“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.”
W. B. Yeats (1)
Introduction
Religious fundamentalism and
economic fundamentalism are serious threats facing the
world, deep ecology, and our efforts to address the
ecocrisis. We have to try and
understand these fundamentalisms and how they relate
to each other. This is what this
essay is about.
Fundamentalism in a
religious sense seems to mean going back to religious fundamentals
within a particular orthodoxy of religious thought
and using such basic religious beliefs to
guide thinking and engagement in all aspects of
contemporary life. Often there is an
obsessive preoccupation with ritual practices and
religious scriptures. For the religious
fundamentalist, such behaviour brings favour or
blessedness in the eyes of the particular
god/divinity of which one is a follower. There is
often an intolerance, and sometimes
hatred, directed towards “non-believers”, those
outside this frame of reference, or those
who claim allegiance to what is understood to be a
competing religion. There is a
willingness to impose, if necessary by force, the
religious fundamentalist doctrines. There
is a certainty of the “believer” and a refusal to
seriously consider competing ideas of what
may be called “the good life.” Fundamentalism
provides “security” in a religious
conformity. It is also a refuge when cultures are
falling apart. There are Christian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu and other religious fundamentalisms.
This bulletin is particularly focussed
on Islamic fundamentalism, because of September 11th
and its aftermath.
Economic fundamentalism
is the
attempt to impose, if necessary by force, ones
economic model on the world. Economic options are
precluded. A basic economic
fundamentalist belief is that the economy controls
all aspects of society. Societies are
not seen as having a variety of economic options to
choose from, nor is there the belief
that society should control the economy. Economic
fundamentalism also contains a
world view of how humans relate to each other
socially, and how humans relate to the
natural world. The ideological selling of U.S.
economic fundamentalism, a concern of this
bulletin, downplays the economic aspect, which is
primary, but speaks expansively of
“freedom,” “democracy,” “individual initiative,”
etc. and directly links this to a “market
economy,” the code for capitalist economy and
private property. There is also a
socialist/communist variant of economic
fundamentalism with a different ideological
package, although the relationship to the natural
world, apart from the question of
“ownership,” would be basically the same. Economic
fundamentalism-U.S. style is
clearly more of a threat to the well being of the
planet and its diverse inhabitants than
any form of religious fundamentalism.
Anti-globalization forces
around the world had been growing steadily in opposition
to an imposed economic fundamentalism, as in Canada
prior to September 11th. Now,
opposition to corporate globalization can
increasingly expect savage repression, along
with McCarthyite “terrorist” smearing. In this new
climate of repression, the anti-
globalization movement will be targeted. Many of us
will eventually be considered
terrorists or will be classified as the newly
defined “fellow travellers” of alleged terrorists.
“Terrorist” has now replaced “communist” as a
hate/threat term used to justify increased
military spending and star chamber-like new internal
national security legislation.
Deep ecology-influenced
opponents of globalization, who have taken up the cause of
the Earth and its millions of nonhuman organisms, as
well as social justice concerns, face
new political realities after September 11th, in
their work of trying to reverse the
ecological crisis. Ecocentrists -- supporters of
left biocentrism and deep ecology are now
being “squeezed” by Islamic and U.S. economic
fundamentalism. Both of these two
fundamentalisms oppose and are antagonistic to the
goals of the deep ecology movement.
We see that, as the
Earth's environment becomes increasingly unstable, so will the
economies of countries. All “civilizations” have
been Earth-destructive, although
“Western” civilization has been pre-eminent in this
regard. (Doesn’t “civilize” also mean
to turn the natural world into a human construct?)
The anti-globalization movement must
have an alternative vision to that of a global
industrial society, and search for a
sustainable human culture, where we can live in
harmony with the Earth and non-human
life forms. It cannot be just more of the same, only
now “controlled from below” and
with some concern for the environment and social
justice spliced in. This bulletin is a
contribution to the emergence of such an alternative
vision.
This essay discusses the
new political realities from the perspective of left biocentrism,
that is, a “left” theoretical tendency of
anti-industrialism and anti-capitalism informed by
Earth-supporting ideas, within the ecocentric deep
ecology movement. Left biocentrists,
using the “ecosophy” language of Arne Naess, are
trying to formulate an ecosophy
which combines ecocentric/biocentric values and
imperatives with social justice values
which draw from the various traditions of the
left and other traditions. However, we do
not support social justice issues which harm the
Earth. Ecocentric values are the cement
in this evolving synthesis, which is a work in
progress. My analysis in this bulletin should
be considered that of one left biocentric voice,
although informed by discussions with
other left biocentrists.
Left biocentrism
subscribes to deep pluralism (2). This is totally opposed to the
“universalism” (3) or monism of any fundamentalist
religion or other forms of
conventional “fundamentalist” thinking. Struggle,
criticism, contention are all essential
for the evolution of ideas. The belief that only one
thing matters or is true or right, is
basically destructive. (4)
Terrorism
The attack on the World
Trade Center in New York City and on the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001, by people/organizations
motivated by Islamic fundamentalist
religious beliefs and critical of U.S. foreign
policy, has led to an ongoing response by
various governments which is changing all of our
lives, as we see here in Canada. For
historic parallels, one could think of the burning
of the German Reichstag in the 30s
and what this did for the consolidation of Nazi
power. The targeting of Jews under the
Nazis has some parallels with the new targeting, or
racial profiling, of those Muslims
of Middle Eastern descent in our own societies in
Canada, the United States and
Europe. The U.S. has essentially imposed its
simplistic, Manichean (5) George W.
