. In other words, it preaches that if we conserve and cherish the natural world, it will continue to sustain human life. This amounts to a form of ‘light’ or ‘enlightened’ anthropocentrism, and is reflected in a concern with issues such as cutting back on the use of finite, non-renewable resources and reducing pollution. While some regard such a stance as a form of ‘weak’ ecologism, others classify it as a means to distinguish it more clearly from ecologism. The ‘deep’ perspective, however, advances a form of ‘strong’ ecologism that completely rejects any lingering belief that the human species is in some way superior to, or more important than, any other species, or indeed nature itself. It is based on the more challenging idea that the purpose of human life is to help sustain nature, and not the other way around. (Deep ecology is discussed in greater detail on pp. 177–80.)

Ecocentrism: A theoretical orientation that gives priority to the maintenance of ecological balance rather than the achievement of human ends.

Anthropocentrism: A belief that human needs and interests are of overriding moral and philosophical importance; the opposite of ecocentrism.

Shallow ecology: A green ideological perspective that harnesses the lessons of ecology to human needs and ends, and is associated with values such as sustainability and conservation.

Deep ecology: A green ideological perspective that rejects anthropocentrism and gives priority to the maintenance of nature, and is associated with values such as biocentric equality, diversity and decentralisation.

PERSPECTIVES ON ...

NATURE

LIBERALS see nature as a resource to satisfy human needs, and thus rarely question human dominion over it. Lacking value in itself, nature is invested with value only when it is transformed by human labour, or when it is harnessed to human ends.

CONSERVATIVES often portray nature as threatening, even cruel, characterised by an amoral struggle and harshness that also shapes human existence. Humans may be seen as part of nature within a ‘great chain of being’, their superiority nevertheless being enshrined in their status as custodians of nature.

SOCIALISTS, like liberals, have viewed and treated nature as merely a resource. However, a romantic or pastoral tradition within socialism has also extolled the beauty, harmony and richness of nature, and looks to human fulfilment through a closeness to nature.

ANARCHISTS have often embraced a view of nature that stresses unregulated harmony and growth. Nature therefore offers a model of simplicity and balance, which humans would be wise to apply to social organisation in the form of social ecology.

FEMINISTS generally hold nature to be creative and benign. By virtue of their fertility and disposition to nurture, women are often thought to be close to nature and in tune with natural forces, while men, creatures of culture, are out of step or in conflict with nature.

ECOLOGISTS, particularly deep ecologists, regard nature as an interconnected whole, embracing humans and non-humans as well as the inanimate world. Nature is sometimes seen as a source of knowledge and ‘right living’, human fulfilment coming from a closeness to and respect for nature, not from the attempt to dominate it.

Differences between …

SHALLOW AND DEEP ECOLOGY

‘SHALLOW’ ECOLOGY

•environmentalism

•‘light’ anthropocentricism

•science

•humankind

•limited holism

•instrumental value

•modified humanism

•animal welfare

•sustainable growth

•personal development

‘DEEP’ ECOLOGY

•ecologism

•ecocentrism

•mysticism

•nature

•radical holism

•value-in-nature

•biocentric equality

•animal rights

•anti-growth

•ecological consciousness

HOLISM

Traditional political ideologies have typically assumed that human beings are the masters of the natural world, and have therefore regarded nature as little more than an economic resource. In that sense, they have been part of the problem and not part of the solution. In The Turning Point (1982), Fritjof Capra traced the origin of such ideas to the scientists and philosophers, such as René Descartes (1596–1650) and Isaac Newton (1642–1727). The world had previously been seen as organic; however, these seventeenth-century philosophers portrayed it as a machine, whose parts could be analysed and understood through the newly discovered scientific method. Science enabled remarkable advances to be made in human knowledge and provided the basis for the development of modern industry and technology. So impressive were the fruits of science, that intellectual inquiry in the modern world has come to be dominated by scientism. However, Capra argued that orthodox science, what he referred to as the ‘Cartesian–Newtonian paradigm’, amounts to the philosophical basis of the contemporary environmental crisis. Science treats nature as a machine, implying that, like any other machine, it can be tinkered with, repaired, improved on or even replaced. If human beings are to learn that they are part of the natural world rather than its masters, Capra suggested that this fixation with the ‘Newtonian world-machine’ must be overthrown and replaced by a new paradigm.

In searching for this new paradigm, ecological thinkers have been attracted to a variety of ideas and theories, drawn from both modern science and ancient myths and religions. However, the unifying theme among these ideas is the notion of holism. The term ‘holism’ was coined in 1926 by Jan Smuts (1870–1950), a Boer general and twice prime minister of South Africa. He used it to describe the idea that the natural world could only be understood as a whole and not through its individual parts. Smuts believed that science commits the sin of reductionism: it reduces everything it studies to separate parts and tries to understand each part in itself. In contrast, holism suggests that each part only has meaning in relation to other parts, and ultimately in relation to the whole. For example, a holistic approach to medicine would not just consider physical ailments but would see these as a manifestation of imbalances within the patient as a whole, taking account of psychological, emotional, social and environmental factors.

Although many green thinkers criticise science, others have suggested that modern science may offer a new paradigm for human thought. Capra, for example, argued that the Cartesian–Newtonian world-view has now been abandoned by many scientists, particularly by physicists like himself. During the twentieth century, with the development of so-called ‘new physics’, physics moved a long way beyond the mechanistic and reductionist ideas of Newton. The breakthrough was achieved at the beginning of the twentieth century by the German-born US physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955), whose theory of relativity fundamentally challenged the traditional concepts of time and space. Einstein’s work was taken further by quantum theory, developed by physicists such as Niels Bohr (1885–1952) and Verner Heisenberg (1901–76). In quantum theory the physical world is understood not as a collection of individual molecules, atoms or even particles, but as a system, or, more accurately, a network of systems. A systems view of the world concentrates not on individual building blocks, but on the principles of organisation within the system. It therefore stresses the relationships within the system and the integration of its various elements within the whole.

