Deep Ecology Perspectives
This article
by David Orton appeared in Synthesis/Regeneration,
a US
magazine of
Green Social Thought, issue #32, Fall 2003. It comes out of
a number of
talks in Nova Scotia, often to university students, about the
importance
of deep ecology, as well as showing some of its contradictions.
My background
is that of a Leftist, but since the late 70s environmental work has
become my major focus in life. I
worked first on forestry and wildlife issues in British
Columbia but later moved across
the country to Nova Scotia. I came to define myself
as a “green” in 1983. For the
last 20 years, I have been living with my family as simply
as possible on an old hill farm,
which has gone back to forest. From my values
perspective, it seems to me to
be a paradise, but we are surrounded by the ravages of
industrial capitalist forestry.
By 1985 I had accepted
the philosophy of Deep Ecology and seen the importance
of moving beyond the human-centered
values of the social democratic, anarchist,
communist, and socialist traditions,
in order to express solidarity with all life, not just
human life.
I began applying
this philosophy in environmental and theoretical work: trying to
understand what it means to “think
like a mountain”, that is to extend one’s sense of
self-identity so that it comes
to include the well-being of the Earth. I believe Deep
Ecology has captured what should
be our relationship to the Natural world. Deep
Ecology is part of the larger
green movement -- the first social movement in history to
advocate a lower material standard
of living, from the perspective of industrial
consumerism. Any honest presentation
of this fundamental point means that green
electoralism is a non starter.
Left biocentrism
My existential anguish
on deep ecology comes not only from the real ambiguities
and contradictions to be found
within Deep Ecology but also from the fact that since
the mid 80s I have been part of
a theoretical tendency within Deep Ecology called
“left biocentrism” or “left ecocentrism”
(the two terms are used). Left biocentrism
functions as a de facto “left
wing” of the Deep Ecology movement, upholding its
subversive potential and opposing
any “accommodation” to industrial capitalist
society. (See on our web site,
the ten-point Left Biocentrism Primer, the end
result
of a protracted collective discussion
in 1998, among a number of those who support
left biocentrism and Deep Ecology.)
There are others
who have been on a similar left wing deep ecology path, under
different names: for example,
the “Deep Green Theory” of the late Richard Sylvan,
the “Revolutionary Ecology” of
the late Judi Bari, the “Radical Ecocentrism” of
Andrew McLaughlin and the “Green
Fundamentalism” of the late Rudolf Bahro.
“Left” as used
by left biocentrists (left bios) means anti-industrial and anti-capitalist
but not necessarily socialist.
Industrialism is seen as having a capitalist or a socialist face.
Some left bios are socialist but
others are not. All left bios support the eight-point Deep
Ecology Platform drawn up by Arne
Naess and George Sessions and see their work
as endeavouring to strengthen
the deep ecology movement. The “leftism” of left
biocentrism is seen as a necessary
concern with class issues and social justice, but this
is subordinate to its biocentrism/ecocentrism.
Left biocentrists
oppose those who elevate social justice above the concerns of the
Earth and all its many creatures.
Animals and plants and the general ecosystem have to
be treated on the same moral plane
as humans. The labour theory of value implies that
Nature has no value or worth,
unless humans transform it through their labour. But for
left bios, Nature has value in
itself. Nature is the principal source of human wealth, not
labour power. The positive ideas
from the Left, which are still relevant, e.g. the concern
for social justice, have to be
part of the left biocentric synthesis of ideas.
The activist and
social ecology philosopher John Clark wrote in the third edition of
the 2001 college reader, Environmental
Philosophy: From Animal Rights to
Radical Ecology, of what he
sees as a “common ground” between social and Deep
Ecology. Clark speaks positively
of “the emergence of a ‘left biocentrism’ that
combines a theoretical commitment
to deep ecology with a radical decentralist,
anticapitalist politics having
much in common with social ecology.”
Key deep ecology ideas
Most people who
are potentially sympathetic to Deep Ecology do not come to their
position through “intellectual
conversion”, that is through university lectures, Deep
Ecology books, or by having some
worked-out perfectly logical and consistent
philosophical positions.
Basically, Deep
Ecology supporters identify with the Natural world and all its
creatures; see this world is being
destroyed and want to do something about it; and
measure our own human concerns
as important although fairly insignificant in comparison.
Where Deep Ecology literature
and talks can be very useful, is for those who already
see themselves in some way as
“thinking like mountains” based on their empirical
experiences.
Exposure to Deep
Ecology ideas then presents a world view which suddenly makes
sense. As one local seasoned environmental
activist said several years ago, about coming
in contact with Deep Ecology:
“It’s everything I’ve ever believed in,” she replied, “but
I never had the language before.”
(Sharon Labchuk from Prince Edward Island, quoted
in Tim Falconer’s 2001 book, Watchdogs
and Gadflies: Activism From Marginal
To Mainstream, p.130.)
The formulation
of a provisional DE world view was first sketched out in a 1973
document by the Norwegian philosopher
Arne Naess, “The Shallow and the Deep,
Long-Range Ecology Movement. A
Summary.”
“Shallow”
here means thinking that the major ecological problems can be resolved
within and with the continuation
of industrial capitalist society. Another term that I use for
shallow would be “managerial environmentalism.”
