Philosophical Dialogues: Arne Naess and the Progress
of Ecophilosophy
edited by Nina Witoszek and Andrew Brennan, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
United States, 1999, 492 pages, paperback, ISBN: 0-8476-8929-8.
"The movement
is not mainly one of professional philosophers and other academic specialists,
but of
a large public in many countries and cultures." (Naess, p. 166)
"I assume that
it is not a bad thing that nearly all supporters of the deep ecology movement
are likely
to believe that they have found some truths." (Naess, p. 446)
Introduction
I first came
across a reference to this book of articles several months ago, even though
the book itself was
published in 1999. It is a polemical
book, interesting and worthwhile to read, for the supporters of this
philosophy open to considering
dissenting views. There are about 30 contributors to the book, and 24 of
the
55 articles are by Arne Naess himself
or co-authored by him. What makes this book very interesting is that
Naess, as well as outlining some
of the basic ideas of deep ecology, also directly responds to criticisms
raised
by other essayists in Philosophical
Dialogues. I find this allows Naess's all-sidedness to be well displayed
in
countering sometimes misleading
interpretations of deep ecology, but it also deepens discussions. This method
of responding brings out what he
calls his "Pyrrhonic" skepticism: "You cannot ever be sure that the
whole
truth is on your side rather than
that of your opponent." (p. 445)
I think my general
unawareness about Philosophical Dialogues: Arne Naess and the Progress
of
Ecophilosophy is shared by
many. This review, as well as being a contribution to making the availability
of this
book more widely known, will discuss
some themes of interest to the writer and the deep ecology movement
which this book can serve to bring
into consciousness. I will not therefore deal in my review with the
contributions of most of the 30
authors to these Dialogues. These include well-known names such as Alfred
Ayer, John Clark, Baird Callicott,
Val Plumwood, Ariel Salleh, Karen Warren, Bill Devall, Richard Watson,
Kirkpatrick Sale and Andrew McLaughlin,
and other names not known to me, e.g. Fons Elders, Paul
Feyerabend and Genevieve Lloyd.
The book is
divided into five main sections:
Part I.
Philosophical Systems And Systems Of Philosophy
Part II.
Deep Ecology: Norms, Premises, And Intuitions
Part III.
Schisms: Mountains Or Molehills?
Part IV.
Deep Ecology And Environmental Policy
Part V.
The Philosopher At Home
The book has
a distinctly "critical edge" feel about it. It also has a "Norwegian" ambience,
with a number
of the articles being written by
those associated with Oslo University in Norway. The context of some of
the
discussions takes the intellectual
culture of Naess's home country for granted. So the book, thankfully, does
not consider the United States
as the center of the deep ecology universe.
Discussion
The title of
this book review, Deep Ecology and Criticism, is meant to encompass both
"external criticism"
of deep ecology by those hostile
or in opposition to this philosophy, significantly represented in this
book,
e.g. social ecologist Murray Bookchin,
and Ramachandra Guha who has put forth his views in the name of
the Third World; and "internal
criticism" within a broadly defined deep ecology. Internal critics are
those open
to dissenting views - they look
critically but basically identify with this philosophy. One of the two editors
of Philosophical Dialogues,
Nina Witoszek, could be surprisingly seen as an external critic of deep ecology.
She notes in the Preface to the
book: "This volume, although celebratory, is not a piece of hagiography."
But Witoszek, in her essay "Arne
Naess and the Norwegian Nature Tradition", hardly falls into the
celebratory, let alone the "sainthood"
camp. I find her writing about Naess has a put-down tone: "...consistency is, for Naess,
as for Oscar Wilde, ultimately the last refuge of the unimaginative."
(p. 459)
Internal critics
of deep ecology generally would encompass the late well-known Australian
forestry activist,
deep ecologist and "Deep Green"
theorist Richard Sylvan (who is not in the book) and left biocentrists like
myself. An example of an internal
critic in this book, from my perspective, would be the ecofeminist Patsy
Hallen. She is based in Australia,
and in her article "The Ecofeminism-Deep Ecology Dialogue,"
notes
Naess's basic support for ecofeminism,
while summarizing 18 ecofeminist criticisms of deep ecology (and
11 deep ecology criticisms of ecofeminism).
Hallen has the view "that deep ecology and ecofeminism can
complement each other." (p. 275)
Language
Personally I
find that the language used in intellectual exchanges is very important.
The intemperate and
divisive language used in this
book by Murray Bookchin, in his well known 1987 essay, "Social Ecology
versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge
for the Ecology Movement," is hard to overcome. Bookchin
correctly points out that deep ecology
evades "the social roots of the ecological crisis." (p. 289) Like
Naess, I consider both social and
deep ecology theory to be revolutionary. (p. 469) When this essay first
came out and I read it, one metaphor
has permanently remained with me, where the wonderful US folk
singer Woody Guthrie is dismissed
as "a Communist Party centralist" by Bookchin. (p. 286)
Ramachandra Guha
has his well-known 1989 essay "Radical American Environmentalism and
Wilderness Preservation: A Third
World Critique" also published in this volume. This essay tends to
the
Bookchin style of language use,
yet deals with a very important issue for all of us who identify with ecocentrism.