Scientism: The belief that scientific method is the only value-free and objective means of establishing truth, and is applicable to all fields of learning.

Holism: A belief that the whole is more important than its parts; holism implies that understanding is gained by studying relationships among the parts.

An alternative and particularly fertile source of new concepts and theories has been religion. In The Tao of Physics (1975), Capra drew attention to important parallels between the ideas of modern physics and those of eastern mysticism. He argued that religions such as Hinduism, Daoism and Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism, have long preached the unity or oneness of all things, a discovery that western science only made in the twentieth century. Many in the green movement have been attracted by eastern mysticism, seeing in it both a philosophy that gives expression to ecological wisdom and a way of life that encourages compassion for fellow human beings, other species and the natural world. Other writers believe that ecological principles are embodied in monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which regard both humankind and nature as products of divine creation. In such circumstances, human beings are viewed as God’s stewards on Earth, being invested thereby with a duty to cherish and preserve the planet.

However, perhaps the most influential concepts for modern greens have been developed by looking back to pre-Christian spiritual ideas. Primitive religions often drew no distinction between human and other forms of life, and, for that matter, little distinction between living and non-living objects. All things are alive: stones, rivers, mountains and even the Earth itself, often conceived of as ‘Mother Earth’. The idea of an Earth Mother has been particularly important for green thinkers trying to articulate a new relationship between human beings and the natural world, especially so for those sympathetic to ecofeminism, examined later in the chapter.

In a similar vein, the British independent scientist and environmental thinker James Lovelock (born 1919) developed the idea of the Gaia hypothesis (see p. 165). The idea of Gaia has developed into an ‘ecological ideology’ that con-veys the powerful message that human beings must respect the health of the planet, and act to conserve its beauty and resources. It also contains a revolutionary vision of the relationship between the animate and inanimate world. However, Gaia philosophy does not always correspond to the concerns of the green movement. Humanist ecologists have typically wished to change policies and attitudes in order to ensure the continued survival of the human species. Gaia, on the other hand, is non-human, and Gaia theory suggests that the health of the planet matters more than that of any individual species living on it at present. Lovelock has suggested that those species that have prospered have been ones that have helped Gaia to regulate its own existence, while any species that poses a threat to the delicate balance of Gaia, as green thinkers argue humans currently do, is likely to be extinguished. Lovelock has nevertheless been strongly committed to science, and, contrary to the views of many in the environmental movement, has stressed the importance of nuclear power in providing a solution to environmental problems.

System: A collection of parts that operate through a network of reciprocal interactions and thereby constitute a complex whole.

Key concept … GAIA HYPOTHESIS

The Gaia hypothesis advances the idea that the Earth is best understood as a living entity that acts to maintain its own existence (Gaia is the name of the Greek goddess of the Earth). The basis for the Gaia hypothesis is that the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and soil exhibit precisely the same kind of self-regulating behaviour that characterises other forms of life. Gaia has maintained ‘homeostasis’, a state of dynamic balance, despite the major changes that have taken place in the solar system. The most dramatic evidence of this is the fact that although the sun has warmed up by more than 25 per cent since life began, the temperature on Earth and the composition of its atmosphere have remained virtually unchanged.

SUSTAINABILITY

Ecological thinkers argue that the ingrained assumption of conventional political creeds, articulated by virtually all mainstream political parties (so-called ‘grey’ parties), is that human life has unlimited possibilities for material growth and prosperity. Indeed, green thinkers commonly lump capitalism and socialism together, and portray them both as examples of ‘industrialism’. A particularly influential metaphor for the environmental movement has been the idea of ‘spaceship Earth’, because this emphasises the notion of limited and exhaustible wealth. The idea that Earth should be thought of as a spaceship was first suggested by Kenneth Boulding (1966). Boulding argued that human beings have traditionally acted as though they live in a ‘cowboy economy’, an economy with unlimited opportunities, like the American West during the frontier period. He suggested that this encourages, as it did in the American West, ‘reckless, exploitative, and violent behaviour’. However, as a spaceship is a capsule, it is a ‘closed’ system. ‘Open’ systems receive energy or inputs from outside; for example, all ecosystems on Earth – ponds, forests, lakes and seas – are sustained by the sun. However, ‘closed’ systems, as the Earth itself becomes when it is thought of as a spaceship, show evidence of ‘entropy’. All ‘closed’ systems tend to decay or disintegrate because they are not sustained by external inputs. Ultimately, however wisely and carefully human beings behave, the Earth, the sun, and indeed all planets and stars, will be exhausted and die. When the ‘entropy law’ is applied to social and economic issues it produces very radical conclusions.

No issue reflects the law of entropy more clearly than the ‘energy crisis’. Industrialisation and mass affluence have been made possible by the exploitation of coal, gas and oil reserves, providing fuel for power stations, factories, motor cars, aeroplanes and so on. These fuels are fossil fuels. They are also non-renewable: once used up they cannot be replaced. In Small Is Beautiful (1973), E. F. Schumacher (see p. 167) argued that human beings have made the mistake of regarding energy as an ‘income’ that is being constantly topped-up each week or each month, rather than as ‘natural capital’ that they are forced to live off. This mistake has allowed energy demands to soar, especially in the industrialised West, at a time when finite fuel resources are, green thinkers warn, close to depletion and unlikely to last to the end of the twenty-first century. As the spaceship draws towards the close of the ‘fossil-fuel age’, it approaches disintegration because, as yet, there are insufficient alternative sources of energy to compensate for the loss of coal, oil and gas.

Entropy: A tendency towards decay or disintegration, exhibited by all ‘closed’ systems.

Fossil fuels: Fuels that are formed from the decomposition of buried dead organisms, making them rich in carbon; examples include oil, natural gas and coal.

