Deep Ecoloy Vs. Social Ecology (Foreman Vs. Bookchin) - Essay Example

of the History and Political Science of the Concerned 22 June Deep Ecology vs. Social Ecology Introduction There isno denying the fact that environmental movement has come a long way since the dawn of Earth Day festivals when the ecological sensitivity was confined to sporadic and piecemeal measures. The environment movement has been able to transcend beyond the beliefs that a series of hesitant reforms and hollow pledges by the diplomatic community will restrict the insane and unscrupulous ways the earth is being consumed to meet the commensurate developmental needs. It has been long that the earth has been treated as an external and infinite resource to provide fodder and fuel for the continuous economic growth. In the present context, earth has ceased being an infinite and renewable resource. This newfound relevance traced at the ecological front evinces a deep seated dissatisfaction on the part of the people for ploys aimed at exploiting the ecological concerns and issues for gaining cheap and spectacular political mileage. Now is the time to recognize the fact that there are emerging sweeping differences amidst the contemporary ecology movement. These differences are discernibly identifiable between the notions of deep ecology that tends to be somewhat vague, amorphous, and sometimes self-contradictory and the notion of social ecology that is coherent, far sighted, and socially oriented (Devall 1994). On the one hand, where the deep ecology owes its origins to varied philosophical and esoteric sources, social ecology culled its ambition from many decentralist and radical view points. Deep Ecology Deep ecology is a contemporary approach towards ecological issues. Dave Foreman, the founder of deep ecology laid stress on the inherent and innate worth of the life forms, irrespective of their essential utility to the mankind. Deep ecology envisages nature as a delicate balance of varied life forms, where the existence of one life form is intricately linked to the existence of varied other life forms in an ecosystem (Naess 1991). Therefore, the human ambitions to treat earth as an external resource for economic growth poses a threat not only to the varied other life forms, but rather have deep repercussions for the existence of human beings also. The core belief of the deep ecology holds that environment should be respected as an interlinked and integrated whole, endowed with certain legal rights that assure its health and well being (Naess 1991). Deep ecology is claimed to be ‘deep’ because it attempts a deeper approach towards envisaging the relationship of humanity with the environment. While doing so, deep ecology transcends the Darwinian approach towards ecology, thereby arriving at more profound premises regarding the relationship of mankind with one’s surrounding environment (Foreman 1991). Deep ecology comes down heavily on an anthropocentric approach towards ecology and environment. It denounces the conservation of environment solely for the purposes of facilitating the growth of human comforts and well being (Lovelock 2006). No wonder deep ecology has its basis in many profound and sometimes confusing philosophical approaches. Deep ecology claims to pursue a more holistic approach towards ecological issues, which takes into consideration the relationship and dependence of the humanity on the overall ecosystem, of which it constitutes a part only (Lovelock 2006). Social Ecology It was Murray Bookchin who propounded the philosophy of social ecology in the 60s. Bookchin tends to envisage ecological problems in the light of the associated social problems. As per Murray Bookchin, most of the contemporary ecological problems have their origins in surrounding social problems and issues (Bookchin 1989). This link between ecological issues and social problems tends to be more pervasive in those political and social systems that are hierarchical in their scope and application (Bookchin 1989). Such hierarchical social and political systems have given way to a placid and senseless understanding as to the survival of the humanity is subservient to the impeding growth initiatives and requirements (Bookchin 1989). This domination of the growth issues over the environmental needs and requirements simply could not be done away with individual initiatives. Rather any changes on this front could only be brought about by a pervasive ethical thinking and collective action, which has its basis in radical democratic ideals (Bookchin 1989). Murray Bookchin lays down emphasis on the inherent complexity of relationship between the mankind and the surrounding environment. The social ecology vies for the establishment of such mutualistic social structures that take into consideration the complex relationship between the humanity and the environment (Bookchin 1989). The essential belief of the social ecologists is that the existent ecological problems could never be resolved without an apt dealing with the pressing social problems existing in the contemporary society. Social ecology traces the origins of ecological problems to the hierarchical and domineering relationships existing within the society. As per Murray Bookchin, the very notion of the domination of the nature by man flows out of the idea of domination of the man by man (Bookchin 1989). The domination over nature is a byproduct of the varied dominations existing within the society. Origins Deep ecology tends to trace the answer to questions pertaining to the domination of the nature by man in varied belief systems and philosophies. These philosophies are grounded in varied far Eastern religions and Judaic-Christian traditions (Palmer 1998: 164). Deep ecology tends to find the reasons behind the man’s domination of nature in varied esoteric and mystical philosophies, and relegates the link between ecological issues and social causes to the back burner (Palmer 1998: 165). Hence, deep ecology tends to be utopian in its perspective and approach towards ecological issues and problems. In contrast, social ecology traces the idea of domination of nature by man, in the practice of domination of man by man (Murphy 1994: 66). As per the social ecology, the causes behind varied ecological problems are linked to the deep seated problems within the society (Murphy 1994: 66). According to social ecology, the current despoliation of the eco system originated from the emergence of hierarchy, social classes, and status, capitalism and market economies (Murphy 1994). As per the social ecology, it is a plethora of social issues and evils that have given way to the impending ecological problems. Hence, the far sightedness of social ecology lies in the fact that it tends to delve on the environmental issues in a social context. Eventually, it is only in a social context that the answers to multiple environmental problems need to be looked into. The environmental problems could only be understood in the context of the problems they create for the contemporary social existence. Hence, social ecology is not vague and amorphous like deep ecology, but, rather tends to be systematic, focused and methodical while seeking solutions for the impending ecological ills. It is more feasible for the contemporary environmentalists and thinking individuals to grasp the essentials of social ecology. View towards Nature One essential thing about deep ecology is that it views nature as one integrated whole, an approach that is quiet akin to the beliefs enshrined in many Eastern religions (Palmer 1998: 166). Besides, deep ecology envisages nature as wilderness. In that context it needs to be mentioned that while envisaging nature as a wilderness, deep ecology fundamentally obfuscates the link between the man and the nature and moreover between the nature and the society. The deep ecology’s views towards nature are basically esoteric and anti civilization. It would not be wrong to say that the deep ecology’s view of nature is a bit animalistic that discards all notions of human development and innovation. In contrast, social ecology considers the nature to be a process which eventually gives way to an enhanced subjectivity and complexity. With the emergence of human beings on this earth, the biological and evolutionary processes dominating nature got closely intertwined with social and cultural processes (Murphy 1994: 67). Social ecology does not envisage any demarcations between social nature and the original nature, but rather considers the social nature to be a phenomenon that has emerged from original nature (Murphy 1994). Hence, the inherent weakness in the deep ecology could be traced to the fact that it props up inherent demarcations between humanity and the nature, and divests humanity of any role or say in the natural and ecological phenomenon. To some extent, deep ecology’s view of nature is quiet sterilized, static and homogeneous, which considers the humanity to be a somewhat unwanted intruder and exploiter. In contrast, social ecology views the inherent complexity of the human society to be something that has basically emerged from the original nature. Hence, the answers to ecological problems need to be looked into and contrived in a social context. In that context, social ecology makes way for the emergence of solutions impacting ecological issues in a societal and human perspective. Reason vs. Intuition Deep ecology strictly comes against the human reason and to some extent attributes the human reason for creating an anthropocentric world that led to the contemporary ecological problems (Palmer 1998: 171). Deep ecology regards intuitive reason to be superior to subjective reason (Palmer 1998: 171). It is only by resorting to intuition that the humans could grasp the relationship between the human self and the larger cosmic self. Hence, going by its stress of intuition, deep ecology is open to all the risks and outcomes that were earlier faced by varied non logical and intuitive world views. If one strictly introduces this intuitive approach in the realm of politics, it could lead to many anti-civilization and antihumanistic outcomes. By its very nature of being vague and amorphous, deep ecology could be readily interpreted by any political source as per one’s needs and aspirations. In contrast, social ecology respects and celebrates the human capacity for reason (Board 2002: 55). As per social ecology it is the human reason that enables the societies to understand the ecological problems and issues and endows them with the power to take appropriate measures so as to align the society in tandem with ecological and environmental goals and aspirations (Board 2002). Though social ecology denounces the raw utilitarian approach towards reason; it certainly comes in the favor of a dialectical approach towards human reason that facilitates the comprehension of varied natural and social evolutionary processes. Thus, social ecology comes out as an approach towards ecology that is coherent, lucid and easy to understand. By the very fact that deep ecology gives preponderance to intuition over reason, it happens to be utterly amorphous, vague and utopian. In contrast, social ecology with its emphasis on reason happens to be a comprehensible and pragmatic approach towards ecological problems. Views regarding Humanity Deep ecology regards anthropocentrism as the cause of all the rampant and pressing ecological problems (Keulartz 1998: 1). In fact, it totally shuns a human centric world view (Keulartz 1998: 1). In contrast, deep ecology facilitates a bio-centric approach towards ecological problems as per which the human beings command an equivalent importance in the larger scheme of things, when compared to other coexisting life forms on the earth (Keulartz 1998: 1). While considering the taking of decisions that are detrimental to the ecological values, deep ecology places the needs of the varied organisms residing in an ecosystem above the needs and vested interests of the humans (Keulartz 1998). Social ecology considers the human beings to be the most advanced life form on the earth (Board 2002: 55). It upholds the human intelligence, moral reasoning and dexterity superior to all the other life forms, though it in no way abrogates to the humans to take such steps that give way to ecological problems (Board 2002: 55). Consequently, social ecology is superior to the deep ecology in the sense that it upholds and celebrates the human intelligence and lays on it the onus to take such steps as are salubrious and favorable to the larger ecological problems and issues. Conclusion Conclusively speaking, there is no denying the fact that social ecology is superior to deep ecology. Deep ecology comes wrapped and warped to a range of mystical and esoteric assumptions that are dubious and sometimes dangerous in their ramifications and are difficult to understand and implement. Contrary to this, social ecology places the social frameworks and human reason at the center of all ecological ills and problems, thereby abrogating to the human capacity and the society all the power to aid and facilitate such decisions that are in the best interests of the environment. Reference List Board, S. (2002) Ecological Relations. New York: Routledge. Bookchin, M. (1989) Death of a Small Planet. Accessed 22 June 2012 . Devall, B. (1994) ‘The Turnaround Decade’, Trumpeter, Vol. 11, no. 2: 24-26. Foreman, D. (1991) Putting the Earth First. Accessed 22 June 2012 . Keulartz, J. (1998) Struggle for Nature. London: Routledge. Lovelock, J. (2006) The Earth is about to Catch a Morbid Fever that May Last as Long as 100,000 Years. Accessed 22 June 2012 . Murphy, R. (1994) Rationality and Nature. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Naess, A. (1991) Ecology. Community and Lifestyle. London: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, C. (1998) Environmental Ethics and Process Thinking. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Read More