Bush doctrine -- “you are either with us or with the
‘terrorists’” -- on all of us. This
new imperialist doctrine, following previous past
U.S. hegemony assertions like the
Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the Truman Doctrine of
1947, is the most far reaching.
It declares that states anywhere, as well as
individuals and organizations, are under
the U.S. sphere of influence. There is no neutrality
or opting out. But for those in any
way informed about the world we all live in, this is
an unacceptable and quite obscene
choice.
“Terror” and “terrorist”
have been redefined in this new era, to exclude the state
terrorism of the United States, with its many past
overt and covert interventions against
those countries deemed hostile to their interests,
or to exclude Israel, with its state-
sanctioned assassination policy against
Palestinians, not to speak of the demolition of
Palestinian houses, destruction of olive groves and
orchards, etc. It is not, apparently,
considered ecological terrorism against the rest of
the world, that the Bush
administration not only refuses to sign on to the
Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse
gases, but calls for increased fossil fuel
consumption within its homeland. Isn’t this a
manifestation of a U.S. economic fundamentalism,
such as “the U.S. lifestyle is not up
for negotiations,” the cost of which is also being
imposed on the rest of the world, as
eventually on the people of the United States
themselves? The U.S., with about five
percent of the world's population, now contributes
about twenty five percent of the
world greenhouse gas emissions. Even signing on to
the Kyoto Protocol does not begin
to address the real reductions in green house gases
needed as outlined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, e.g. a
sixty percent plus reduction, just to
stabilize the climate, so that it stays hospitable
to all life, including human life. It appears
that the (U.S.-established) “anti-terrorist”
coalition also has to close their eyes to the U.S.
repudiation of a small-arms treaty; to their refusal
to support an international criminal
court, and to the promise to withdraw from the
anti-missile treaty with Russia. But it has
become clear that the U.S. is prepared to intervene
unilaterally anywhere in the world in
defense of what are seen as its own interests, even
without the support of other countries.
The U.S. administration
has also used what happened on September 11th to attempt to
freeze the world political status-quo in its favour.
There are apparently no more liberation
struggles, only officially sanctioned repressions.
All oppositional activity which has a military
component is declared “terrorist.” This is of course
to deny the U.S. its own history of
taking up arms to fight British colonialism. Is
social change now over?
The term terrorist can be
used to re-define some people as non-persons who lose
all rights, and against whom anything can be
done. We see this with the sensory-
deprivation treatment accorded the U.S. prisoners
captured in Afghanistan and who
were declared as “unlawful combatants,” at the
Guantanamo naval base in Cuba,
appropriately named “Camp X-Ray.” The transfer of
Afghanistan-taken prisoners to
such a base illustrates the contempt that the United
States displays towards the
sovereignty of other countries. As well, it is a
deliberate provocation towards Cuba,
designed to make life difficult for Castro.
Islamic Fundamentalism
What September 11th forces
us to confront in theoretical work, is the emergence
in basically every major religious tradition in the
late 20th century, not just in Islam, of
an ecologically ignorant, intolerant, human-centered
literalist piety, which we now refer
to as fundamentalism. Thus some Jewish
fundamentalists, whose thinking seems to
increasingly influence Israeli state policies claim
for example: “In the Torah, God
promised the land to the descendants of Abraham,
and thus gave Jews a legal title
to Palestine.” (6) In 1994, the prime
minister of Israel, Yitzak Rabin was assassinated
by a Jewish fundamentalist. The three Abrahamic
faiths -- Judaism, Islam and
Christianity -- all seem to say in some sense, “we
are special”, i.e. chosen in the eyes
of their one particular God, and hence “better” than
those outside the particular
religion. As Karen Armstrong has pointed out in her
book The Battle For God,
"Fundamentalists have no time for democracy,
pluralism, religious toleration,
peacekeeping, free speech, or the separation of
church and state." (7)
Another view of
fundamentalism, without the negativity of Armstrong, comes from
The Religions of the World:
“Fundamentalism offers a structure and a world
view that gives the poor and marginalized a way
to take control of some
aspects of their lives.” (8) This bulletin
believes that to undercut religious
fundamentalism requires rectifying this poverty,
marginalization, and injustice. As
point 4 of the ten-point Left Biocentrism Primer
notes:
“Left biocentrists are
concerned with social justice and class issues,
but within a context of
ecology. To move to a deep ecology world, the
human species must be
mobilized, and a concern for social justice is a
necessary part of this
mobilization. Left biocentrism is for the
redistribution of wealth,
nationally and internationally.”
Based on my own readings,
I have come to believe that Islam, as a religion, is not
in any way Earth-centered -- the needed foundation
for a new ecological ethics.
Left biocentrists believe that humans must
express their solidarity with all life, not
just human life under a monotheistic God.
Islam, which has a past
going back to the prophet Mohammed in the seventh
century, has a great concern for social justice, as
shown for example in the mandatory
tithing/paying tribute, known as the Zakat, for all
Muslims. This is usually 2.5 per cent
of income and capital given each year to the poor.
There are also statements from the
Koran against alcohol, usury and gambling.