Key concept … INDUSTRIALISM

The term ‘industrialism’, as used by environmental theorists, relates to a ‘super-ideology’ that encompasses capitalism and socialism, left-wing and right-wing thought. As an economic system, industrialism is characterised by large-scale production, the accumulation of capital and relentless growth. As a philosophy, it is dedicated to materialism, utilitarian values, absolute faith in science and a worship of technology. Many green thinkers thus see industrialism as ‘the problem’. Ecosocialists, however, blame capitalism rather than industrialism (which ignores important issues such as the role of ownership, profit and the market), while ecofeminists argue that industrialism has its origins in patriarchy.

Not only have humans failed to recognise that they live within the constraints of a ‘closed’ ecosystem, but they have also been unwisely cavalier in plundering its resources. Garrett Hardin (1968) developed a particularly influential model to explain why over-exploitation of environmental resources has occurred, in the form of the ‘tragedy of the commons’. The parable of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ sheds light on the behaviour of individuals within the community, the actions of groups within society, and the strategies adopted by states within the international system. However, the parable also highlights why it is often so difficult to tackle environmental problems at any level. Any viable solution to the environmental crisis must offer a means of dealing with the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

Nevertheless, green economics is not only about warnings and threats; it is also about solutions. Entropy may be an inevitable process; however, its effects can be slowed down or delayed considerably if governments and private citizens respect ecological principles. Green thinkers argue that the human species will only survive and prosper if it recognises that it is merely one element of a complex biosphere, and that only a healthy, balanced biosphere will sustain human life. Policies and actions must therefore be judged by the principle of ‘sustainability’. Sustainability sets clear limits on human ambitions and material dreams because it requires that production does as little damage as possible to the fragile global ecosystem. For example, a sustainable energy policy must be based on a dramatic reduction in the use of fossil fuels and a search for alternative, renewable energy sources such as solar energy, wind power and wave power. These are by their very nature sustainable and can be treated as ‘income’ rather than ‘natural capital’.

Sustainability: The capacity of a system to maintain its health and continue in existence over a period of time.

Key concept … TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

The idea of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ draws parallels between global environmental degradation and the fate of common land before the introduction of enclosures. Common land or common fisheries stocks encourage individuals to act in rationally self-interested ways, each exploiting the resources available to satisfy their needs and the needs of their families and communities. However, the collective impact of such behaviour may be devastating, as the vital resources on which all depend become depleted or despoiled. Thus, as Hardin (1968) put it, ‘Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.’ The parable of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ is usually used to justify tackling environmental problems either by strengthening political authority or by restricting population growth.

Sustainability, however, requires not merely the implementation of government controls or tax regimes to ensure a more enlightened use of natural resources, but, at a deeper level, the adoption of an alternative approach to economic activity. This is precisely what Schumacher (1973) sought to offer in his idea of ‘Buddhist economics’. For Schumacher, Buddhist economics is based on the principle of ‘right livelihood’ and stands in stark contrast to conventional economic theories, which assume that individuals are nothing more than ‘utility maximisers’. Buddhists believe that, in addition to generating goods and services, production facilitates personal growth by developing skills and talents, and helps to overcome egocentredness by forging social bonds and encouraging people to work together. Such a view moves economics a long way from its conventional obsession with wealth creation, creating what Schumacher called economics ‘as if people mattered’.

There is nevertheless considerable debate about what sustainability implies in practice. Reformist or modernist ecologists support ‘weak’ sustainability, which tries to reconcile ecology with economic growth through getting richer but at a slower pace. One way in which this could be achieved would be through changes to the tax system, either to penalise and discourage pollution or to reduce the use of finite resources. However, radical ecologists, who include both social ecologists and deep ecologists, support (if to different degrees) ‘strong’ sustainability, which places far greater stress on preserving ‘natural capital’ and is more critical of economic growth. If, as some radical ecologists argue, the origin of the ecological crisis lies in materialism, consumerism and a fixation with economic growth, the solution lies in ‘zero growth’ and the construction of a ‘post-industrial age’ in which people live in small, rural communities and rely on craft skills. This could mean a fundamental and comprehensive rejection of industry and modern technology – literally a ‘return to nature’.

Modernist ecology: A reformist tendency within green politics that seeks to reconcile ecology with the key features of capitalist modernity.

KEY FIGURE

Ernst Friedrich (‘Fritz’) Schumacher (1911–77)

A German-born UK economist, statistician and environmental thinker, Schumacher championed the cause of human-scale production, intermediate technology and what he called ‘Buddhist economics’. The latter was defined as ‘economics as if people mattered’, and stressed the importance of ‘right livelihood’. Schumacher’s seminal work, Small Is Beautiful (1973), was imbued with a deep spiritual vision and reflected a rejection of western materialism and economic exploitation. In it, he advanced a critique of traditional economics’ obsession with growth for growth’s sake, and condemned the value system on which it is based, particularly the fact that it is divorced from nature. Crucial to his work was the belief that an infinite growth of material consumption is impossible in a finite world. For Schumacher, size was a critical question. His championing of ‘the small’ reflected not only deep reservations about the value of the traditional theory of economies of scale (or what he called ‘rationalism by giantism’), but also the belief that small scale organisation promotes compassion, morality and a sense of common purpose. For more on Schumacher, see pp. 165, 167, and 170.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Ecological politics, in all its forms, is concerned with extending moral thinking in a number of novel directions. This is because conventional ethical systems are clearly anthropocentric, orientated around the pleasure, needs and interests of human beings. In such philosophies, the non-human world is invested with value only to the extent that it satisfies human ends. One ethical issue that even humanist or ‘shallow’ ecologists grapple with extensively is the question of our moral obligations towards future generations (see p. 169). However, the notion of cross-generational justice has also been criticised. Conventional moral thinkers have sometimes argued that, as all rights depend on reciprocity, it is absurd to endow people who have yet to be born with rights that impose duties on people currently alive, since the unborn cannot discharge any duties towards the living. Moreover, in view of the potentially unlimited size of future generations, the burdens imposed by ‘futurity’ are, in practical terms, incalculable. The present generation may, therefore, either be making sacrifices for the benefit of future generations who may prove to be much better off than themselves, or their sacrifices may be entirely inadequate to meet future needs.

