Ecocentric Transformation
A review essay by David Orton
Nature, Environment and Society
by Philip W. Sutton, Palgrave Macmillan, published in
conjunction with the British Sociological Association,
2004, 214 pages, paperback, ISBN 0-333-99568-6
"Ecocentric theorists are right to argue that human beings are NATURAL
beings, but they are wrong to suggest that the biological is somehow more
'real' than the social. Such a view remains a serious obstacle to ecocentric
theories of self and society as well as to any accommodation between
ecocentric and sociological approaches to environmental issues."
p. 114
Introduction
I found Nature,
Environment and Society, written by UK sociologist Philip Sutton, who
teaches at
Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen,
a small but helpful, very interesting and intensely political book.
Sutton examines the impact of environmentalism
and the Green movement on sociology, the study of society.
This book is not just for sociology
students.
The book has
nine chapters - which include an Introduction, a chapter on "The Ecocentric
Challenge for
Society and Sociology", and a very
extensive bibliography. As Sutton says, sociology is "arguably the most
anthropocentric of the social sciences."
(p. 9) He points out:
"Because sociology developed initially during a period of rapid
industrialization and strong economic growth, many, though not all,
of its theories took for granted that nature simply forms the backdrop
for human activity but does not shape it." (p. 175)
Sutton also looks at what
sociology can contribute to our understanding of the natural world and
the
ecological crisis. This book is
a sympathetic yet critical examination of environmentalism and the challenge
that ecocentrism or deep ecology
poses to mainstream sociology and its self-definition. For deeper ecocentric
Greens, the natural world and the
ecological crisis are real, but how these are seen by society IS socially
conditioned and this can determine
what becomes lifted into societal consciousness. The "social construction
of reality" perspective, taken
from sociology, if seen as not denying the material reality of the natural
world, has
something very useful to contribute.
Evaluation
This is a review
of current sociological literature related to the environment. Reading
this book also forces
us to confront how the "self" is
formed; this as the Green social movement attempts to move beyond
anthropocentric consciousness and
consumerist self-identity.
Sociologists
study how human societies function, and try to unmask or go beneath apparent
social realities.
Disenchantment with official views
of existing social realities can result from this "sociological imagination".
Historically, sociology defined
itself as human-centered and, as Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), the French
sociologist, argued, in opposition
to biology. In today's world, sociology has to accommodate in some way
to the natural world and to ecocentric
thinking. For sociology, says Sutton, "The main threats to human
societies stem from their relationship
with the natural world." (p. 15) This would be a basic
point of unity
for deep Green activists, with
Nature, Environment and Society.
Students trying
to acquire a sociological consciousness are often told that, following
the influential German
sociologist Max Weber (1863-1920),
sociology strives to be "value free." But surely today, as a starting point,
to aspire to this as an ideal requires
the inclusiveness of an ecocentric consciousness, not one that is human-
centered? Sutton wants to bring
nature into sociological theories. However, the central focus of the book
is
the late response taken by sociology
to the upsurge in environmental awareness and the rise of Green
consciousness in modern societies.
The author argues that it is only within the last ten years or so that
the views
of radical ecologists have entered
sociology. Sutton, like many of us, sees that there is a post-industrial
political realignment underway
with "'Nature' or 'Life' becoming the central political cleavage rather
than class,
inequality and wealth distribution."
(pp. 31-32) At the same time, as the deep ecologist Frederick
Bender has
noted in his recent book:
"I do not think ecology sufficient to explain every aspect of human
culture...We must also discover how human culture evolved, how
social, political, and religious factors, etc., became predominant at
various times. Ecological models frame such factors' significance,
but do not replace them." (Bender, The Culture Of Extinction:
Toward A Philosophy Of Deep Ecology, p. 102)
The ecocentric
endeavour that many of us are engaged with, seems to have had a spreading
impact not
only on sociological theory. Three
recently published books that I have read, illustrate this widespread
impact. These books include Sutton's
book, Judith McKenzie's Environmental Politics in Canada, and
Bender's The Culture Of Extinction.