From an anti-globalization perspective,
an Islamic concern with social justice could give a
basis for criticizing the policies of
institutions like the International Monetary Fund or
the World Bank. Some Islamic
countries have no-interest based banking and among
Muslim communities, there are
alternative banking arrangements. Islam has also
provided a religious world view for a
critique of a secular, individualistic/hedonistic
Western lifestyle -- both sexual and
social, and U.S. foreign policy. The Islamic dress
code is one of modesty for men and
women. A positive aspect of fundamentalism is that
it is a critique of the soullessness
of Western materialism and lack of morality. This
needs to be incorporated into an
ecocentric alternative.
But Islam is a total way
of life and not just concerned with matters of religion. Islam
in Arabic means to submit. So a Muslim submits to
God and lives in the way God
intended. Every Muslim has to pray five times a day,
facing the direction of Mecca.
The Koran is considered the foundation on
which all other knowledge rests. It is a
totalizing world view. Jason Elliot's 1999 book, An
Unexpected Light: Travels in
Afghanistan, based on travels when the Soviet
Union was directly involved and
under Taliban rule, show a society basically very
kind and hospitable to strangers.
Yet a fundamental question raised in that society,
is whether or not a person is a
Muslim, that is, whether someone is “close to
Islam.” (9) Islam becomes a
measuring rod.
With its traditional view
of absolute truth in religious matters, Islam is religiously
programmed to intolerance towards other religions.
(We should not forget the
intolerance of Christianity, the past massacres of
Jews and Muslims by the Crusaders
in Jerusalem, or the “option” offered to Muslims and
Jews in the Spain of 1499, of
conversion or deportation.) Polytheism -- not
worshipping the God of the Koran
alone -- is a major sin under Islam. It is also
misogynist: “Men are superior to
women,” as a reading of Chapter 4 in the Koran
on “Women” shows. (10) The
Koran, written in Arabic, is regarded as
God's speech. There are over one billion
Muslims in the world but less than a quarter of them
speak Arabic. (11) In all the
principal Western countries, there are Muslim
populations with various ethnic origins.
Law ranges in Muslim
countries from the purely secular; through a hybrid system
combining European-based legal structures with
Islamic law; to a pure form of Islamic
law based on the Koran, the recorded sayings
and actions of the prophet
Mohammed and the interpretations of Islamic
scholars. Islamic "modernizers," in their
mimicry of the West (as in the past in Turkey, Iran,
Algeria and Egypt), basically
attacked Islamic religious practices. As Karen
Armstrong notes in her Islam: A Short
History: “In the Muslim world secularism
has often consisted of a brutal attack
upon religion and the religious.” (12)
This secularization has
also been associated with foreign domination and colonization.
In the same History, Armstrong speaks of the
impact of the creation of the State of
Israel upon Muslims:
“In 1948 the Arabs of
Palestine lost their homeland to the Zionists,
who set up the Jewish
secular state of Israel, with the support of the
United Nations and the
international community. The loss of Palestine
became a potent symbol of
the humiliation of the Muslim world at the
hands of the Western
powers, who seemed to feel no qualms about the
dispossession and
permanent exile of hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians.” (13)
More generally, because
of foreign
domination and colonization, the wearing of the
veil and chador for women or the fez for men, is
often seen as an Islamic statement
against an imposed, religiously intolerant Western
secularization. Other contemporary
Islamic “modernizers”, as in Saudi Arabia, invoke
the name of Islamic law (the
Shariah) in the puritanical Wahhabi movement --
stoning for adultery, cutting off the
hands for theft -- while supporting an obscenely
corrupt ruling class lifestyle and
repressiveness towards ordinary citizens
(particularly women, who for example, are
not allowed to drive cars). All this while the
Saudis supply oil for a non sustainable
industrial capitalist lifestyle in the West. The
need for inexpensive oil overrides most
moral considerations for the United States, in its
basic attitude towards Islamic oil-
producing countries.
Islamic countries like
Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have provided support for
the foreign policy objectives of the United States.
In 1981, Egyptian president Anwar
al-Sadat was assassinated by fundamentalists because
of his policies. Saudi Arabia,
which is home to the two most holy cities in Islam,
Mecca and Medina, has U.S.
forces permanently stationed in the country. Every
Muslim is expected to make a
pilgrimage to Mecca, known as the Hajj. This is one
of the five obligatory practices,
known as the Pillars of Islam. Perhaps it is not so
strange then, that Saudi Arabia also
seems to have been a recruitment country for many of
those involved in the Trade
Center/Pentagon attack. Turkey has U.S. military
bases, which have been used
against fellow Islamic countries Iraq and
Afghanistan. All these factors listed, plus the
awareness that of the major religiously influenced
cultures, Islam has been less
impacted by irreligion, make a "return to the real
conservative Islam" a rallying cry.
This provides some kind of ongoing social base for
fundamentalism.
Thus, there are real
grievances in the Islamic world: depletion of its oil wealth;
corruption and lack of basic democracy in many
Islamic countries - Persian Gulf states
ruled by “royal” families (Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Oman, and the United Arab Emirates);
the treatment of Iraq by the West; the situation of
the Palestinians, who face a
militarized, systematic and brutalizing occupation
by the Israeli state, and who have yet
to see a basic equality between Arabs and
Jews; and the subservience of countries
like Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states
to U.S. foreign policy, etc. There
will be no social peace unless these grievances are
addressed. If they are not, there
will be a permanent Lesser Jihad (14) directed at
the devil without, that is, the United
States and those countries identified as in its
foreign policy shadow. The West must
also be weaned off oil. (The U.S. imports about 60
percent of its oil from the Middle
East.) We can see that the simplistic Bush doctrine,
behind which much of the world
is being mobilized, has little to do with past or
current Islamic realities.
