Conflict and Marxism in Deep Ecology
A review by David Orton
Wisdom In the
Open Air: The Norwegian Roots Of Deep Ecology
edited by
Peter Reed and David Rothenberg,
University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, 1993,
255 pages, paperback, ISBN:
0-8166-2182-9.
“I feel that it is impossible to reach a future that
is creative and not destructive
without social, economic, and political conflict. And I would even say
that it’s not
possible to keep appealing to everybody, for instance the whole of the
Norwegian
population, because by now a number of people are so drawn into the
industrial growth
way of life that it has become part of their personality. It is a waste
of energy to try to
pull them back to the green side of the new cultural dividing line.
We are reaching a future through conflict - and this
is not coincidental, but
rather what has always happened at major shifts in the various events
building futures
in history... we now need to think in a model of conflict, to be
prepared at every turn
for strife. And what I have been saying here is, all of it, a product
of conflict thinking.”
Sigmund Kvaløy, “Complexity And Time:
Breaking the Pyramid’s Reign”
pp.136-137
Introduction
This anthology of essays has been out a long time
(since 1993). I regret to say
that I have only recently obtained a copy and read it. This copy was
obtained because
of a growing interest on my part, in one of the writers covered in this
anthology -
Sigmund Kvaløy. (See the defining Kvaløy essay [which
seems to exist in different
texts] “Complexity
and Time: Breaking the Pyramid’s Reign”, plus the report of a
conversation with him, “Getting Our Feet Wet”.)
He is someone in the deep ecology
tradition, speaking in a broad sense, but highly influenced by
Buddhism, plus most
importantly by Marx and Gandhi.
Sigmund Kvaløy is a colleague of Arne Naess,
and is considered extremely
influential in Norway, both for his activism and for his theoretical
ideas. (I find it
quite strange that a 1999
collection of articles, including several by Norwegian
writers, Philosophical Dialogues: Arne Naess and the
Progress of Ecophilosophy,
does not have anything by
Kvaløy.) He speaks of moving on a yearly basis between,
Oslo, the capital of
Norway, and a summer farm. On his farm he regards the sheep
and the cows as being part
of his personality. Because Kvaløy has incorporated a
Marxist perspective into his practical and
theoretical work, this has made him of
particular interest to me. He sees conflict as
extremely important in defining how a
society will evolve. Generally, deep ecology
supporters are fending off critiques by
writers interested in ecology who consider
themselves Marxists. The main objective
of this review about Wisdom In The Open Air: The Norwegian Roots
Of Deep
Ecology, is to make some of Sigmund
Kvaløy’s ideas better known among deep
ecology and left biocentric supporters.
Another Norwegian thinker covered in this book is
Peter Wessel Zapffe - an early
(born in 1899) seminal, pessimistic, human die-off figure, who upholds
the
meaninglessness of our lives. According to the
editors, Zapffe’s influence on
Norwegian ecophilosophy is “nothing less than
tremendous.” (p.38) He was the
first Norwegian to outline and critique how humans
relate to the environment. Zapffe
has greatly influenced the nature writers in Norway
who came after him, regarding
“the value of cultural diversity”, “a sense of
identity with nature”, and “a suspicion
of technology.” (p.38) Other writers covered are
Arne Naess, Nils Faarlund, Finn
Alnaes, John Galtung and Erik Dammann. Most of the
material in the section on
Naess will be familiar to those who have read the
1989 text Ecology, community,
lifestyle - a primary book for the deep
ecology philosophy, which was translated
and edited by David Rothenberg, one of the editors
of Wisdom In The Open Air.
The two editors of this anthology, Peter Reed
(1961-1987), who was killed by an
avalanche in Norway, and David Rothenberg, are both originally from the
United
States. They took up the task of learning Norwegian,
lived in Norway, and immersed
themselves in the nature tradition of its writers.
They then made their understanding
available to others through this book. They deserve
our thanks for this important
contribution. Reed is associated in my mind with
activism. I liked, and share, his
expressed belief in an essay published after his
death, that environmental philosophy
must make sense to activists and “give them
conceptual tools and arguments with
which to fight ecological degradation.” Rothenberg
is known for translating and
editing some of the work of Arne Naess. The editors
have an Introduction and
Conclusion to this book of essays. They also give
briefly their own comments on
each of the writers whose essays are featured.
Background
Going to the mountains, the editors say, is a theme
for Norwegian nature writers.
Struggles over trying to stop the harnessing of hydroelectric
power for industrial
growth have been crucial for activism and theory in
this country. More recently,
North Sea oil fields have been associated with
Norway. Today the country has a
population of about 4.5 million, with 25 percent in
rural areas and 75 percent in
urban areas. In the larger centers, the population
is increasingly multi-cultural.