The three books all take deep ecology (or ecocentrism or ecologism -
here used synonymously), as setting
a defining bar and theoretical stage for analysis of the world around us,
even if Sutton or McKenzie would
not, perhaps, call themselves personal supporters of deep ecology
philosophy. But we do see, with
these authors, that deep ecology is becoming an orientation, not only in
university teaching subjects -
here sociology, as in Sutton's book, but really throughout contemporary
culture
and politics.
An Anomaly
An anomaly and
disturbing counter current to the above deep ecology trend, is the fourth
edition (2004)
of the undergraduate reader, Environmental
Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology,
senior editor Michael E. Zimmerman.
This edition has totally dropped the section on Deep Ecology, edited
by George Sessions, which was part
of all previous editions. This fourth edition has an expanded
Ecofeminism and Social Justice
section; more emphasis on social ecology and "ecofascism" (an essay by
Zimmerman attempts, by innuendo,
to link ecofascism to deep ecology) in the Political Ecology section, and
a new, rather obscure section called
"Environmental Continental Philosophy." We are told, pathetically, by
J. Baird Callicott who is responsible
for the Environmental Ethics section in this edition, that deep ecology
"now seems", "vaguely anti-intellectual",
and that since September 11, 2001, "responsible environmental
philosophers" wish to "distance
themselves" from "militant ideologies associated with groups that have used
illegal and even violent means
to achieve their ends." (Callicott also falsely asserts that "deep ecology
has
been integrated into the ecofeminist
section", yet this philosophy is merely a prop for some of the ecofeminist
theorists featured, e.g. Mary Mellor.)
It seems that some US eco-philosophy academics do not mind having
their careers partially obligated
to the Green and environmental movements, but a post September 11th
"blow back" is not part of the
price they are prepared to pay. In the US, is deep ecology and its radical
"field practice" becoming too subversive
for academic textbooks?
Some issues raised
Reading Nature, Environment and Society raised a number of issues
for me.
- Ecocentrism's overall impact
on sociology
Sutton says that in sociology, there have been two basic responses to the
impact of the ecocentric
Green movement and radical ecology.
As someone reading this book and not knowing the actual literature
which Sutton evaluates, I would
characterize the overall responses or "ideal types" within sociology as follows:
One is of acknowledgement
and partial accommodation to the ecocentric theoretical perspective, what
Sutton calls "critical realism."
This is where his own sympathies clearly lie, and the early writings of
Marx and
Engels have been important influences.
But this a minority and less influential tendency. For Sutton, this
perspective approaches the environment
in ways that diverge from the viewpoint of mainstream sociology.
Critical realists assume "natural
processes have a reality outside human categorization and that the way in
which humans know of these processes
allows them to exert some measure of control over their impact on
society." (p. 177)
The other response
to environmental issues comes through as one of downplaying or minimization,
officially
called "social constructionism."
This is a majority tendency among those sociologists paying attention to
the
Green movement. This tendency insists
on the social creation of environmental issues in a significant sense,
hence, in Sutton's and my own view,
tending to minimize the overall influence of the natural world and the
growing ecological crisis on human
societies. It needs to be remembered, for the ecocentric activist influenced
by deep ecology, "society" is not
just human society, but also includes other animal and plant societies and
the
Earth itself. In past animistic
societies this was the situation. Left biocentrists like myself, strongly
believe we
need to find a way to bring this
animistic-type spiritual consciousness back, if there is to be any chance
of
turning around this culture of
biological extinction which envelopes us all. So while ecocentrism is closer
to the
critical realism perspective than
to social constructionism, these still seem only preliminary steps on the
deep
ecological path forward and to
a more inclusive definition of "society."
- Is ecocentrism a New Social
Movement?