Those of us, like myself,
who do not participate in any organized religion, have to
accept that for countless millions of people in this
world, whether they are Islamic,
Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh,
Taoist, Baha’i, etc., their religions give
them a “faith” which provides an ethical ordering of
their lives. Of course, there are
countless examples where particular faiths can also
provide a set of beliefs expressing
hostility towards those who share another faith or
are non-believers. Despite what
deep ecology supporters see as the overwhelming
ecological crisis, this religious
ordering of lives will not change in the short term.
This means that we have to work
with religiously driven people who show some
ecological sentiment, in order to try
and bring an ecocentric world view into their
human/god-centered universe. We need
to be sensitive to those particular religious
beliefs which may assist us. Religion may
well be “the opiate of the masses,” but this
perspective will not help us out of the
ecological crisis, the primary concern for
supporters of deep ecology.
I believe that those
influenced by deep ecology necessarily incline towards cultural
relativism (15) and away from judgementalism. A
belief in the flourishing of human
cultures parallels or goes hand-in-hand with a deep
ecology belief in maximum
biodiversity.
Economic Fundamentalism - U.S. Style
While the U.S. may show a
consumerist pluralism in culture and lifestyles, it has a
rigid fundamentalism in economic matters, which it
endeavours to impose on the rest of
the world. Its name is industrial capitalism. It is
human- and corporate-centered and
considers all of Nature as a supply of “resources”
for human utilisation. A pre-
September 11th visit to Toronto, Canada, by U.S.
Vice President Dick Cheney,
illustrated this. He announced that his country
needed all the energy -- oil, gas, coal --
that Canada could make available and spoke of the
need for more oil exploration in
the U.S., the need to build “hundreds” more
coal-fired generating stations, and
“revisiting” the construction of nuclear power
stations. He is quoted as saying:
“Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue,
but it is all by itself not a sufficient
basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”
A U.S. government
fundamental belief is that the natural world has to be turned
into private property. “Democracy,” for U.S.
economic fundamentalism, excludes
non-human life forms, as well as real public
participation, and is ideologically linked
with a market economy. Government is there to
facilitate corporate growth, not to
mainly intervene for citizens. Corporate well-being
is seen, through a latter-day
Malthusian belief, as being able to provide for
citizen well-being in a spill-over fashion.
This economic fundamentalism rests on rigid beliefs
in the endlessness of economic
growth and an ever increasing consumerism, and a
belief is that there is essentially
only one economic model, which has been developed in
the U.S. for the rest of the
world. According to this model, “international
competitiveness” is considered the
indicator of a society's health. To meet this
competitiveness, social and environmental
standards are sacrificed. All countries must aim to
have balanced budgets, no trade
barriers, low inflation, minimum labour standards,
minimal environmental regulations,
maximum mobility for capital, etc. The U.S. operates
as if it is the center of the human
universe. The economy is considered to govern the
society. Through various global
economic institutions such as the World Trade
Organization, the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the United States
attempts to impose on other
countries what has become known as “The Washington
Consensus”:
"Led by American business
interests, the free-market doctrine
would eventually force
most governments in the world to give up
controls on foreign
investment, liberalize trade, deregulate their
internal economies,
privatize state services, and enter into head-
to-head global
competition." (16)
This economic
fundamentalism is “bi-partisan” and is followed by Republican or
Democratic administrations. Both administrations are
“imperial” in that they take for
granted U.S. world leadership. As the “ecological”
Al Gore, former Democratic
vice-president, expressed it in his book Earth
in the Balance: Ecology and the
Human Spirit: “The United States has long
been the natural leader of the
global community of nations.” (17) The
economy, in this form of fundamentalism,
overrides any ecological considerations, and Gore
expresses this quite well:
"Who is so bold as to say
that any developed nation is prepared
to abandon industrial and
economic growth? Who will proclaim
that any wealthy nation
will accept serious compromises in comfort
levels for the sake of
environmental balance?" (18)
U.S. economic
fundamentalism -- that is “trade over all,” and that wealth must
flow to US corporations -- needs a large military
arm to maintain, through intimidation,
its world economic hegemony. To facilitate the
raising of military funds, an external
enemy is extremely useful. Here again is the
Democrat Gore: "Opposition to
communism was the principle underlying almost all
of the geopolitical strategies
and social policies designed by the West after
World War II." (19) According to
the International Action Center, led by former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark,
as reported in the Earth Island Journal,
the United States has organized the
overthrow of more than 50 governments since the end
of World War II. (20)
The U.S. is not without
an influential
Protestant fundamentalism, pushing a
“sovereignty of the divine.” This fundamentalism has
had a strong influence within the
Republican Party, and within the anti-abortion and
anti-public school movements.
The religious invocation on many politicians’ lips
of “God bless America,” has been
heard frequently amid the patriotism unleashed by
the events of September 11th.
Today, a new external
threat to replace communism has presented itself within the
United States. This is the faceless “terrorist.” We
are told by Bush that they exist in
large numbers around the world, in many countries,
and also internally in North America.
