Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century

"H

DEEP ECOI,OGY

fo,

rhe

TWENTY-FIRST CENTIJRY Edited by George

S

HAM B FIALA

Boston €y London r995

Sessions

CO NTE NTS

Shambhala Publications, Inc'

Horticultural Hall Avenue 3oo Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts 02r l5

@ t995 bY George Sessions

storage

Panr ONr: WuAT Is Drnp EcoLocYl - Introduction r. Thomas Berry The Viable Human * z. Fritjof Capra Deep Ecology: A New Paradigm ." 3. Stephan Bodian Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: An

"r,J

writing from the Publisher'

98

76543

Interview with Arne Naess

Printed in the United States of America paper that meets.the @ Thls edition is printed on acid-free Zp'+8 Standard' Institute American National Standards House' Inc'' Random by States United Distributed in the Canada Ltd and in Canada by Random House of Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

century/edited by George Sessions' Deep ecology for the twenty-6rst

-151

6d.

P.

PaPer)

r. Deep ecology' I' Se'siot's' George' ecologY for the 2Ist century' GEI95.D44 1994 '

363.7-4czo

4. Chellis Glendinning Recovery from Western Civilization 5. lackTurner Gary Snyder and the Practice of the Wild 6. Gary Snyder Cultured or Crabbed 7. Daue Foreman The New Conservation Movement 8. Dolores l-aChapelle Ritual-the Pattern That Connects Arne Naess The Deep Ecological Movement 9. -' to. Andrew McLaughlin The Heart of Deep Ecology

Pnnr Two: HrsToRrcAr- Roors or DEEp EcoLoGy

cm.

ISBN r-57o62-o49-o (alk'

ix

Preface

be reproduced All rights reserved. No part of this book may or mechanical' ;., ,.ti form or by any *t""', electronic by any information including photo.opying, recording, or ,",.i.'"1 system' without permission in

1938-

II' Title:

Deep

9443967

CIP

Introduction rr. Del luan /anift Environmental Consciousness in Modern Literature: Four Representative Examples

tz.

Dreut Killing

Wilderness r3. John Rodman Four Forms of Ecological Consciousness Wayland

Reconsidered

t4. Paul Shepard Ecology and Man-a Viewpoint t5. Gary Snyder Four Changes 16. Arne Naess The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A Summary t7. Oertrge Sessions Ecocentrism and the Anthropocentric [)etour

l'nH'r''l'lrHt, l,: lrtlr,,,lttt liotr

AnNr' Nnr'ss ()N I)tirit, Ef

the planet's rnore

illi;utt :ur(l s:rtislyirrg Iirrrrrs of'life expression. f'his degradation involves exIcnsivt' rlistortiort :rrrtl :r pcrv:rsivc weakening of the life system, its comprehensivt' irrtt'grity rrs wcll as its particular manifestations. Whilc thcrc are pathologies that wipe out whole populations of life forms :ttttl nrust be considered pernicious to the life process on an extensive scale, the hutnan species has, for some thousands of years, shown itself to be a pernicious l)resence in tlre world of the living on a unique and universal scale. Nowhere has this been nrore evident than in the Western phase of development of the human species. There is scarcely any geological or biological reality or function that has not experienced the deleterious influence of the human. The survival of hundreds of thousands of species is presently threatened. But since the human survives only within this larger complex of ecosystems, any damage done to other species, or to the other ecosystems, or to the planet itself, eventually aflfects the human not only in terms of physical well-being but also in every other phase of human intellectual understanding, aesthetic expression, and spiritual development. Because such deterioration results from a reiection of the inherent limitation of earthly existence and from an effort to alter the natural functioning of the planet in favor of a humanly constructed wonderworld for its human occupants, the human resistance to this destructive process has turned its efforts toward an emphasis on living creatively within the functioning of the natural world. The earth as a bio-spiritual planet must become, for the human, the basic reference in identifying what is real and what is worthwhile. Thus we have the ecologist standing against industrial enterprise in defense of a viable mode of human functioning within the context of a viable planetary process. This opposition between the industrial entrepreneur and the ecologist has been both the central human issue and the central earth issue of this late 2oth century. My position is that the efforts of the entrepreneur to create a wonderworld are, in fact, creating a wasteworld, a nonviable environment for the human species. The ecologist is offering a way of moving toward a new expression of the true wonderworld of nature as the context for a viable human situation. The current difficulty is that the industrial enterprise has such extensive control over the planet that we must certainly be anxious about lrr

the future.

But we are tempted to diminish our assessment of the danger lest we be overwhelmed with the difficulty, for indeed, we are caught in a profound cultural pathology. We might even say that, at present, our dominant institutions, professions, programs, and activities are counterproductive in their con-

/.'.1' s('(lU('lt(('s!;l(l,lt.