An alternative approach to environmental ethics involves applying moral standards and values developed in relation to human beings to other species and organisms. The most familiar attempt to do this is in the form of ‘animal rights’. Peter Singer’s (1976) case for animal welfare had a considerable impact on the growing animal liberation movement. Singer argued that an altruistic concern for the well-being of other species derives from the fact that, as sentient beings, they are capable of suffering. Drawing on utilitarianism, he pointed out that animals, like humans, have an interest in avoiding physical pain, and he therefore condemned any attempt to place the interests of humans above those of animals as ‘speciesism’. However, altruistic concern for other species does not imply equal treatment. Singer’s argument does not apply to non-sentient life forms such as trees, rocks and rivers. Moreover, the moral imperative is the avoidance of suffering, with special consideration being given to more developed and self-aware animals, notably to the great apes. On the other hand, Singer’s argument implies that a reduced moral consideration should be given to human foetuses and mentally impaired people who have no capacity for suffering (Singer, 1993).

Key concept … SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Sustainable development refers to ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland Report, 1987). It therefore embodies two concepts: (1) the concept of need, particularly the essential needs of the world’s poor; and (2) the concept of limitations, especially related to the environment’s ability to meet future as well as present needs. So-called weak sustainability takes economic growth to be desirable but simply insists that growth must be limited to ensure that ecological costs do not threaten its long-term sustainability, allowing ‘human capital’ to be substituted for ‘natural capital’. Strong sustainability rejects the pro-growth implications of weak sustainability, and focuses just on the need to preserve and sustain ‘natural capital’.

Social ecology: A broad tendency within green politics that links ecological sustainability to radical social change, or the eco-anarchist principle that human communities should be structured according to ecological principles.

Nevertheless, the moral stance of deep ecology goes much further, in particular by suggesting that nature has value in its own right; that is, intrinsic value. From this perspective, environmental ethics have nothing to do with human instru-mentality and cannot be articulated simply through the extension of human values to the non-human world. Goodin (1992), for instance, attempted to develop a ‘green theory of value’, which holds that resources should be valued precisely because they result from natural processes rather than human activity. However, since this value stems from the fact that the natural landscape helps people to see ‘some sense and pattern in their lives’ and to appreciate ‘something larger’ than themselves, it embodies a residual humanism that fails to satisfy some deep ecologists. The distinctive ethical stance of deep ecology is discussed at greater length later in the chapter.

POST-MATERIALISM AND ECOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Ecologist ideology seeks not only to revise conventional moral thinking, but also to reshape our understanding of happiness and human well-being. In particular, green thinkers have advanced a critique of materialism and consumerism.

Animal rights: Moral entitlements that are based on the belief that as animals are non-human ‘persons’, they deserve the same consideration (at least in certain areas) as human beings.

Speciesism: A belief in the superiority of one species over other species, through the denial of their moral significance.

Humanism: A philosophy that gives moral priority to the achievement of human needs and ends.

Materialism: An emphasis on material needs and their satisfaction, usually implying a link between pleasure or happiness and the level of material consumption.

Key concept … FUTURE GENERATIONS

The idea that the needs and interests of ‘future generations’, those yet to be born, should be taken into account in ethical reasoning is deeply rooted in green thought because the ecological impact of present actions may not be felt for decades or even centuries. What can be called cross-generational justice can be seen as a ‘natural duty’, an extension of a moral concern for our children and, by extension, their children, and so on. Concern for future generations has also been linked to the idea of ‘ecological stewardship’. This is the notion that the present generation is merely the custodian of the wealth that has been generated by past generations and so is obliged to conserve it for the benefit of future generations.

Consumerism is a psycho-cultural phenomenon whereby personal happiness is equated with the consumption of material possessions, giving rise to what the German psychoanalyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm (1979) called a ‘having’ attitude of mind. For green theorists, ‘having’ – the disposition to seek fulfilment in acquisition and control – is deficient in at least two respects. First, it tends to undermine, rather than enhance, psychological and emotional well-being. As modern advertising and marketing techniques tend to create ever-greater material desires, they leave consumers in a constant state of dissatisfaction because, however much they acquire and consume, they always want more. Consumerism thus works not through the satisfaction of desires, but through the generation of new desires, keeping people in an unending state of neediness, want and aspiration. Such thinking is sustained by the emerging discipline of ‘happiness economics’, which suggests that once citizens enjoy fairly comfortable living standards it is not absolute wealth but relative wealth that affects subjective well-being (Layard, 2011).

Second, materialism and consumerism provide the cultural basis for environmental degradation. This occurs as the ‘consumer society’ encourages people to place short-term economic considerations ahead of longer-term ecological concerns, in which case nature is nothing other than a commodity or resource. In this light, green ideology can be seen to be associated with the ideas of post-materialism and anti-consumerism.

In line with green ideology’s post-material orientation, green thinkers have tended to view human development as dangerously unbalanced: human beings are blessed with massive know-how and material wealth, but possess precious little ‘know-why’. Humankind has acquired the ability to fulfil its material ambitions, but not the wisdom to question whether these ambitions are sensible, or even sane. As Schumacher (1973) warned, ‘Man is now too clever to survive without wisdom.’ However, some ‘shallow’ or humanistic ecologists have serious misgivings when this quest for wisdom draws green ideology into the realms of religious mysticism or New Age ideas. Many ecologists, particularly those who subscribe to deep ecology, have nevertheless embraced world-views that are quite different from those that have traditionally dominated political thought in the developed West. This, they argue, is the basis of the ‘paradigm shift’ that green ideology aims to bring about, and without which it is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the ‘old’ politics because it cannot move beyond its concepts and assumptions.

Key concept … POST-MATERIALISM

Post-materialism is a theory that explains the nature of political concerns and values in terms of levels of economic development. It is based loosely on Abraham Maslow’s (1908–70) ‘hierarchy of needs’, which places self-esteem and self-actualisation above material or economic needs. Post-materialism assumes that conditions of material scarcity breed egoistical and acquisitive values, meaning that politics is dominated by economic issues (who gets what). However, in conditions of widespread prosperity, individuals tend to express more interest in ‘post-material’ or ‘quality of life’ issues. These are typically concerned with morality, political justice and personal fulfilment, and include gender equality, world peace, racial harmony, ecology and animal rights.