Apparently, there is lots of U.S. military work to
be done. There has been a large
increase in military spending in the U.S., with
spill-over in other “coalition” countries like
Canada. This, plus serious movement towards an
internal security emphasis, seems to
have fascist echoes.
Canada: Institutionalization of Repression
As a taste of things to
come, pre-September 11th anti-globalization protests in
Canada had been met in the streets by a police power
that was high on intimidation and
low on tolerance. The police were sometimes dressed
in space-age type uniforms, and
were prepared to unleash “crowd control” measures
like tear gas, pepper spray, rubber
bullets, water cannon, snatch squads, etc. and act
in ‘unlawful’ ways against essentially
non-violent demonstrators. After September 11th, the
Canadian government, using the
basic legitimation of supporting “our biggest
trading partner” has fallen over itself in its
haste to comply with U.S. demands. We see the
country moving increasingly towards a
police state. This is pursued under the banner of
fighting terrorism, but the opponents of
globalization are also in the gun sights. According
to Canadian government material:
“About 87 percent of Canada's exports go to the
United States, while 25 percent
of U.S. exports come to Canada. Trade between the
two countries amounts to
$1.9 billion every day.” (21) Such an
orientation must be changed not only for
ecological reasons, but this cross border movement
of economic goods can only make
us a satellite of the U.S. They use this trade
dependency as leverage against Canada to
erode our country's sovereignty.
The lock step compliance
in Canada with the U.S., is defended nightly on news casts
by Canadian politicians who ooze moral decay and
‘compete’ among themselves in
abandoning national interests. There seem to be no
critical questions directed at the
United States from governing Canadian politicians.
Canada has given up its traditional
(though not without its contradictions) foreign
policy role of third party “peacemaker/
broker.” It now has troops in Afghanistan, fighting
under U.S. command. Canadian
border controls, immigration policy, airline
security etc., are being “harmonized” with
U.S. requirements. We are now a very junior partner
of U.S. imperialism. This is not
the country which, in the past, defied the U.S. to
have relations with China and Cuba.
The Canadian
Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36), which passed on November
28,
2001 with minimal debate in Parliament, by a vote of
190 against 47, is a mind-numbing
186 pages long. This bill is complex, broadly
defined, and sweeping in its powers, with
severe penalties. It gives whole new powers to legal
authorities. This bill illustrates that
the State, when it feels threatened, is quite
prepared to override what are seen as basic
democratic rights, in the name of “national
security.” Bill C-36 overrides/amends various
other acts such as the Canada Evidence Act,
the Canadian Human Rights Act, the
Access to Information Act, etc. Other
recent acts which restrict basic democratic
rights in various ways are Bill C-35 (An
Act to amend the Foreign Missions and
International Organizations Act),
which expands the definition of foreign officials in
Canada who can receive diplomatic immunity and which
therefore has implications for
anti-globalization protesters; Bill C-42,
which is concerned with airline and airport
security; and Bill C-44, which requires
Canadian airlines and reservation services to
provide information to the United States and other
governments. Bill C-42 lets the
Minister of Defence create military exclusion zones
in Canada which could be used to
prevent anti-globalization protests.
This is, in part, how
“terrorist activity” is defined in the Bill C-36, the major
anti-
terrorist legislation:
“an act or omission, in
or outside Canada,
(I) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part
for a political, religious or ideological purpose,
objective or cause,
and
(B) in whole or in part
with the intention of intimidating the public, or
a segment of the public,
with regard to its security, including its
economic security, or
compelling a person, a government or a domestic
or an international
organization to do or to refrain from doing any act,
whether the public or the
person, government or organization is inside
or outside Canada...” (22)
It is clear from the above definition, that
“security” for the average Canadian citizen is
defined as being forever status-quo. Moreover, all
recognized foreign governments are
now considered the only legitimate ones. We know
that as well as the U.S., Britain,
France, Germany and Canada being on board with the
so-called anti-terrorist legislation,
so are Russia and China. This shows the essential
unity of industrial-type societies and
that the capitalist-socialist continuum has been
superseded by new realities.
Reading through this Act,
it becomes clear that the government can do anything
regarding snooping or spying on its citizens, for
example, intercepting private
communications or monitoring electronic
transmissions. But if a citizen seriously
opposes this, then see the anti-terrorist law come
down hard. Dissent is becoming
criminalized. Under this Act, police can commit
crimes when they are conducting
investigations, and they can make preventative
arrests of persons they deem suspects.
Even communicating information about economic
matters (“trade secrets”), can be
defined as a crime subject to a ten-year jail term.
Citizens can be compelled to testify
and incriminate themselves, in court, in matters
defined as of national security
importance. The niceties of bourgeois legalities can
now be dispensed with, including
the previous right to confront ones accusers. In
addition, the public can be excluded
from open court for various reasons. This is what
the legislation says on this last point,
which is defined in an open-ended manner:
“Any proceedings against
an accused shall be held in open court,
but where the presiding
judge, provincial court judge or justice, as
the case may be, is of
the opinion that it is in the interest of public
morals, the maintenance
of order or the proper administration of
justice, or that it is
necessary to prevent injury to international
relations or national
defence or national security, to exclude all or
any members of the public
from the court room for all or part
of the proceedings, he or
she may so order.” (23)
Companion legislation to
the above in other countries are the U.S. Patriot Act and
the UK Terrorism Act. As regards the human
species, what the anti-terrorist legislation
shows is that under industrial capitalism, there are
no permanent basic democratic rights
or human rights which cannot be extremely curtailed
or eliminated, given the requisite
state-defined emergency. This is an important lesson
of September 11th. If we want to
continue to do deep ecology work we need the space
to do this. Pastor Martin
Niemoeller's famous quote is highly relevant for
these increasingly repressive times:
“In Germany the Nazis
came first for the Communists, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't
a Communist. Then they came for the
Jews, and I didn't speak
up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they
came for the trade
unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and
I didn't speak up because
I was a Protestant. Then they came
for me, and by that time
there was no one left to speak for me.”