Guha is, apparently, favoured by
the editors and given an unanswered "Postscript" to conclude the book,
called "Radical American Environmentalism
Revisited". The following quote is from this totally human-
centered author, who generally misrepresents
deep ecology and has no compunction in displaying his bile
towards this philosophy. Guha falsely
claims "unspoiled wilderness" as the deep ecology value (p. 314),
and
says that this philosophy "is
uniquely American." (p. 314) Here is a quote taken from the Postscript
article: "Specious nonsense about the
equal rights of all species hides the plain fact that green imperialists
are
possibly as dangerous and certainly
more hypocritical than their economic or religious counterparts."
(p. 477)
Naess denies
and repudiates Guha's argument. He points out that deep ecology supporters
have to also be
concerned about what he calls "free
nature": "In Europe
the term ‘free nature' is more important than ‘wilderness' and it is increasingly
used
when discussing
very large parts of the Third World. The difference between the two terms
is that
‘free nature'
is compatible with human habitation, provided that this habitation is in
no way
dominant."
(p. 327)
As one can see,
this has nothing to do with evicting people from the lands they occupy, to
create parks or
wilderness areas. "Extended compassion"
towards all species, including humans, motivates deep ecology
supporters. Naess explicitly says
that to use coercion is a form of "neo-colonialism." (pp. 327-332)
Naess
also goes on to outline the important
concept of "mixed community" which seems to have been defined out
of experiences in Norway with shepherds,
sheep, wolves and bears and, for Naess, is applicable to the
Third World. He also makes the profound
observation, in discussing a reduction of consumption in Norway
and North America, how our own ecological
lifestyles must be regarded as models for everyone: "We must live
at a level that we seriously can wish others to attain, not at a level that
requires the
bulk of humanity NOT to reach."
(p. 224)
While one can
identify with the basic sentiment and radicalism expressed by some critics,
I find negative
put-down language makes it often
hard to pay attention to what is being said. It always seems to me to be
an attempt to show the particular
writer using such language as some kind of superior being. This occurs
with the writings of some social
ecologists and some ecofeminists. Naess himself brings a tolerance towards
others in his writings which has
rubbed off to some extent on other deep ecology supporters. These
supporters interpret the slogan
"the front is long" rightly as an inclusive call, that all of us have contributions
to make. But this same slogan can
curiously serve as a damper to needed criticism within the ranks of deep
ecology supporters, helping the
toleration of nonsense.
Two examples
of negative language, both by ecofeminists from the book are given below: "...if deep
ecologists failed to shrug off their conditioning as white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-
professional property holders..."
(Salleh, p. 240) "Those activities
most often associated with Earth First! in the United States, such as tree-spiking,
are indeed the expressions of male-gender,
middle-or upper-class, typically white and Western
privilege." (Warren, p. 258)
Academic bias
This book has
the usual deep ecology "academic" bias. This bias, familiar in books and
academic journals
which discuss deep ecology, for
example the Canadian journal The Trumpeter, seem to work from the
assumption that deep ecology is
overwhelmingly confined to the academy. This is contrary to the spirit of
Arne Naess himself, as can be seen
by one of the quotations above given with the basic book information.
(This despite the reference by Naess
to the "15-20 theorists of deep ecology" [p. 273] which helps convey,
I believe, a misleading elitist
image of the development of this theory.)
This book of
essays raises once again a fundamental question that I have sought an answer
to since first
embracing deep ecology in the mid
80s: "How should deep ecology theory/philosophy critically develop or
unfold, as it becomes an influential
component of the environmental and green movements for social change?"
How, for example, can the well-known
and influential eight-point Deep Ecology Platform,
drawn up by
Naess and George Sessions, collectively
change, now that it has become embedded in the consciousness of
so many people? The Platform has
moved far beyond any alleged ‘proprietary' responsibility for its evolution.
These are important concerns, responding
to the second quotation given with the book information, for
supporters of deep ecology, who
truly believe, like myself, that within this ecophilosophy "they have found
some truths." Peter Reed, who died
in an avalanche in Norway, notes in his essay: "If environmental
philosophy is going to be useful in the environmental movement, it has to
make
sense to activists; it must give
them conceptual tools and arguments with which to fight ecological
degradation." (p. 194)
Or in the words
of Naess himself: "Environmentalism
is a form of activism, passionately concerned not only with life conditions
today,
but with the state of the planet
several generations from now." (p. 98)
Conclusion
Deep ecology
publications, both journals and books, need to be much more biased towards
meeting the
theoretical concerns of movement
activists, and not towards academic concerns, with their "peer reviews"
and the legitimacy and respectability
(and funding demands) of the academy. The theoretical tendency of left
biocentrism, with which I am involved,
and which functions somewhat as a left wing within the deep ecology
movement, has had a lively and critical
internet discussion forum for over six years now. This internet
community brings together both academics
and non academics, women and men. A basic guideline is respect
towards each other and no flaming.
There is something
very wrong when a small group of deep ecology theorists, closely tied to
the academy,
and booksellers producing ecophilosophy
texts for the undergraduate market, decide which issues are to be
raised, discussed, and published.
Deep ecology has become influential in the environmental and green
movements. But there seem to be
few forums where the concerns of these movements and their activists can
be raised within a context of applying
deep ecology philosophy. This is, I believe, what is urgently needed for
real progress in ecophilosophy.
It will also serve to live up to Naess's belief that deep ecology should
not be a
sect. (p. 146)
October 2, 2003
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