In their search for an alternative model of human well-being, green theorists have generally emphasised the importance of ‘quality of life’ issues and concerns, thereby divorcing happiness from a simple link to material acquisition. Such thinking is taken most seriously by eco-anarchists, ecofeminists and especially deep ecologists. In line with Fromm, they have been more willing to contrast ‘having’ with ‘being’, the latter representing satisfaction that is derived from experience and sharing, leading to personal growth, even spiritual awareness. The key feature of ‘being’ as an attitude of mind is that it seeks to transcend the self, or individual ego, and to recognise that each person is intrinsically linked to all other living things, and, indeed, to the universe itself. This is sometimes known as ‘ecological consciousness’. The Australian philosopher Warwick Fox (1990) claimed to go beyond deep ecology in embracing ‘transpersonal ecology’, the essence of which is the realisation that ‘things are’, that human beings and all other entities are part of a single unfolding reality. For Naess, self-realisation is attained through a broader and deeper ‘identification with others’ (Naess, 1973). Such ideas have often been shaped by eastern religions, most profoundly by Buddhism, which has been portrayed as an ecological philosophy in its own right. One of the key doctrines of Buddhism is the idea of ‘no self’, the notion that the individual ego is a myth or delusion, and that awakening or enlightenment involves transcending the self and recognising the oneness of life.

TYPES OF ECOLOGISM

MODERNIST ECOLOGY

‘Modernist’ or ‘reformist ecology’ refers to the form of green ideology that is practised by most environmental pressure groups and by a growing range of mainstream political parties. Modernist ecology is reformist in that it seeks to advance ecological principles and promote ‘environmentally sound’ practices, but without rejecting the central features of capitalist modernity – individual self-seeking, materialism, economic growth and so on. It is thus very clearly a form of ‘shallow’ or humanist ecology. The key feature of modernist ecology is the recognition that there are environmental ‘limits to growth’, in the sense that pollution, increased CO₂ emissions, the exhaustion of non-renewable energy sources and other forms of environmental degradation ultimately threaten prosperity and economic performance. The watchword of this form of green ideology is therefore sustainable development (in the sense of ‘weak’ sustainability) or, more specifically, environmentally sustainable capitalism. As, in economic terms, this means ‘getting richer more slowly’, modernist ecology extends moral and philosophical sensibilities only in modest directions. Indeed, it is often condemned by more radical ecologists as hopelessly compromised: part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The two main ideological influences on modernist ecology are liberalism and conservatism.

Ecological consciousness: An awareness of the oneness or interconnectedness of all things, allowing people to move beyond narcissistic selfishness and egoism.

Ecoliberalism

Liberalism has, at best, an ambivalent relationship with green ideology. Radical ecologists criticise individualism (see p. 12) as a stark example of anthropocentrism, and condemn utilitarianism (see p. 23), the moral philosophy that underpins much of classical liberalism, on the grounds that it equates happiness with material consumption. On a larger scale, liberalism’s atomistic view of society has been seen as the political expression of the ‘Cartesian– Newtonian paradigm’ (Capra, 1982). However, the stress found within modern liberalism on self-realisation and developmental individualism can be said to sustain a form of ‘enlightened’ anthropocentrism, which encourages people to take into account long-term, and not merely short-term, interests, and to favour ‘higher’ pleasures (including an appreciation of the natural world) over ‘lower’ pleasures (such as material consumption).This can be seen, for example, in John Stuart Mill’s (see p. 27) criticism of rampant industrialisation and his defence of a stationary population level and a steady-state economy, on the grounds that the contemplation of nature is an indispensable aspect of human fulfilment.

Ecoconservatism

Conservatives, for their part, have evinced a sympathy for environmental issues, on two main grounds. First, ecoconservatism has drawn on a romantic and nostalgic attachment to a rural way of life threatened by the growth of towns and cities. It is clearly a reaction against industrialisation and the idea of ‘progress’. It does not envisage the construction of a post-industrial society, founded on the principles of cooperation and ecology, but rather a return to, or the maintenance of, a more familiar pre-industrial one. Such environmental sensibilities typically focus on the issue of conservation and on attempts to protect the natural heritage – woodlands, forests and so on – as well as the architectural and social heritage. The conservation of nature is therefore linked to a defence of traditional values and institutions.

Second, conservatives have advocated market-based solutions to environmental problems, even espousing the idea of ‘green capitalism’. Market-based environmental solutions include the adoption of tax structures that incentivise ‘eco-friendly’ individual and corporate behaviour, and emissions trading schemes such as that proposed by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The theory of green capitalism has two features. The first is the assumption that the market mechanism can and will respond to pressure from more ecologically aware consumers by forcing firms to produce ‘environmentally sound’ goods and adopt ‘green’ technologies. Such thinking relies on the idea of consumer sovereignty and acknowledges the impact of the trend towards so-called ‘responsible consumption’.

The second way in which capitalism is supposedly ‘green’ is linked to the idea that long-term corporate profitability can only be achieved in a context of sustainable development. Capitalism, in short, has no interest in destroying the planet. However, there are important differences within modernist ecology over the proper balance between the state and capitalism. Although some supporters of green capitalism favour unregulated market competition, most modernist ecologists support a managed capitalist system in which environmental degradation is treated as an externality, or ‘social cost’, that can only be dealt with effectively by government.

Green capitalism: The idea that a reliance on the capitalist market mechanism will deliver ecologically sustainable outcomes, usually linked to assumptions about capitalism’s consumer responsiveness.

Consumer sovereignty: The notion, based on the theory of competitive capitalism, that consumer choice is the ultimately determining factor within a market economy.