Earth Spirituality (24)
“Left biocentrism holds
that individual and collective spiritual
transformation is
important to bring about major social change,
and to break with
industrial society. We need inward transformation,
so that the interests of
all species override the short-term self-interest
of the individual, the
family, the community, and the nation.”
- Point 6 of the Left
Biocentrism Primer
Neither religious
fundamentalism, nor the economic fundamentalism of the United
States globalization model can contribute to
resolving the ecocrisis, that is, building
a new respectful relationship to the natural world.
Both these fundamentalisms take us
away from the concern with a needed Earth
spirituality.
Most left biocentrists
see a
need to re-sacralize Nature, similar to past animistic
hunter-gatherer societies, whereas religious
fundamentalists, at least from the Abrahamic
tradition, who are god- and human-centered, want to
sacralize human society. Nature is
not part, in any significant way, of the
fundamentalism to be found in Islam, Judaism or
Christianity. Procreation, for example, not the deep
ecology concern for voluntary
population reduction, is part of these three
fundamentalisms.
Left biocentrists are
struggling to see how to move beyond and repudiate the
“commodification” of Nature which has occurred under
industrial capitalism, a prime
component of the world-wide ecological crisis. We
see that before Nature could be
commodified, it had to be disenchanted. (The
human/corporate concern with
“intellectual property rights,” part of the
world-wide spread of economic globalization,
is the latest manifestation of this
commodification.) We are trying to unfold some kind
of “postmodern” transcultural understanding of the
sacred. We are interested in what
will lead people to a new, non-exploitive engagement
with the Earth.
Deep ecology supporters
consider the natural world as being part of ourselves. We
have to be enveloped in the natural world. There are
determining ecosystem constraints
on humans. We need to have a mode of being where we
as humans are part of two
worlds: the natural and human worlds. Then the
natural world will be defended and
protected and will be able to continually renew
itself. Most people will not trash what
they consider sacred. This perhaps is the
Self-realization which deep ecology talks
about. It was the industrial capitalist economy
which finally broke this connection of
being part of two worlds. Nature became “resources”
and hence commodities. We
need to rediscover how to live in a spiritual and
cyclic relationship with the Earth,
where humans do not have a taken-for-granted
dominance over the natural world.
This is what is called an “intuition” in deep
ecology, because it cannot be rationally or
scientifically proven, although it is based on past
indigenous historical experience over
many thousands of years. In such societies, the
basic idea is that the Earth is alive and
that plants and animals have their own intrinsic
values and spirits. This acts as a form
of restraint on human exploitation. (There is an
anomaly here: the “extinctions,” which
indigenous peoples were responsible for in the
Americas, Polynesia, New Zealand
and Australia, as the historical record seems to
show.) For deep ecology supporters,
the well being of the Earth is primary, and human
well-being is important, but
derivative.
Traditional religions in
the main, apart from some minor counter-currents, have been
unsatisfactory in unfolding any Earth-centered
ethics. Most left biocentrists want people
to be spiritually, or otherwise intimately involved
with Nature, because it seems that it is
only through such a consciousness change, that we
can end the ecological Armageddon
that we face. (Some supporters of left biocentrism
do not agree with the concern with
Earth spirituality.)
For all organized
religions, in a period of history such as this one, where the need for
an Earth-centered ethics is becoming part of the
thinking of many, the important question
comes up, “is there a role for eco-religion?” Can
the non-human world, in any central
way, be part of the religious celebration, or will
this always be a back eddy, even if
important for its eco-practitioners? Are organized
religions, particularly the Abrahamic
ones of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, destined
forever to be part of that famous
“dominion” over the creatures of the Earth,
notwithstanding people like Saint Francis
of Assisi or their more contemporary counterparts
like Thomas Berry? The Vedic
religions -- Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism -- have
offered ecological promise for
some supporters of deep ecology, with beliefs in the
cyclic nature of existence without
beginning or end; in egalitarianism; in
non-violence; and in reincarnation, with the belief
that the soul or essence of an individual reappears
in other bodies -- not necessarily
human; and the view that the Divine is to be found
in all that exists. In Buddhism there
is an emerging environmental tendency, called
“Engaged Buddhism.”
Gandhi, a Hindu and a
vegetarian, has been a role model for some ecocentric activists,
including Arne Naess. He sought to enter a state of
desirelessness or higher awareness,
while retaining the urgency of the activist for
radical change. For Gandhi, one turns
inward for spiritual purity before turning to an
outward path, and one must be prepared
to die for ones beliefs. He rejected modern
industrialism and had moral authority, which
any change agent must have. But his world view was
social and human-centered, not
ecocentric.