Norway is the birthplace of Arne Naess, the founder
of deep ecology, and the home
place of the nature writers in this volume, but it
also represents something else. For
environmental activists outside the country, it is
also the nation which persists in
commercial whaling; in the annual slaughter of harp
and hooded seals (along with
Canada); and which is an exporter of its aquaculture
feedlot model to the world.
Norway has also given us Gro Harlem Brundtland, a
social democrat, who was
chairperson of the UN World Commission On
Environment And Development ,
which then produced the text Our Common Future. This propagated
the mythology
of so-called ‘sustainable development’ (in
opposition to the ecological realism of
“limits to growth”), the false idea that economic
growth can continue along with the
protection of the environment. This “shallow”
environmental cry was taken up by
governments and the business class everywhere.
Unfortunately, the slogan was also
taken up by too many in the mainstream environmental
and green movements,
including green parties, and throughout academia.
Ideas of Sigmund Kvaløy and
Discussion
“Yes, I am more anthropocentric than Arne, and of
course we have talked about it.
He feels closer to animals that are far away from
the human universe; it fascinates
him very much, and one of my many personalities does
feel the same way. But
although it is important to have strong feelings
about nature, we have to concentrate
on the human society and the human being, otherwise
everything we cherish will be
destroyed. We have so little time.” (p.148)
For Kvaløy, his work is seen as both for
Nature and for people. Ecophilosophy is
total engagement. Action is the teacher, not a
university seminar. Environmental
struggles are not about winning or losing particular
battles, but they are about building
a long term social base or movement. Environmental
actions must not only be
protests but must show an alternative and be rooted
in the local people. Yet he does
not believe that the activist needs a picture of the
future society because there are a
range of possibilities.
Many of the drawn illustrations in this book are
also by Kvaløy. The drawings are
very interesting and revealing, and illustrate key
aspects of a world view which sees
all of us as heading to ecocatastrophe. These
drawings sometimes contrast two
defining types of society for this thinker - the
current dominant Industrial Growth
Society (IGS) for producing industrial articles,
which has a pyramid and mechanical
form and self destruction as a characteristic; to
its opposite the Life Necessities
Society (LNS) - an organic, complex society which
furthers ecological and cultural
growth and human creativity. Kvaløy wants us
to stop acting as part of the
“complicated” Industrial Growth Society - modern
Western societies, where people
are obligated to competitively fight each other. For
this ecophilosopher, humans
need meaningful work like they need food.
I find Kvaløy has a sensitized, contemporary
animistic sense of self and sees this
as something needed for the ecological activist.
This animism means that our own
beings incorporate and reflect the world around us.
We actually have multiple
personalities, but the Industrial Growth Society
conditions us to monocultures of the
mind. Kvaløy promotes a contemporary animism
where the individual is at one with
nature and expresses and reads nature as a matter of
course. What is being said, is
that what a person is surrounded with, determines
their thinking to a significant
extent. In another version of the “Complexity and Time”
essay, which I have read
elsewhere, Kvaløy gives a wonderful example
of the Polynesian navigator who
steered across the Pacific responding with his or
her body or senses, to the stars, the
swells, ocean currents, the depth of the ocean as
shown by the colour of the sea, the
flight path of birds telling of nearby islands, how
ocean swells were reflected by
islands, etc. One of the ink drawings in the book
contrasts two bedrooms (p.138) -
his own, which is simple and austere, compared to
his son’s, with all the images of
youth consumer culture on its walls. Thus the
“culture” propagated by the Industrial
Growth Society surrounds us and helps to socialize
us into accepting it, unless we
draw some defining lines.
Tension within deep ecology
Left biocentrists like myself, who believe that much
in Marx is valuable, have not
tended to see Marxism as a strong contributing
current to the ecological synthesis
which we are trying to orient towards. I personally
have welcomed the ongoing
historical materialist critique of capitalist
society, the human social justice
contributions coming out of the socialist and
communist social movements, and the
focus on changing this world. However, it seems that
most previous discussions
have focussed, perhaps rightly, around how Marx and
Marxists view Nature - did
Marx recognize the intrinsic value of the natural
world or did he view this world
instrumentally, etc. By this focus, I believe we
have neglected the force driving
SOCIAL change in Marx, that is the class struggle,
or more generally social conflict
within society. Perhaps the mantra of “non violence”
which runs throughout deep
ecology, has led to an emphasis on social harmony,
rather than conflict, as
underlying social change within industrial
capitalist society. But according to
Sigmund Kvaløy, the conflict model of social
change should guide ecocentric greens
and environmentalists. As he says, “I’m all for
polarization. That’s the only way we
get deeper discussions.” (p.150) For Kvaløy,
this model draws from Marx and
Gandhi for its intellectual legitimacy. (His
acceptance of “non violence” can include
the use of dynamite to remove dams blocking rivers
in Norway. This is perhaps in
keeping with how ecotage has come to be interpreted
in North America in the Earth
First! movement.)
