Deep Ecology and The Green
Movement
Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered
by Bill Devall and George Sessions
Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, 1985, 266 pages
Hardcover, ISBN 0-87905-158-2.
Below is a letter to the “Circles of
Correspondence”, of the former
B.C. publication the
New Catalyst, concerning a book
review of the above deep
ecology text by Devall and
Sessions. It was published in issue Number 6, Winter
1986/87. Both authors responded to
my comments in subsequent issues of this
publication. My letter was published under the
title “Deep Ecology and The Green Movement.”
I was pleased
to see the review of Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered
by Joel Russ in
the Fall 1986 issue. However,
unlike Joel Russ, I believe the overall impact of the book by Bill
Devall
and George Sessions on the deep
ecology/green movement in North America will be basically negative.
At a time when we should be
moving towards theoretical clarity this book will promote green
mushiness.
Deep Ecology will make it
that much more difficult to arm the growing green movement with the
theoretical
weapons needed to outline a
concrete and understandable vision of a new, non-exploitative
relationship
with Nature which recognizes no
privileged status for the human species and which can gather wide public
support.
Deep
Ecology is also an ethnocentric book and conveys the dominant
impression that deep ecology is
mainly an American philosophical
movement. There is little real sense conveyed of the world dimensions of
the deep ecology/green movement.
There is also no awareness in this book of the responsibility of
capitalist
economic structures in North
America for environmental degradation. There is no awareness of the
major
imperial role that America plays
on a world scale of consuming the ‘resources’ of the planet and in the
process
polluting and destroying large
segments of the world’s environment.
For those
trying to organize on a deep ecology/green basis in Canada, reading
this book raises a number of
issues which need to be addressed
if we are to build any serious mass-based green movement in this
country
which will come to political
power. Such a movement has yet to be built, despite the pathetic
electoral postures
of various so-called Green
Parties. Such ‘parties’ only serve to grotesquely parody what has
occurred in West
Germany.
For myself, reading Deep Ecology raises the
following issues:
1) The position put forward is that there is a
necessary religious/spiritual/mystical component to deep
ecology which is in some way
opposed to rational and scientific thinking. Arne Naess, who is seen as
the
philosophical founder of deep
ecology, is quoted on several occasions in the book as making this
point:
“The main point is that deep
ecology has a religious component, fundamental intuitions that everyone
must
cultivate if he or she is to have
a life based on values and not function like a computer.” (p. 76) Such
a position
is ultimately inexplicable and
will serve to reduce deep ecology to cult standing and political
impotence.
2) How does a
focus on ‘wilderness’ deal with the kind of situation that most rural
people
face who live in
nature and whose main ecological
concerns often centre on combatting the activities of others who look on
nature solely as a ‘resource’ to
be exploited for economic profit? Where I live in Nova Scotia, the
enemy
is
pulpwood forestry and the
environmental vandalism which is a consequence: clearcutting,
destruction of
wildlife habitat, massive
insecticide and herbicide use. Often interfering with the mobilisation
of opposition
is
the economic power of the forest
industry over people’s lives.
3) Deep
ecology as presented, is basically seen from a non-urban,
wilderness-oriented perspective. This
viewpoint doesn’t address how the
greening of urban society can take place.
4) The book
quotes Naess as calling for a world population of “no more than 100
million people.” (p. 76)
Who is to be eliminated and on
what basis?
5) While one
can subscribe to bioregionalism in principle, what does it mean to
promote bioregions when
setting these up could, given the
existing political, economic and military realities, lead to the
disappearance
of Canada as a political and
cultural entity? For example, to look at the Bay of Fundy marine
ecosystem or
the Acadian forests on the East
Coast on a bioregional basis - which can be justified ecologically -
could
only facilitate the future
absorption of this part of Canada by the American colossus.
6) What does
it mean, realistically, to put forward as unquestioned the statement:
“...there is one overriding
or basic norm of ecological
resisting: non-violence.” (p. 198) Is nature non-violent? Is modern
India a success
story of the use of Gandhian
non-violence? It seems to me that those who often assert their
non-violence are
essentially saying to the police,
“Don’t repress us, we are harmless.” Most of us would, presumably, like
to be
non-violent. But to make
non-violence an act of faith, can only mean shutting your eyes to the
massive
repression which will face any
real green challenge to those who uphold that the non-human world is
only raw
material dedicated to the human
purpose. Deep ecology is potentially subversive to the status quo and
will, if it
becomes a political force, be
considered as such by the Canadian state and be dealt with accordingly.
7) Devall and
Sessions, as academics, seem to naively believe that the power of
communicated
ideas is
sufficient in itself to bring
about change: “If enough citizens cultivate their own ecological
consciousness
and act
through the political process to
inform managers and government agencies of the principles of deep
ecology,
some significant change in the
direction of wise long-range management policies can be achieved.” Yet
governments (federal and
provincial/state) and corporations basically share the same philosophy
and pursue
the same capitalist economic
interests. Therefore it is usually foolish to look to governments (or
the court
system) to significantly redress
environmental damage.
In conclusion,
deep ecology in North America has to be rescued from the academics,
notwithstanding any
backpacking, rock climbing or
mountaineering qualifications. As Marx, who was no ecologist, noted so
long
ago, “The philosophers have only
interpreted the world; the point is to change it.” While Deep
Ecology
may
indeed chart a path to the
wilderness, to move forward theoretically, the green movement needs to
ignore
many of the prescriptions
advanced by Devall and Sessions.
David Orton, Pictou County, Nova
Scotia
To obtain any of the Green Web
publications, write to us at:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net
Back
to
The Green Web
A Taste of
Green Web Writings and Left Biocentrism
Green
Web Book Reviews
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/DE&Green_Movement.html
Last updated: January 9, 2005