Most left biocentrists
would agree with the following position put forward by Rod
Preece, in his book Animals and Nature,
about the necessity for a spiritual
transformation:
"All cultures think of
their own interests first and only a spiritual
education dedicated to a
sharing of identities with other peoples,
other animals, and nature
as a whole can diminish the
environmental destruction
we face. It can be diminished by our
being educated to share
our identity with the natural world and
thus understand it as a
part of ourselves." (25)
The re-sacralization of
Nature should be seen as spiritual, not “religious” as in
organized religions, with their institutional
structures. We need to reorient to knowing,
not changing the world around us, as did past
aboriginal peoples. We need to bring
back the notion that animals and plants, along with
rocks, oceans, streams, and
mountains, and not just humans, have
spiritual/ethical “standing.” One of the forms
of interaction that has evolved within deep ecology
to challenge human-centeredness
and to bring about more spiritual involvement with
Nature, and to try to reach out to
the identification and solidarity with all life, is
the Council of All Beings. People
gathering in the Council try to be a voice for other
life forms, such as plants and
animals, and for the wind, rivers, mountains, etc.
Each person speaks before the
other members of the Council, of how humankind has
impacted upon them.
Participants often find this a very moving,
powerful, and mind-expanding experience.
(26)
Conclusion
The events of September 11th
and their continuing aftermath have been discussed
in this bulletin as the negative sides of
fundamentalism -- both in a religious sense and
in the application of the U.S. economic and
political model to the rest of the world. I
have also contrasted this fundamentalism with, and
outlined the need for an Earth
spirituality, if we really want to change our
ecocidal path.
The big question of “why?”
after September 11th, has lead millions of people to
look at religious fundamentalism, at world misery
and injustice, and at the foreign
policy of the United States and its allies with new
questioning eyes. This is excellent.
It has helped break through the collective amnesia
of mass consumer society. More
and more people will come to see that the
fundamentalism of Islam or the economic
and political fundamentalism of the U.S. precludes
options. Then they will realize it is
not possible to ecologically “reform” industrial
capitalism, an oil-based imperialist
form of human organization.
Any deeper environmental
activist in Canada or the U.S. knows that exploitive
ecological behaviours, whether in the forests,
fisheries, or in agriculture, or in other
land- or marine-based areas, seem incapable of
resolution. The major reason seems to
be that the commercial interests involved in these
behaviours always maintain that what
they are doing is benign and without major
ecological consequences. Government
regulatory agencies usually concur, and the media,
controlled by corporate advertising,
spread the paymasters’ views. There is no other
economic model in the usual
discussions around these matters, except that of
more ecologically destructive growth.
Industrialists discount the costs to Nature and the
ongoing degradation of the basis of
all life. They also discount, that is, ignore the
human costs, e.g. clear cut forests
eliminate logging jobs. We need a return to Earth
spirituality -- the end of treating
Nature as a “resource” and of treating people as
disposable.
September 11th has
introduced a “diversion” (welcomed by the corporate Earth
destroyers), which will increase the stress on the
Earth and all its creatures, and target
the many people working for social justice causes.
Societies which call themselves
“democratic” are destroying the Earth and trampling
citizens into the ground. The forces
of corporate control, along with their government
and military allies, have used
September 11th to increase social control through
the anti-terrorist laws. Now it will
become seditious to actively oppose and try to shut
down corporate globalization.
There will be many more military interventions and
increased repression within the
“home” military countries. Because of increased
military spending, this will “bump”
spending for social concerns. “Collateral damage”
from military action will be not only
civilians, but also unrecorded plant life and
wildlife as in Afghanistan, plus the
increased toxic pollution of many new areas of the
Earth.
This is a time of
increased jingoism, of “proving” ones loyalty, of black and white,
of “them” and “us,” but it has nothing to do with
Islamic realities, those of the U.S., the
realities that the rest of us face, or the Earth's
realities. A global view that only
recognizes the “role model” of North America or
Western Europe is a recipe for
ecological and social disaster for the rest of the
world. Ecological integrity is being
undermined by the economic model that Bush revels
in, and offers. So we have to
oppose and fight this. This is also a time for many
previously silent supporters of
mainstream deep ecology, to repudiate their belief
that deep ecology should be
apolitical and accommodating to industrial
capitalism. It is a time for deep ecology to
become more politicized.
So, what to do in these
trying and dangerous times? We need to continue working
for “deep”, that is total, not “shallow” cosmetic
change. An ecological reality is that
there are too many people. But also, too many of
these are truly the wretched of the
Earth, shut out from any meaningful participation in
society. We must work to change
this. We need to end the social injustices which
help to feed Islamic and other
fundamentalisms. Citizens must have the right to
fully participate in the affairs of their
countries and generally of the world. We need to
redistribute wealth, not promote
more investment and economic growth. Our ecological
footprint is already too deeply
imbedded in this Earth. We need a liveable planet
for all species, not just the human
species. We must further develop the deep ecological
concept of “usufruct use”
(the right of use), in opposition to “private
property.” We must make such use
conditional, responsible, and accountable to all the
life forms on the planet. This will
preserve an all species, non-privatized, world-wide
Commons. Industrial capitalism,
because it is rooted in continual economic growth
and unlimited consumerism on a
finite planet, leading to mass extinctions to other
life forms, as well as to injustice to
other human beings, is not sustainable ecologically
or socially.
We must continue our work
for an ecocentric society tempered by social justice.
We must not be cowed by the “patriots” amongst us,
despite the passionate intensity
spoken of, in the line from the poet W. B. Yeats
which introduces this bulletin. It is
also easy, as Yeats notes, to lack all conviction.