It is not slighting Naess to say
that Kvaløy is considered Norway’s main
environmental activist, as the editors of Wisdom In The Open Air say. In my
sympathetic review of Ecology, community and lifestyle
(see CNS, Volume 4(4),
Issue Sixteen, December 1993), I criticized how
Naess interpreted Gandhi for
environmental activists engaged in actual struggles.
Naess stressed Gandhi as
advocating talking with the opponent (enemy?),
absolute commitment to non
violence, embracement of legality, etc. Naess
claimed: “It is a central norm of
the Gandhian approach to ‘maximise contact with your
opponent!’” I noted in
my review that it seemed there were no enemies, only
misguided people for
Naess, and how simple-minded this approach appeared
from a left wing perspective.
Kvaløy, with his stress on conflict in social
change, would not agree with this
turn-the-other cheek interpretation of Gandhi.
Kvaløy says Gandhi teaches:
“Man’s most important source of insight and wisdom
is located in social conflict
where central human values are at stake.” (p.128)
Others who have been influenced by Marxism are deep
ecology theorists like
Andrew McLaughlin (see his 1993 book, Regarding Nature: Industrialism and
Deep Ecology) and Frederick Bender (see his
2003 text, The Culture Of
Extinction: Toward A Philosophy Of Deep Ecology).
Rudolf Bahro, who has
strongly influenced left biocentrism, was nurtured
on Marxism. Richard Sylvan,
the late deep ecology Australian theorist and
forestry activist, an anarchist and
anti-capitalist, also had a large influence on left
biocentrism. In the 1994 book
(with David Bennet), The Greening of Ethics, Sylvan said
that all forms of existing
socialism are anthropocentric and false alternatives
and that a new socialism, which
he said had yet to be “theoretically forged”, was
needed which would cohere with
deep ecological principles. Sylvan also noted in the
same book, that “deep
environmental groups should begin to prepare,
carefully and thoroughly, for
revolutionary action.”
Arne Naess himself is sympathetic yet critical in
his attitude towards socialism. He
notes in Wisdom In
The Open Air that: “Green politics supports the elimination of
class differences locally, regionally, nationally,
and globally.” (p.91) Naess brings a
class perspective into his writing. Yet this
“revolutionary” perspective is rarely seen
in mainstream North American deep ecology writing.
Bill Devall, for example,
misleadingly reminds us in a published essay called “Deep Ecology and
Political
Activism” that “Political revolution is not
part of the vocabulary of supporters of the
deep, long-range ecology movement.” (See Dharma Rain: Sources of Buddhist
Environmentalism, p.386.) For
those of us outside of Norway who are anti-
capitalist and support the deep ecology philosophy,
and link this to concrete action,
the ideas of Kvaløy, who takes Marxism very
seriously, deserve attention. These
ideas can feed into an already existing deep ecology
constituency or social base for
ecocentric thinking seen in the theoretical tendency
left biocentrism, which is open
to Marxist influence where it is relevant.
Conclusion
I do not consider it unfair to say that mainstream
deep ecology, as interpreted by
many of its academic proponents, has become stalled
as a force in changing the
industrial capitalist world. Those academics who
mainly define it through books and
by journal articles, seem oblivious to the practical
application of deep ecology in
actual struggles in the environmental and green
movements.
I am sure Sigmund Kvaløy would identify with
the left biocentric tendency in the
deep ecology movement. This is a tendency which sees
that deep ecology must be
applied to actual environmental issues, no matter
how socially sensitive. And that
being concerned about social justice is essential
for implementing an ecocentric
society which will be anti-industrial and
anti-capitalist, what Kvaløy would
characterize as a Life Necessities Society.
I believe it is essential, in order to reinvigorate
deep ecology, that the conflict
perspective of social change be brought to the
foreground. Also, in the green
movement and in its electoral manifestation, it is
conflict, not social harmony which
needs to basically orient our approach to changing
this world, away from the
ecological death course which we are on. Sigmund
Kvaløy has much to teach us.
Reading Wisdom In
The Open Air: The Norwegian Roots Of Deep Ecology is
a good place to start.
October, 2005
Acknowledgments: Thanks
to Doug Tompkins who first brought Sigmund
Kvaløy to my attention
and lobbied hard for the importance of his ideas.
Thanks also to David Rothenberg who kindly sent
me a copy of this text.
To obtain any of the
Green Web publications, write to us at:
Back
to
The Green Web
A Taste of Green Web
Writings and Left Biocentrism
Green
Web Book Reviews
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Conflict_and_Marxism_in_Deep_Ecology.html
Last updated: October
19, 2005