Faith Michal, Cassie Kent, and Julia Neish
*Our definition of nature is taken from the Oxford Dictionary definition, being “the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.”
Definition
Deep ecology, defined by Encyclopedia Britannica, is an “environmental philosophy and social movement based in the belief that humans must radically change their relationship to nature from one that values nature solely for its usefulness to human beings to one that recognizes that nature has an inherent value” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2017). This definition is important because it emphasizes the importance of human and nature connection and equality among all species. These two qualities of deep ecology are fundamental to relating to classic environmentalism for it questions the binary between man and nature. Deep ecology is regarded to be on the more radical spectrum but is an important player in environmental scholarship for it questions paradigms thought to be fundamental to the environmental movement.
Context
The term deep ecology was first coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in his 1973 article, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements.” Naess claimed that the deep ecology movement arose from scientists-ecologists who were, “doing the work of philosophers, laying the foundations for the Age of Ecology and a new ecological worldview to replace the anthropocentric, mastery of Nature, and modernist worldview arising in the 17th and 18th centuries” (Wikipedia). Deep ecology searches for solutions to the popular claim that, “The ecological problems faced by the world today are partly due to the loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance (Wikipedia). “Naess has reiterated his intuition that ‘living beings have a right, or an intrinsic or inherent value, or value in themselves, that is the same for all of them’” (Naess 1984, 202). As Naess conceded early on (1973), “brute biospherical reality entails some forms of killing, exploitation, and suppression of other living beings; the aim is to do more good than harm, to respect on an equal basis the right of every life form to flourish” (Naess 1984).
Naess was likely influenced by the philosophies of Gandhi, as the two concepts most often associated his definition of deep ecology are personal identification with nature and the self-realization of being dependant upon it, which closely mirror Gandhi’s teachings (Weber, 349). Coining the term was an attempt to describe a deeper, more spiritual approach to nature, as exemplified in the environmentally-ethical writings of Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac) and Rachel Carson (Silent Spring) (Environmental Ethics, 6). As the story goes, Arne Naess and his colleague, George Sessions, co-created some basic principles to describe deep ecology as an environmental movement while camping together in California. With human interference of nature being at an all-time high and increasing, they called for a significant change regarding economic, technological, and ideological policies. “This ideological change will mean an appreciation of the quality of life rather than the standard of living; and those who subscribe to these points ‘have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes’” (Weber, 351).
Deep ecology is similar to ecofeminism, which claims that “paternalistic and capitalistic society has led to a harmful split between nature and culture” (Wikipedia), as well as ecospirituality, which is defined as, “a manifestation of the spiritual connection between human beings and the environment… [resulting in] people wanting to free themselves from a consumeristic and materialistic society” (Wikipedia). Both of these ideologies are in sharp contrast with the dominant worldview of technocratic-industrial societies which regards humans as isolated and fundamentally separate from the rest of nature (Environmental Ethics, 6). Western culture has become obsessed with dominance of humans over non-human nature, masculine over feminine, the wealthy and powerful over the poor, and with the dominance of the West over non-Western cultures (Environmental Ethics, 6). Deep ecology offers a new approach, allowing one to see through these social constructs while proposing a deeper understanding of the world as a whole.
Critique
Many scholars have critiqued various parts of the Deep Ecology philosophy and movement. The main points of contention are regarding the species’ egalitarianism argument, the concept of Self-realization and identification, and the operational potential of the philosophy in ethics and decision-making. “Some regard Deep Ecology as strident axiological egalitarianism that is useless in adjudicating conflicting interests. If all organisms are of equal value, then there is no basis upon which to make prescriptions because the kind of value distinctions necessary for evaluating the moral situations of environmental ethics are deliberately disqualified. The principle of biocentric egalitarianism, on this view, renders Deep Ecology impotent as an ethical theory. Environmental ethics is predicated on the possibility of a nonegalitarian axiology,” (GaleGroup). These critics bring up examples such as the importance of saving ants versus saving bees; as far as we know, bees play a much more central role in ecosystem services and should therefore be prioritized. In this sense, critics argue that “regard for the health of whole ecosystems might, therefore, require treating individuals differently, because individuals of different species have unequal utility (or disutility) for wholes,” (GaleGroup). Similarly, Fox contends that Orthodox Deep Ecology “does itself a disservice by employing a definition of anthropocentrism which is so overly exclusive that it condemns more or less any theory of value that attempts to guide realistic praxis … Unless deep ecologists take up this challenge and employ a workable definition of anthropocentrism, they may well become known as the advocates of “Procrustean Ethics” as they attempt to fit all organisms to the same dimensions of intrinsic value,” (Galegroup). Fox believes that all beings have intrinsic value, but that it varies based on “intensity of sentience.”