Earth defenders also need passion!
But we must retain, and organize to bring others to
see, our unfolding left biocentric
vision. Our very existence is threatened.
Let’s use our left biocentric awareness to
bring others to see this and work to usher in an
Earth-friendly society.
March 2002
***************
Footnotes
1. Taken from a poem by W. B. Yeats, which is
cited in Karen Armstrong, The Battle
For God, (New York, Ballantine Books, 2000),
p. 167.
2. Deep pluralism is a term associated with the
late Richard Sylvan (1935-1996), an
important theoretical influence for the left
biocentric tendency. It is defined as “against
absolutes”, and is thoroughly discussed in Richard
Sylvan, Transcendental
Metaphysics: From Radical to Deep Plurallism,
(Cambridge, The White Horse
Press, 1997).
3. I would like to thank fellow left bio Patrick
Curry for my understanding of this
important point. Pluralism is the opposite of
monism. Monism says there is only one truth,
or God, or world, and that we can know it.
4. Green fundamentalism, the basic idea that
industrial capitalist society cannot be
ecologically reformed but must be replaced, and that
Green politics must be organized
with this in mind, is not “fundamentalist” in the
sense described in this bulletin. Green
fundamentalism is not “universalist.” It does not
preclude but encourages options.
Green fundamentalist ideas are not “received
truths,” but analytical data derived from
the living and socially constructed world around us.
Such ideas are subject to contention,
debate and change. Rudolf Bahro (1935-1997), the
late German green philosopher
developed a basic green fundamentalist position. He
is someone who has considerably
influenced the left biocentric theoretical tendency.
5. The Manichees were a religious sect during the
third to fifth centuries. They saw
Satan as co-external with God. Hence, as used in
this bulletin, Manichean, as referring
to Bush, means choosing between “good” or “evil.”
That is, choosing between giving
support to the United States or to the alleged
“terrorists.”
6. Armstrong, The Battle for God, p. 258.
7. Armstrong, Ibid., xi. (Armstrong, who is
even-handed in her account of fundamentalism
in Judaism, Islam and Christianity, shows an
impressive knowledge of many religions,
but she is totally human-centered, pro-United
States, and with a Western cultural bias
and technological hubris.)
8. Elizabeth Breuilly, Joanne O’Brien, and Martin
Palmer, Religions of the World,
(New York, Transedition Limited and Fernleigh Books,
1997), p. 154.
9. Jason Elliot, An Unexpected Light: Travels
in Afghanistan, (London, Picador,
2000), p. 148. This is quite an erudite book,
showing a knowledge gained from readings
of past histories of the area and a cultural
sensitivity to Islam.
10. The verse from Chapter 4, which includes
beating, reads in part: “Men are superior
to women on account of the qualities with which
God have gifted the one above
the other, and on account of the outlay they make
from their substance for them.
Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the
husband's absence, because God
hath of them been careful. But chide those for
whose refractoriness ye have cause
to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge
them: but if they are obedient
to you, then seek not occasion against them:
verily, God is high, great!" The
Koran, (Toronto, Ballantine Books, 1993), p.
48.
11. Michael Cook, The Koran: A Very Short
Introduction, (Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2000), p. 26. I found this book helpful in
placing the Koran in a context for
someone not a Muslim - and for useful background
information about Islam for this bulletin.
12. Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History,
(New York, Modern Library Edition,
2000), p. 158.
13. Armstrong, Ibid., p. 149.
14. Jihad means “struggle,” that is, the struggle
to submit to the laws of God, and to be a
defender of the Islamic faith in the world. Jihad
can mean an internal spiritual struggle to
be more righteous -- this is called the Greater
Jihad. There is also the external struggle as
on the battlefield, against the enemies of Islam.
This external struggle is known as the
Lesser Jihad.
15. “Cultural relativism” can be used to justify
backward, unacceptable ecological
practices, e.g. “cultural” indigenous whale hunts or
the annual slaughter of seals by
Newfoundlanders. It can also be used socially to
justify the oppression of women.
16. Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, Global
Showdown: How The New Activists
Are Fighting Corporate Rule, (Toronto,
Stoddard Publishing Co., 2001), p. 57.
17. Al Gore, Earth In The Balance: Ecology
And The Human Spirit, (New York,
Penguin Books, 1992), p. 171.
18. Gore, Ibid., p. 279.
19. Gore, Ibid., p. 271.
20. Earth Island Journal, (Autumn, 2001), p. 4.
21. Canadian World View, (Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
Issue 14, Winter 2002), p. 20.
22. Bill C-36, Anti-terrorism Act, pp. 13-14.
23. Ibid., p. 75.
24. The section on Earth spirituality is heavily
indebted to contributions from past discussions
on this topic in the internet discussion group left
bio.
25. Rod Preece, Animals and Nature: Cultural
Myths, Cultural Realities, (Vancouver,
U.B.C. Press, 1999), p. 230.
Acknowledgements. Thanks to those
members of the left bio discussion group who have
taken part in many theoretical discussions which
have helped in trying to sort out left
biocentric ideas. Particular thanks to those who
read a draft of this bulletin and gave their
critical comments.
A shortened version of this bulletin was
published as an Opinion article in the March 28, 2002
edition of The
Brunswickan under the title "Two fundamentalisms:
understood", at
http://www.unb.ca/bruns/0102/23/opinion/fundamentalisms.htm
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net