\Vll,\ll5lrlll'lt'ttl,r)ti\'',' ltv,'lt) il (()lt\11ilt('t \(,(t('ly,.ttrrl rf,,'.lt( 1,,rr,rlyz,',1 l,V (,tll

in:rllility to r.('sl)()r)(l t'llt'ttivt'ly. Srrtlr;r,lt'strrfrtiorr ts tvt'll trr,'rrtlrl rl rvc r,rr sirlcr thc cxtcnt to which wc lt:tvr'lloisotrt'tl ()ur ('nvirortttrt'nl, tlrt':rir w(' breathc, thc water we drink, ancl thc soil that grows ()ur Iirotl. Having identified the magnitude of the difficulty belore us, wc necrl to establish a more specific analysis o[ the problems themselves. Then wc ncctl to provide specific programs leading toward a viable human situation on a viable planet.

The industrial entrepreneur is in possession of the natural resources of the planet, either directly, by corporate control, or indirectly, through governments subservient to the industrial enterprise. This possession is, of course, within limits. Fragmentary regions of the planet have been set aside as areas to be preserved in their natural state or to be exploited at a later time. These regions survive at the tolerance of the industrial establishment. Some controls now exist through governmental and private protection. These must be expanded. Ecologists recognize that reducing the planet to a resource base for consumer use in an industrial society is already a spiritual and psychic degradation. Our main'experience of the divine, the world of the sacred, has been diminished as money and utility values have taken precedence over spiritual, aesthetic, emotional, and religious values in our attitude toward the natural world. Any recovery of the natural world will require not only extensive financial funding but a conversion experience deep in the psychic structure of the human. Our present dilemma is the consequence of a disturbed psychic situation, a mental imbalance, an emotional insensitivity, none of which can be remedied by any quickly contrived adiustment. Nature has been severely, and in many cases irreversibly, damaged. Healing can occur and new life can sometimes be evoked, but only with the same intensity of concern and sustained vigor of action as that which brought about the damage in the first place . Yet, without this healing, the viability of the human is severely limited. The basic orientation of the common law tradition is toward personal rights and toward the natural world as existing for human use. There is no provision for recognition of nonhuman beings as subiects having legal rights. To the

of possession and use of the earth, either by individuals or by establishments, needs to be profoundly reconsidered. The naive assumption that the natural world exists solely to be possessed and used by humans for their unlimited advantage cannot be accepted. The earth belongs to itself and to all the component members of the community. The entire earth is a gorgeous celebration of existence in all its forms. Each living thing participates in the celebration as the proper fulfillment of its powers of expression. The reduction of the earth to an object simply for human possession and use is unthinkable in most traditional cultures. To Peter Drucker, the ecologists, the entire question

l'ht' l'ttl'lt' l ltutt,ut

.

r'

/i

llll('lrt('!l('t1t r tt.tlcs t('\olttr cs ,rtt,l v,rlttcs. lk'lotc tt l\ lx)ss(.\sf coercion in the lives of others. And so on!r0 The eight points of thc rlccp ccology platfrrrm are derived in a fairly simple way. A philosoplry :rs;r worlrl view inevitably has implications for practical situaliotts. Likt'otltt'r t't'osolrlrif variotts writcrs that all natural entities, inclucling plants angy," p. rz8.

t6, ()ltcney, "Neo-Stoicirtn."

286

-\-

r7. Ibid., p.

DEEP ECOLOGY & ECOFEMINISM

'f hc Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate

zo. See, for example, Dolores LaChapelle, Earth Wisdom (Los Angeles: Guild of Tutors Press, 1978); foanna Macy, "Deep Ecology and the Council of All Beings," and "Gaia Meditations (Adapted from fohn Seed)," Auaftening in the Nuclear Age, Summer/Fall 1986, pp. 6-ro (both reprinted in Reuision, Winter/Spring ry87, pp. fl-5il; Freya Matthews, "Conservation and Self-Realization: A Deep Ecology Perspective," Enuironmental Ethics ro (r988): 347-55; and Frances Vaughan, "Discovering Transpersonal ldentity," Journal of Humanistic Psychology z5 (1985): r3-38. 2t. Zimmerman, "Feminism, Deep Ecology, and Environmental Ethics," p. 37. 22. In a thoughtful analysis of the strengths and shortcomings of several varieties of feminism (liberal, traditional Marxist, radical, and socialist) for the development of a genuinely ecofeminist perspective, Karen f. Warren concurs that an ecologically informed feminism-"a transformative feminism"-would tie "the liberation of women to the elimination of all systems of oppression" ("Feminism and Ecology: Making Connections," Enuironmental Ethics 9 19871: r 8). Unfortunately, however, many feminists who claim to be ecofeminists do not make their (presumed) commitment to an ecocentrlr egalitarianism particularly explicit, with the result that ecofeminist analyses can sometimes serve to reinforce anthropocentrism rather than overcome it. As for those ecofeminists, such as Warren, who are explicit about their commitment to an ecocentric egalitarianism, it becomes difficult to see any essential difference between their approach and that of deep ecology. As one ecofeminist-cum-deep ecologist said to me after reading Warren's article: "Why doesn't she iust call it [i.e., Warren's vision of a transformative feminism] deep ecology? Why specifically attach the labelfeminism roit if she's advocating a genuinely nonprio ririzing, biocentric egalitarianism ? "