SOCIAL ECOLOGY

‘Social ecology’ is a term coined by Murray Bookchin (see p. 175) to refer to the idea that ecological principles can and should be applied to social organisation, in which case an anarchist commune can be thought of as an ecosystem. However, the term can also be used more broadly to refer to a range of ideas, each of which recognises that environmental degradation is, in some way, linked to existing social structures. The advance of ecological principles therefore requires a process of radical social change. Social ecology, thus defined, encompasses three distinct traditions:

ecosocialism

eco-anarchism

ecofeminism.

Ecosocialism

There is a distinct socialist strand within the green movement, which has been particularly pronounced among the German Greens, many of whose leaders have been former members of far-left groups. Ecosocialism has drawn from the pastoral socialism of thinkers such as William Morris, who extolled the virtues of small-scale craft communities living close to nature. However, it has more usually been associated with Marxism. For example, Rudolph Bahro (1982) argued that the root cause of the environmental crisis is capitalism. The natural world has been despoiled by industrialisation, but this is merely a consequence of capitalism’s relentless search for profit. In this view, capitalism’s anti-ecological bias derives from a number of sources. These include that private property encourages the belief that humans are dominant over nature; that the market economy ‘commodifies’ nature, in the sense that it turns it into something that only has exchange-value and so can be bought and sold; and that the capitalist system breeds materialism and consumerism, and so leads to relentless growth. From this perspective, the idea of ‘green capitalism’ is a contradiction in terms. Any attempt to improve the environment must therefore involve a process of radical social change, some would say a social revolution.

The core theme of ecosocialism is the idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment, while socialism is its friend. However, as with socialist feminism, such a formula embodies tension between two elements, this time between ‘red’ and ‘green’ priorities. If environmental catastrophe is nothing more than a by-product of capitalism, environmental problems are best tackled by abolishing capitalism, or at least taming it. Therefore, ecologists should not form separate green parties or set up narrow environmental organisations, but work within the larger socialist movement and address the real issue: the economic system. On the other hand, socialism has also been seen as another ‘pro-production’ political creed: it espouses exploiting the wealth of the planet, albeit for the good of humanity rather than just the capitalist class. Socialist parties have been slow to adopt environmental policies because they, like other ‘grey’ parties, continue to base their electoral appeal on the promise of economic growth. As a result, ecologists have often been reluctant to subordinate the green to the red, hence the proclamation by the German Greens that they are ‘neither left nor right’.

Ecosocialists argue that socialism is naturally ecological. If wealth is owned in common it will be used in the interests of all, which means in the long-term interests of humanity. However, it is unlikely that ecological problems can be solved simply by a change in the ownership of wealth. This was abundantly demonstrated by the experience of state socialism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, which produced some of the world’s most intractable environmental problems. Examples include the Aral Sea in Central Asia, once the fourth biggest lake in the world, which has shrunk to 10 per cent of its original size as a result of the re-routing of two rivers; and the Chernobyl nuclear explosion in the Ukraine in 1986.

Eco-anarchism

Perhaps the ideology that has the best claim to being environmentally sensitive is anarchism. Some months before the publication of Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring, Murray Bookchin brought out Our Synthetic Environment ([1962] 1975). Many in the green movement also acknowledge a debt to nineteenth-century anarcho-communists, particularly Peter Kropotkin. Bookchin (1977) suggested that there is a clear correspondence between the ideas of anarchism and the principles of ecology, articulated in the idea of ‘social ecology’, which is based on the belief that ecological balance is the surest foundation for social stability. Anarchists believe in a stateless society, in which harmony develops out of mutual respect and social solidarity among human beings. The richness of such a society is founded on its variety and diversity. Green thinkers also believe that balance or harmony develops spontaneously within nature, in the form of ecosystems, and that these, like anarchist communities, require no external authority or control. The anarchist rejection of government within human society thus parallels the green thinkers’ warnings about human ‘rule’ within the natural world. Bookchin therefore likened an anarchist community to an ecosystem, and suggested that both are distinguished by respect for the principles of diversity, balance and harmony.

Anarchists have also advocated the construction of decentralised societies, organised as a collection of communes or villages, a social vision to which many deep ecologists are also attracted. Life in such communities would be lived close to nature, each community attempting to achieve a high degree of self-sufficiency. Such communities would be economically diverse; they would produce food and a wide range of goods and services, and therefore contain agriculture, craft work and small-scale industry. Self-sufficiency would make each community dependent on its natural environment, spontaneously generating an understanding of organic relationships and ecology. In Bookchin’s view, decentralisation would lead to ‘a more intelligent and more loving use of the environment’.

KEY FIGURE

Murray Bookchin (1921–2006)

A US social philosopher and environmentalist, Bookchin was drawn to the anti-authoritarian ideas of Kropotkin (see p. 104) and others once he had become disillusioned with Marxist socialism. As an anarchist, he emphasised the potential for non-hierarchic cooperation within conditions of post-scarcity and called for the introduction of egalitarian, mutually interdependent communities. Arguing that ecological principles should be applied to social organisation, he linked the environmental crisis to the subversion of the organic structure of both society and nature by the statist social order. The domination of humans by one another thus prepared for the domination of humans over nature. Bookchin was an outspoken critic of the deep ecology of Arne Naess and others. Dismissing the idea of biocentric equality on the grounds that it is anti-humanist, he offended the animal rights movement by advocating practices such as hunting, stock raising and the ‘rational’ use of animals. His major works in this field include The Ecology of Freedom (1982) and Re-enchanting Humanity (1995). For more on Bookchin, see below and pp. 98, 173, 174 and 180.

Without doubt, the conception that many green theorists have of a post-industrial society has been influenced by the writings of Kropotkin and William Morris. The green movement has also adopted ideas such as decentralisation, participatory democracy and direct action, from anarchist thought. However, even when anarchism is embraced as providing a vision of an ecologically sound future, it is seldom accepted as a means of getting there. Anarchists believe that progress will only be possible when government and all forms of political authority are overthrown. In contrast, many in the green movement see government as an agency through which collective action can be organised, and therefore as the most likely means through which the environmental crisis can be addressed, at least in the short term. They fear that dismantling or even weakening government may simply give free rein to those forces that generated industrialisation and blighted the natural environment in the first place.