Is ecocentrism "new", that is, a qualitatively different social movement
from what has gone before? Or
does ecocentrism have some kind
of continuous history going back to the English romantic poets of the late
18th century and
early 19th centuries (Wordsworth, Blake, Coleridge, and Shelley),
and the US
transcendentalist philosophers
(Emerson)? Sutton argues in his book that for ecocentrism: "most of
its main
tenets can be found in earlier
periods." (p. 22) What is the "new" aspect
for this author is that ecocentric ideas
today are reflected in much larger
populations than in the past, where the social base was an educated elite.
Most deep ecology supporters in
North America had seen the initial formulation of this ecocentric philosophy
by Arne Naess as something quite
unique, although Naess himself has always stressed that deep ecology existed
before he introduced the terms
"shallow" and "deep" in the now famous 1972 presentation "The Shallow
and
the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement:
A Summary." I do not believe that Sutton really understands the
scope and depth of deep ecology,
and why it is qualitatively different from the writings of the romantic
poets,
even though the appreciation for
the natural world is a common bond. For myself, nature poems or paintings,
to
be considered ecocentric works,
must also be political, that is, designed to arouse others to change the
world in
the general direction we want to
head. I believe, unlike Sutton, that ecocentrism needs to be characterized
as
a New Social Movement, the view
apparently generally held in Europe.
- The formation of the Self
Sociology teaches
its students that personal identities are SOCIALLY given and sustained.
So how can the
personal self become an ecological
Self, with a strong sense of place, which includes all other plant and
animal
beings and the planet itself? What
are the roles of social and cultural (and political and economic) factors
in all
this for personal and societal
change? These are important questions for ecocentrism. Sutton's book brings
sharply into focus the question
"What are the social components of the ecological Self" as understood in
a deep
ecology sense? An important point
which is brought out, is that societies which are anthropocentric stress
how
humans DIFFER with the rest of
the natural world. Ecocentric theorists tend to see the evolutionary
SIMILARITIES or continuities of
humans with other planetary life forms, as humans are natural beings.
Questions that
remain to be answered are: How can deep ecology, while giving primacy to
the relationship
with the natural world in the formation
of an ecological Self, incorporate social components? What are these
components for the Earth-caring
society which needs to come on the historical stage? And how can this be
fostered as a necessary social
trend by ecocentric activists?
- Postmodernism
The sociology
of knowledge (one of its leading proponents is Karl Mannheim), has always
fascinated me,
instructing as it does that ideas
and thought generally are socially grounded, and that understanding this
is a
necessary part of any evaluation
of their efficacy. The postmodernism path, which is in essence fundamentally
at odds with a deep Green ecocentric
world view and politics, has been significantly influenced, in a negative
way, by the sociology of knowledge
- although I appreciate the "critical" postmodernist viewing lens. For
Sutton, radical ecology and postmodernism
have in common an appreciation of "diversity, plurality and
difference." (p. 169)
But the fundamental dispute with Green politics by the postmodernists,
is over the
existence of non-human nature and
whether or not it is knowable: "Poststructuralism does not accept that
nature forms any kind of grounding
for self-realisation nor does it confer political legitimacy."
(p.170)
Mainstream culture is "deconstructed"
by postmodernism, the source of many scholarly articles, but no
alternative way forward is offered.
Essentially, with postmodernism, Sutton argues, the ecocentric alternative
to the destruction of the environment
arising from Western industrial 'civilization' is undermined. I like the
way
he put this: "Philosophical
arguments which suggest that 'anything goes' usually mean that 'everything
stays the same.'" (p.
171)
Criticism
While overall
it is extremely positive towards ecocentrism and deep ecology, there are
some criticisms of
Sutton's book.
1. The biological
world is more real than the realities of the social world, at the end of
the day - a position
which Sutton, as a sociologist,
cannot accept, although his book reaches out to ecocentrism.