“Sustainable development”
is for me the main contemporary ideology of shallow
ecology. In his article, Naess
defines the Shallow-Ecology movement: “Fight against
pollution and resource depletion.
Central objective: the health and affluence of people
in the developed countries.”
“Deep” means to
ask deeper questions and not stay on the surface in discussions
and struggles. This deep orientation
understands that industrial capitalist society has
caused the Earth-threatening ecological
crisis.
Today what has
been called the “heart of Deep Ecology” (Andrew McLaughlin)
is the eight-point Deep Ecology Platform worked out by Naess and
George Sessions
in 1984. This Platform has received
widespread acceptance by supporters of this
philosophy. It is fairly abstract
and does not tell activists what to do in specific
situations, but it requires them
to think it through for themselves.
The Platform says
all non human life forms have intrinsic value, not dependent on
human purpose. The concept of
“vital needs” is introduced but not defined. Marshall
Sahlins, in his 1972 book Stone
Age Economics, said: “There are two possible
courses to affluence. Wants may
be ‘easily satisfied’ either by producing much or
desiring little.” Desiring little
is the DE path, which also means far less control by the
industrial capitalist system over
the individual. Consumer society, part of the illusory
permanent growth machine, has
entire industries devoted to expanding an individual’s
needs and promoting them as “vital.”
The DE Platform does not mention non-violence,
which is important to some deep
ecology supporters. The Platform emphasizes
population reduction. DE supporters
stress this is to be done without personal coercion.
There is no mechanism for changing
the Platform, or for further developing it.
Deep Ecology is
by its nature difficult to pin down and conceptualize and this seems to
have been deliberately built into
the philosophy. Naess maintains that precision and
ambiguity are needed by the philosopher.
This is done in part so that the follower of
deep ecology has herself or himself
an interpretative role to play:
“To
be a great philosopher seems to imply that you think precisely, but do
not
explain all the consequences of your ideas. That's what others will do
if they
have been inspired.” Arne Naess, Is It Painful To Think? p.
98
Some basic questions
are, unfortunately, not dealt with by the DE Platform:
Deep Ecology does
not sufficiently address the "use" of Nature by humans. How
ought we to "use" the world? What
percentage of the planet should be permanently put
aside for other life forms to
continue evolving? What percentage for humans? What
lifestyle? How many humans?
Another problem
that Deep Ecology does not give a view on, is the type of economy,
or how we should relate to each
other in the human social world.
At this time, there
is no new political or economic vision coming from within Deep
Ecology. This philosophy stresses
too much that "change" is individual, not collective or
social. Deep Ecology can seem
to suggest that only through individual consciousness
raising and personal change will
we move to a deep ecology-influenced world.
There is a contention
of ideas within Deep Ecology, with various theoretical
tendencies, including that of
left biocentrism. What the social, economic or political
evolution of deep ecology will
eventually be is yet to be determined.
There are three
key ideas from deep ecology which need to be highlighted:
(1) non-human centeredness; (2)
the necessity for a new spiritual relationship to Nature;
and (3) opposition to the idea
of “private property” in Nature.
Humans do not have
a privileged position. For me this is the central contribution of
DE. As a species, we are just
one member of a community of all beings. There is no
belief in a hierarchy of organisms,
with humans on top. Nature is not seen as a
“resource” for human use. We should
share the planet on a basis of equality with other
life forms. Our everyday language
is taken-for-granted human-centered. Here in Nova
Scotia, for example, trees, fish,
etc. are "resources” for human use. Industrial forestry
considers insects as "pests”.
Trees are described as “decadent” and “overmature”
when they are considered past
their prime from a human-use perspective. Morality just
concerns “humans” in a human-centered
universe.
In order to try
and turn around the ecological "Armageddon" and to prevent the
ensuing social disaster, a profound
transformation is required in our relationship to the
Earth. This will include re-sacralizing
Nature, so that we as societies come to see the
Earth as alive and part of ourselves.
A future Earth-centered society will need to be
organized around an ecocentric
morality that has an essential spiritual or sacred
dimension and is not based on
economics. Re-sacralizing the Earth is seen in DE as a
concern with spirituality, not
as establishing some new institutional religion. In order for
industrial capitalism to commodify
the Earth, its spirituality had to be undermined.
Addressing this is one part of
any serious green politics in the 21st century.
The Earth owns us,
we are its creatures. One species (humans) cannot “own” Nature.
These are just bizarre social
conventions which need to be overturned. I have written
about "usufruct use" instead of
so-called private ownership of the Natural world. This
means that there is the "right
of use," but one is ultimately responsible and accountable to
some form of ecocentric governance
much wider than human society. Nature must
remain a Commons and not be privatized.
Conclusion
Whatever its contradictions,
I believe that Deep Ecology does present the basic
philosophy, incomplete as it is,
to start sketching out alternative visions to those offered
by the defenders of industrial
capitalism. There is plenty of work for all of us to take up.
(This article is also available in
Russian at http://www.ln.com.ua/~kekz/hem6s/philos5.htm)
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
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/DE-Perspectives.html
Last updated: December 19, 2004