Ecofeminism

The idea that feminism offers a distinctive and valuable approach to green issues has grown to such a point that ecofeminism has developed into one of the major philosophical schools of environmentalist thought, its key practitioners including Ynestra King, Carolyn Merchant (see p. 176) and Mary Daly. The basic theme of ecofeminism is that ecological destruction has its origins in patriarchy: nature is under threat not from humankind but from men and the institutions of male power. Feminists who adopt an androgynous or sexless view of human nature argue that patriarchy has distorted the instincts and sensibilities of men by divorcing them from the ‘private’ world of nurturing, home-making and personal relationships. The sexual division of labour thus inclines men to subordinate both women and nature, seeing themselves as ‘masters’ of both. From this point of view, ecofeminism can be classified as a particular form of social ecology. However, many ecofeminists subscribe to essentialism, in that their theories are based on the belief that there are fundamental and ineradicable differences between women and men.

KEY FIGURE

Carolyn Merchant (born 1936)

A US ecofeminist philosopher and historian of science, Merchant has highlighted in her work the links between gender oppression and the ‘death of nature’. Merchant developed a feminist critique of the way in which the scientific revolution that began in the seventeenth century had subverted the mothering image of the natural world dominant in the Middle Ages. Environmental degradation could therefore be explained ultimately in terms of the application by men of a mechanistic view of nature. This meant that respect for the wonder and organic character of nature was displaced by a disposition to seize, bind and exploit nature, with similar implications for gender relations. Merchant thus drew parallels between the violation of women and the ‘rape’ of ‘virgin’ land. In this light, she argued that a global environmental revolution had to be underpinned by a radical, societal restructuring of gender relations. Merchant’s chief works include The Death of Nature (1983) and Radical Ecology (1992). For more on Merchant, see p. 175.

Such a position is adopted, for instance, by Mary Daly in Gyn/Ecology (1979). Daly argued that women would liberate themselves from patriarchal culture if they aligned themselves with ‘female nature’. The notion of an intrinsic link between women and nature is not a new one. Pre-Christian religions and ‘primitive’ cultures often portrayed the Earth or natural forces as a goddess, an idea resurrected in the Gaia hypothesis. Modern ecofeminists, however, highlight the biological basis for women’s closeness to nature, in particular the fact that they bear children and suckle babies. The fact that women cannot live separately from natural rhythms and processes in turn structures their politico-cultural orientation. Traditional ‘female’ values therefore include reciprocity, cooperation and nurturing, values that have a ‘soft’ or ecological character. The idea that nature is a resource to be exploited or a force to be subdued is more abhorrent to women than men, because they recognise that nature operates in and through them, and intuitively sense that personal fulfilment stems from acting with nature rather than against it. The overthrow of patriarchy therefore promises to bring with it an entirely new relationship between human society and the natural world, meaning that ecofeminism shares with deep ecology a firm commitment to ecocentrism.

If there is an essential or ‘natural’ bond between women and nature, the relationship between men and nature is quite different. While women are creatures of nature, men are creatures of culture: their world is synthetic or (literally) man-made, a product of human ingenuity rather than natural creativity. In the male world, then, intellect is ranked above intuition, materialism is valued over spirituality, and mechanical relationships are emphasised over holistic ones. In politico-cultural terms, this is reflected in a belief in self-striving, competition and hierarchy. The implications of this for the natural world are clear. Patriarchy, in this view, establishes the supremacy of culture over nature, the latter being nothing more than a force to be subdued, exploited or risen above. Ecological destruction and gender inequality are therefore part of the same process in which ‘cultured’ men rule over ‘natural’ women.

DEEP ECOLOGY

The term ‘deep ecology’ (sometimes called ‘ecocentrism’, ‘ecosophy’ or ‘ecophilosophy’) was coined in 1973 by Arne Naess. For Naess, deep ecology is ‘deep’ because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning ‘why’ and ‘how’, and is thus concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the impact of the human species on the biosphere.The key belief of deep ecology is that ecology and anthropocentrism (in all its forms, including ‘enlightened’ anthropocentrism) are simply irreconcilable; indeed, anthropocentrism is an offence against the principle of ecology.

This rejection of anthropocentrism has had profound moral and political implications. Deep ecologists have viewed nature as the source of moral goodness. Nature thus has ‘intrinsic’ or inherent value, not just ‘instrumental’ value deriving from the benefits it brings to human beings. A classic statement of the ethical framework of deep ecology is articulated in Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac ([1948] 1968) in the form of the ‘land ethic’: ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.’ Such a moral stance implies ‘biocentric equality’. Naess (1989) expressed this in the idea that all species have an ‘equal right to live and bloom’, reflecting the benefits of biodiversity. Such ecocentric ethical thinking has been accompanied by a deeper and more challenging philosophical approach that amounts to nothing less than a new metaphysics, a new way of thinking about and understanding the world. In addressing metaphysical issues, deep ecology is radical in a way and to a degree that does not apply elsewhere in ideological thought. Deep ecology calls for a change in consciousness, specifically the adoption of ‘ecological consciousness’, or ‘cosmological consciousness’. At the heart of this is an ‘inter-subjective’ model of selfhood that allows for no distinction between the self and the ‘other’, thereby collapsing the distinction between humankind and nature.

Biocentric equality: The principle that all organisms and entities in the biosphere are of equal moral worth, each being an expression of the goodness of nature.

Biodiversity: The range of species within a biotic community, often thought to be linked to its health and stability.

Deep ecology is also associated with a distinctive analysis of environmental degradation and how it should be tackled. Instead of linking the environmental crisis to particular policies or a specific political, social or economic system (be it industrialisation, capitalism, patriarchy or whatever), deep ecologists argue that it has more profound cultural and intellectual roots. The problem lies in the mechanistic world-view that has dominated the thinking of western societies since about the seventeenth century, and which subsequently came to affect most of the globe. Above all, this dominant paradigm is dualistic: it understands the world in terms of distinctions (self/other, humankind/nature, individual/ society, mind/matter, reason/emotion and so on) and thus allows nature to be thought of as inert and valueless in itself, a mere resource for satisfying human ends. In this light, nothing less than a paradigm change – a change in how we approach and think about the world – will properly address the challenge of environmental degradation. Deep ecologists have looked to a wide range of ideas and theories to bring about this paradigm change, including, as discussed earlier, modern physics, eastern mysticism and primitive religion. Each of these is attractive because it offers a vision of radical holism. In emphasising that the whole is more important than its individual parts, they are clearly non-dualistic and provide a basis for an ecocentrism that prioritises the maintenance of ecological balance over the achievement of narrowly human ends.

Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of existence, or being.

KEY FIGURE

Aldo Leopold (1887–1948)

A US philosopher, woodsman and environmentalist, Leopold is sometimes seen as the father of wildlife conservation in the USA. Originally a forester and keen on hunting, Leopold later rejected the distinction between ‘bad’ predators and ‘good’ animals on the grounds that both are necessary to a healthy ecosystem. His main contribution to environmental thinking was the idea of the ‘land ethic’, developed in A Sand County Almanac (1948). This portrayed human beings as plain members and citizens of the land-community, imposing major restraints on how they could deal with nature. Although commonly associated with deep ecology, Leopold did not envisage a ‘hands-off’ approach to human–environmental relations, as effective conservation requires a balance between ecological sustainability and economic expediency. He thus did not accept that non-human nature has an intrinsic value. Rather than rejecting outright economic valuations of the natural world, his concern was to prevent economic valuations of nature from ‘crowding out’ alternative valuations, based, for example, on ethical, aesthetics and social considerations. For more on Leopold, see p. 177.

In addition to its moral and philosophical orientation, deep ecology has been associated with a wider set of goals and concerns. These include:

Wilderness preservation. Deep ecologists seek to preserve nature ‘wild and free’, based on the belief that the natural world, unspoilt by human intervention, is a repository of wisdom and morality. Preservationism is nevertheless different from conservationism, in that the latter is usually taken to imply protecting nature in order to satisfy long-term human ends. The ‘wilderness ethic’ of deep ecology is often linked to the ideas of Henry David Thoreau (1817–62), who left Concord, Massachusetts, in 1845 to live in solitude in the woods by Walden Pond, an experience described in Walden ([1854] 1983).

Population control. Although greens from many traditions have shown a concern about the exponential rise in the human population, deep ecologists have placed a particular emphasis on this issue, often arguing that a substantial decrease in the human population is the only way of ensuring the flourishing of non-human life. To this end, some deep ecologists have rejected aid to the developing world; called for a reduction in birth rates, especially in the developing world; or argued that immigration from the developing world to the developed world should be stopped.

Simple living. Deep ecologists believe that humans have no right to reduce the richness and diversity of nature except, as Naess put it, to satisfy vital needs. This is a philosophy of ‘walking lighter on the Earth’. It certainly implies an emphasis on promoting the quality of life (‘being’) rather than the quantity of possessions (‘having’), and is often linked to a post-material model of self-realisation, commonly understood as self-actualisation. This implies being ‘inwardly rich but outwardly poor’.

Bioregionalism. This is the idea that human society should be reconfigured in line with naturally defined regions, each ‘bioregion’, in effect, being an ecosystem. Bioregionalism is clearly at odds with established territorial divisions, based on national or state borders. Although deep ecologists seldom look to prescribe how humans should organise themselves within such bioregions, there is general support for self-reliant, self-supporting, autonomous communities.

Nevertheless, the role and importance of deep ecology within larger green political thought has been a matter of considerable controversy. Not only has the significance of deep ecology, in terms of the philosophical and ethical debates it has stimulated, greatly outweighed its practical importance within the green movement, but it has also attracted sometimes passionate criticism from fellow green thinkers. Humanist ecologists roundly reject the idea that their views are merely a ‘shallow’ version of deep ecology, arguing instead that deep ecology is philosophically and morally flawed. The philosophical flaw of deep ecology is the belief that anthropocentrism and ecology are mutually exclusive. From this perspective, a concern with human well-being, or at least long-term and sustainable human well-being, requires respect for ecology rather than its betrayal. The moral flaws of deep ecology stem from the idea of the ‘intrinsic’ value of nature. In the humanist view, environmental ethics cannot be non-anthropocentric because morality is a human construct: ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are only meaningful when they are applied to human beings and their living conditions. Deep ecology has also come under attack from social ecologists, notably Murray Bookchin. For Bookchin, deep ecology is not only socially conservative (because it ignores the radical social change that needs to accompany any ‘inner’ revolution) but, in turning its back on rationalist thought and embracing mysticism, it is also guilty of succumbing to what Bookchin called ‘vulgar Californian spiritualism’ or ‘Eco-la-la’.

Preservationism: The disposition to protect natural systems, often implying keeping things ‘just as they are’ and restricting the impact of humans on the environment.

Self-actualisation: An ‘inner’, even quasi-spiritual, fulfilment that is achieved by transcending egoism and materialism.

Bioregionalism: The belief that the territorial organisation of economic, social and political life should take into account the ecological integrity of bioregions.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

How does an ecocentric perspective challenge conventional approaches to politics?

Is ‘enlightened’ anthropocentrism a contradiction in terms?

Why have green thinkers been ambivalent about science?

Should all thinking strive to be holistic?

What are the features of a sustainable economy?

How has green ideology extended conventional moral thinking?

Do we have obligations to future generations, and if so, how far do they extend?

Why and how have green theorists rethought the nature of human fulfilment?

Which political ideologies are most compatible with ecological thinking, and why?

To what extent can the goals of green ideology only be achieved through radical social change?

Does deep ecology constitute the philosophical core of green political thought?

Can ecologism ever be electorally and politically viable?