2. Sutton
is too sympathetic to reform environmentalism. For example, his view on
ecocentric Greens
joining with reformists to work
with so-called sustainable development. (p. 145)
3. Overall,
Sutton seems lacking in practical experience in the ecocentric Green and
environmental
movements, which I believe influences
his assessment of various situations. His view is that the population
issue has receded in importance,
as high consumption in the industrialized North is stressed (pp. 167-68),
whereas ecocentric Greens influenced
by deep ecology would say that both consumption and population
issues are crucial. Another example
which would have activists shaking their heads, is Sutton's mystification
about Green politics and environmentalism
being "characterized by ideological diversity," which, he says,
is "far from clear, at least
to me." (pp. 79-80)
4. Sutton
is influenced by the Andrew Dobson's Green Political Thought. Overall,
this is very positive.
Dobson shows, in a convincing manner,
the revolutionary implications of what he calls "ecologism."
However, as noted by me in previous
articles, Dobson has an essentially negative view of the environmental
movement. He does not see the "mainstream
versus radical" struggle within the environmental movement, in
which many deep ecology influenced
environmentalists are involved. Of course most environmental activity
does not fundamentally challenge
the dominant industrial capitalist paradigm. So for Dobson and Sutton,
environmentalism somehow is equated
with light green and is contrasted with ecologism. Sutton states that
the British Green Party attracts
a "higher proportion" of those influenced by ecocentrism than are to be
found in environmental organizations.
(p. 49) This I find hard to believe. In my experience
in Canada,
reformists flock to Green parties.
Those who want a total ecological and social transformation of industrial
capitalist society, as some do
in the environmental movement, tend to keep their distance from Green
electoral politics. The experience
of the fundamentalist green philosopher Rudolf Bahro (1935-1997) in the
early 1980s, showed the self-imposed
reformist limitations of the Green electoral road in Germany. Although
a co-founder of the West German
Green Party, Bahro resigned from it in 1985.
5. Sutton
states that "A politics of nature is just as likely to be a politics of
the right as that of the left..." (p. 83)
I believe this to be a fashionable,
but basically incorrect view. Fascists or rightists prioritize some grouping
of humankind. But deep ecology
supporters do not elevate the human above other species in their view of
Earth preservation. Ecocentrism,
with its continually affirmed support for biological diversity, while often
siding
with the left on social justice
issues, is not on the left/right continuum, and is basically democratic in
human
sentiment and supportive of social
diversity. An interesting issue among left biocentrists, who identify with
the
social justice component of the
left where "justice" includes all species and the planet itself, is trying
to see how
ecocentric principles can be expressed
in social organization. The non-ecocentric left itself normally has a
human-chauvinist view towards the
welfare of other species, although, unlike the right, it is humans generally
who are given priority, not some
specific grouping of humankind. The left is ready to sacrifice other species
and their habitats, if these conflict
with human interests.
Conclusion
My general overall
impression, after reading Nature, Environment and Society, is that
the radical
ecocentric environmental or Green
activist entering the field of sociology could have a hard time indeed being
taken intellectually seriously.
Because, to be taken seriously, means mainstream sociology expanding its
human-centered world view, far
beyond its present comfort zone. Those sociologists who are prepared to
embrace the ecocentric imagination,
and not just "deconstruct it", seem to be a small minority. The one-time
inspiring "sociological imagination"
of the US sociologist C. Wright Mills needs an ecocentric upgrade.
Sutton's book shows that the "consensus"
of sociology today is not yet ready for a deep ecology ecocentric
make-over.
This book makes
an important contribution, in that it raises for the Green ecocentric movement
the
sociological perspective, with
its correct insistence that different social and cultural factors, reflected
in
different societies, have differing
environmental consequences. This is a book for the thinking environmental
and Green activist and I have no
hesitation in recommending it to others. There is much to learn from it
that
can help in more effectively subverting
industrial capitalist society.
October 2004
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/Ecocentric_Transformation.html
Last updated: January
09, 2005