This sentience-based argument for value leads to criticisms regarding acknowledgement of and respect for human differences. “Social Ecologists, speaking as secular humanists of the European Enlightenment tradition, have excoriated biocentric egalitarianism as misanthropic. In particular Murray Bookchin criticized Deep Ecology for reducing humans from complex social beings to a simple species, a scourge that is “overpopulating” the planet and “devouring” its resources,” (GaleGroup). Others argue that holding such opinions of humans and human nature is overly simplistic, and that understanding the roots of human-environment interactions requires more nuanced considerations and recognition of “not only our human continuity with the natural world but also its distinctness and independence from us and the distinctness of the needs of things in nature from ours,” (Diehm, 9). It is also argued that deep ecology’s “version of identification with nature is problematic insofar as it suggests a difference-erasing holism that is questionable as a viable model for relationships based on respect for others, “(Deihm, 9). Expanding one’s identity and sense of self to include others (especially non-human others) to in attempts to avoiding anthropocentrism can lead to anthropomorphism. True respect for others should come from respect and appreciation for their differences instead of looking for similarities between us and them.
This leads to the argument that despite deep ecology’s stance against anthropocentrism, it is inherently selfish in practice. “Deep ecology theorists’ emphasis on the expansion of the self through identification-as-belonging is that from this viewpoint the protection of nature appears to stem not from a desire to protect others who are worthy of moral concern, but from a desire to protect ourselves,” as nature is included in self identity (Deihm, 10). Similarly, “eco-feminists suspect that self-realization is a front for an imperialistic philosophy of self, springing from “the same motive to control which runs a continuous thread through the history of patriarchy,” questioning how we know what is best for any being other than ourselves (GaleGroup).
Several critics argue that deep ecologists are focusing on the wrong things entirely. A continuation of the ecofeminist debate is that “feminist critics of deep ecology assert that [deep ecology] speaks of a gender-neutral ‘anthropocentrism’ as the root of the domination of nature, when in fact androcentrism [i.e., male-centeredness] is the real root,” claiming that women are less likely to consider themselves above nature and that domination is primarily a male instinct (Fox). Finally, some argue that deep ecologists’ ahistorical “zoologization” prevents them from seeing the real cultural causes of environmental problems,” (GaleGroup). **wrap up sentence that I don’t have the patience for right now.
Conclusion
At a time when scientists are arguing over if we have entered the anthropocene, a geological age where humans are responsible for being the dominant influence on climate and the environment, it is important to reflect on our actions, thoughts, attitudes and perspectives to see if they could be redirected in ways to aid rather than harm our Earth. Deep ecology was brought to the forefront at a time when environmental degradation was rampant, not so different from the times we currently live in. Arne Naess questioned Western culture’s perspective of nature and deemed we are alienated from our environment from the binary between man and nature we believe in. He called for a more spiritual approach to looking at our natural environment to foster connection and inhibit ecological destruction. In contrast to Naess’s beliefs are a series of critiques stating that when all species are treated as inherently equal, it complicates times when we need to prioritize aid and care. Additionally, it is argued by ecofeminists that deep ecology carries a patriarchal sentiment since the binary is not as strong in women. The criques, while engaging, distract from the fundamental message of deep ecology.
As stated before, deep ecology questions the paradigms of nature we live by. The act of questioning is innate to scholarship and important to understanding the world around us. Additionally, deep ecology brings in a spiritual side to a more classically rational way of thinking in academia. Through using spirituality it breaks down the binary between science/rationality and spirituality/emotionality. These two attributes, spirituality and questioning, of deep ecology are important to the conversation of environmentalism for it breaks open the conversation to what is working and not working. In a time when species are going extinct 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate of 1 to 5 going extinct a year, we can use all the alternative thinking and questioning (SciTech, 2004). The actions, thoughts and perspectives our culture currently carries obviously is not helping the world we live in. We need to question and make changes, and deep ecology allows a framework to achieve that goal.
References
“Deep Ecology.” Britannica Online Academic Edition, 2017, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Diehm, Christian. “Identification with Nature: What It Is and Why It Matters.” Ethics and the Environment 12, no. 2 (2007): 1-22.
“Environmental Ethics; Reading in Theory and Application, 4th Ed.(Book Review)(Brief Review).” SciTech Book News 28, no. 4 (2004): 6.
Fox, Warwick. “The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels.” Environmental Ethics 11, no. 1 (1989): 5-25.
Grey, William. “A Critique of Deep Ecology.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 3, no. 2 (1986): 211-16.
Keller, David R. “Deep Ecology.” In Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, edited by J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman, 206-211. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009. Gale Virtual Reference Library. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=lacc_main&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3234100082&asid=9c7ba364bec7ce2bfe47e6fdf23808b9.
Weber, Thomas. “Gandhi, Deep Ecology, Peace Research And Buddhist Economics.” Journal of Peace Research 36, no. 3 (May 1999): 349-61.
Wikipedia contributors, “Deep ecology,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Wikipedia contributors, “Ecofeminism,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Wikipedia contributors, “Ecospirituality,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia