Suchergebnisse

There are two conflicting tendencies in the ecological movement, one a vague, formless, often self-contradictory "deep ecology," & the other a socially oriented "social ecology." Deep ecology has no sense that ecological problems have social origins; it contains the implicit notion that humanity "accurses" the natural world. Social ecology is avowedly rational & humanistic, concerned with social, economic, & political issues, as well as with environmental problems. F. S. J. Ledgister

Offers a neoliberal critique of Murray Bookchin's writings on social ecology (SE), focusing on how his attempt to unite a leftist critique of liberalism with contemporary environmental concerns is undermined by the comparisons he draws between market systems & ecosystems. Bookchin's project is assailed for failing to acknowledge that these systems function in accord with impersonal principles of self-organization. Conclusions suggest that Left-oriented environmental analysis lacks the intellectual resources to develop a viable approach to SE, & that evolutionary liberalism, imbued with insights from deep ecology, provides a sound basis for SE theory. Adapted from the source document.

MURRAY BOOKCHIN'S INFLUENTIAL WRITINGS ON SOCIAL ECOLOGY ATTEMPT TO UNITE THE TRADITIONAL LEFTIST CRITIQUE OF LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WITH CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. HIS WORK IS UNDERMINED, HOWEVER, IN PART BY THE DUBIOUS COMPARISONS HE MAKES BETWEEN MARKET SYSTEMS AND ECOSYSTEMS, AND IN PARTICULAR BY HIS FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE SYSTEMS OPERATE IN A LIKE FASHION ACCORDING TO IMPERSONAL PRINCIPLES OF SELF-ORGANIZATION. IN THE CASE OF THE MARKET, WHILE THIS IMPERSONAL PROCESS FACILITATES COOPERATION AND EXCHANGE, IT ALSO REWORD THE INSTRUMENTAL NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES. DEEP ECOLOGISTS ARE THEREFOR RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE UNWILLINGNESS OF PARTICIPANTS IN MARKET SOCIETIES TO APPRECIATE THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF NATURE. THE CHALLENGES THEY POSE TO THE HUMAN COMMUNITY - TO BECOME LESS ANTHROPOCENTRIC AND TO APPROACH PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH A SENSE OF STEWARDSHIP - MAY BE TAKEN UP BY AN "EVOLUTIONARY LIBERALISM," WHICH WOULD STRIVE TO ACHIEVE HARMONY BETWEEN HUMANS AND THE NATURAL WORLD UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF RULES ORDERED BY SELF-ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES.

The further scholarship investigates life forms (ecology, evolutionary biology and microbiology) the less those forms can be said to have a single, independent and lasting identity. The further scholarship delves into texts (deconstruction) the less they too can be said to have a single, independent and lasting identity. This similarity is not simply an analogy. Life forms cannot be said to differ in a rigorous way from texts. On many levels and for many reasons, deconstruction and ecology should talk to one another. It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 395–396)

This introductory chapter interrogates the intellectual robustness and mobilizing potential of Arne Naess's deep ecology in the 21st century. Our contention is that deep ecology is not a spent force, as some influential Western philosophers argue in this volume. On the contrary, ecophilosophy has left a legacy which remains a significant part of the ongoing cultural innovation for a sustainable future. As several essays in this collection show, Arne Naess' thought feeds into new, science-based visions of the relationship between humans and nature. More importantly, it has got a new lease of life in the South, where biocentric cosmovisions play an ever more important role, not just in philosophical, but political debates which have an impact on Latin America's future.