25. Note that I am borrowing the phrase "the real root" from Michael Zimmerman's previously quoted formulation of what I consider to be the essential ecofeminist charge against deep ecology. I employ this phrase several times in the argument that follows. z(r. Murray Bookchin, "Social Ecology Versus 'Deep Ecology,"' Grecn Perspectiues: Neuslctter of the Green Program Projcct, Summer 1987. 27. Ibid., p. z (emphasis added). This view is central to Bookchin's major statement

of social ecology: The Ecology of Frcedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hiuarchy (Palo Alto: Cheshire Books, r98z). zlJ. This observation is in keeping with the anthropocentric flavor that many deep ecologists detect in Bookchin's work notwithstanding his avowed ecological orien-

tatlon. 29. Salleh, "Deeper than Deep Ecology," p. 345. In another presentation of the eco[eminist sensibility, Don Davis also concludes by reiterating this conclusion of Salleh's ("Ecosophy: The Seduction of Sophial" Enaironmental Ethics 8 [1986]:

r5r-62).

j,,. j

Salleh, "Deeper than Deep Ecology," p. 34o.

r. Warren, "Feminism and Ecology," pp. r3-r5, and Zimmerman, "Feminism, Deep

\)

lrcology," p. 4o. Warren, "Femimism and Ecology," p. 14. See also Alan E. Wittbecker, "Deep Anthropology: Ecology and Human Order," Enuironmcntal Ethics 8 (1986): z6r7o, which provides a number of counterinstances to Salleh's essentialist feminist claim that the suppression of the feminine is "universal." Stunningly obvious instances of these kinds of examples, such as the Prime Ministcr of England, Margaret Thatcher (the "Iron Lady"), sending warships to the F'rrlklands, are typically explained in terms of the hegemony of androcenrrism Iring such as to have overpowered the offending woman's essential nature. The irnplication is that if, as Salleh says, woman could just "be allowed to love what wc tre," then it would no longer be possible to find such examples.

23. When I refer to any class of social actors, I expressly mean also to refer to the culture(s) associated with that class. However, I omit writing "men and their associated cultures," "non-Westerners and their associated cultures," and so on simply for ease of comprehension. In referring to capitalists and, hence, the culture of capitalism, I also mean to refer to "state capitalism" as found in the industrialized communist countries. 24. Indeed, even as I wrote this paper, a significant real-life example o[such criticisms was being played out between the women of Grcenham (lommon in thc firrm of a "bitter dispute" over allegations of racism at thc caml). Rclx)rts sugl{('stc(l tllli this disputc "thrcutcns thc worltl's rn()st rcn()wllcrl pt'rrc62.

2

PART FOUR: DEEP ECOLOGY AND ECOFEMINISM, SOCIAL ECOLOGY, THE NEW AGE, AND THE

Decp Ealogy &

"The Cybernetic Dream of the Twenty-First Century." Jounal of Humanistic Psychology 26, z (1986): z4-5r. Reprinted in fohn Clark, ed., Reneaing the Earth: The Promise of Social Ecology. London: Green Print, r99o. Outstanding critique New Age cybernetic disembodied thinking.

o[

Coming to Our Senses. New York: Bantam, 1989.

Borgman, Albert. Technology and the Character of Contemporary Ltfc. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, r984.

Burnham, David. The R*e of the Computer Snte. New York: Vintage, r98o. Cheney,

fim. "Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology." Enuironmeflral Ethics 9 $98):

tr5-45.

Cuomo, Christine. "Unraveling the Problems in Ecofeminism." Enaironmental Ethics r4, 4 fi992)t 35r-63.A critique of ecofeminist theory. Davion, Victoria. "How Feminist Is Ecofeminisml" In Karen Warren, ed.,Ecofeminist Philosophy. New York: Routledge, ry94. A critique of ecofeminist theory. Devall, Bill. "Deep Ecology and Its Critics." The Trumpetcr 5, z (t988): 55-6o. Eckersley, Robyn. "Divining Evolution: The Ecological Ethics of Murray Bookchin." Enaironmental Ethics r r (r989): 99-r16. A critique of Bookchin's evolutionary views.

Gaard, Greta, ed. Ecofeminkm: Women, Animak and Natufe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, r993.

,

McKibben, Bill.The Agc of Miinformotiott. New york: Ran