Deep Ecology Research Paper

1. Deep Ecology As Ecophilosophy

The purpose of deep ecology as an ecophilosophical approach is to assist individuals in the process of weaving descriptive and prescriptive premises about the world, ecological science, and their ultimate beliefs into a cohesive framework for guiding decisions involving society and nature—ecologically inspired total views or ecosophies. This focus on praxis (responsibility and action) separates the deep ecology approach from more descriptive inquiries into environmental philosophy that focus on axiological questions, such as extending ‘rights’ to certain nonhumans or grading intrinsic value. The ontologically inspired deep ecology approach emphasizes eliminating the perception of fundamental people/environment and spiritual/physical cleavages. Its primary strategy for overcoming the ecological crisis is to help individuals avoid pseudorational thinking.

Naess argues that many regrettable environmental decisions are made in a state of ‘philosophical stupor,’ where narrow concerns are confused with, and then substituted for, more fundamental ones. In proposing the deep/shallow contrast, Naess applies his research on empirical semantics, philosophy of science, Spinoza, the inquiring skepticism of Sextus Empiricus, and Gandhi on nonviolent communication. His technical semantic distinction is directed at the individual’s level of problematizing—the extent to which they can and do coherently and consistently trace their views, practices, and actions back to their ultimate beliefs or bedrock assumptions.

In relating this notion of persistently asking deeper questions to the ecological crisis, Naess broadens his concept of ‘depth.’ In the context of deep ecology as an ecophilosophical approach, depth refers to both the general level of problematizing one employs in seeking out the underlying, coevolving causes of the ecological crisis and the extent of one’s willingness to consider a broad array of social and policy responses, even if they necessitate changes that represent a radical departure from the status quo.

The ‘shallow,’ currently more influential, approach is identified with treating the symptoms of environmental degradation, such as pollution and resource depletion. Its central concern is the health and prosperity of people in the economically privileged countries. This reform-oriented approach is grounded not in ultimate premises that plumb the relationship between humans and nature, but in technological optimism, economic progress, and scientific management. A core premise is that all environmental problems are manageable—nature is a puzzle to be deciphered by human ingenuity and manipulated, albeit more efficiently, for human benefit. From this perspective, remedy for environmental problems is limited to economic, technological, and managerial reforms. This effort to palliate human impacts, rather than probe and address their underlying causes, favors a search for ‘technical’ solutions to what are more likely ethical, social, and political problems. By truncating the realm of problematizing, the shallow approach, perhaps inadvertently, prunes the set of conceivable social changes to a narrow incrementalism.

The ‘deep’ approach, as the other hand, while in no way discounting the exigency of addressing pollution and resource depletion, adopts a broader, long-term, more skeptical stance. Doubtful about technological optimism, critical of limitless economic growth, and decidedly against valuing nature in purely instrumental terms, it asks if the shallow approach’s proposed solutions take into consideration the pervasiveness and severity of the problems they hope to rectify. Drawing on a wide diversity of philosophical or religious ultimate premises, which acknowledge that every living being has value in itself, the deep approach sees the flourishing of nature and culture as fundamentally intertwined. Nature is viewed as mentor, standard, and partner rather than vassal. A key premise is that environmental management is much more about managing the habits and desires of humans than managing nature. Remedy for environmental problems is sought by identifying and responding to the complex ‘root’ causes of the ecological crisis, dedicating special attention to protecting the wild and free from thoughtless human interference. Taking less for granted, the deep approach calls for the public questioning of every practice, assumption, and value that propels the ecological crisis.

By juxtaposing these two, almost caricatured, perspectives, Naess employs a technique of Gandhian nonviolent communication designed to confront core disagreements. The premise is that society’s potential to overcome the ecological crisis rests on maneuvering discussion to its root causes. One of the primary root causes, Naess asserts, is the widespread disjunction between people’s core beliefs and actions. People, in general, neither comprehend how their practices and everyday lifestyle choices harm the environment, nor recognize how these consequences may be in direct conflict with their core beliefs—this is the primary weakness of the shallow approach. A crucial, underlying hypothesis of the deep approach is that teasing out the presumed inconsistencies between an individual’s actions and their fundamental beliefs will effect constructive change instead of generating more serious ancillary conflict.

Rather than simply calling for a new environmental ethic or a change in fundamental values, Naess’ approach to ecophilosophy centers on transforming practice and policy by challenging individuals to develop more thoroughly reasoned, consistent, and ecologically inspired total views. Some will take issue with the core premise underlying this goal, namely that thoroughly reasoned and consistent positions do generally lead to improved policies and actions. There are, however, important indirect procedural benefits that can result from attempting to couple reason and values in decision making.

In any case, Naess intended his distinction between the shallow and deep approaches to environmentalism to be restricted to argumentation patterns and the diversity of policy and lifestyle changes that are given consideration. The distinction was never intended to shed light on the ‘depth’ of particular individuals or their values. Nevertheless, as an expert in semantics and communication theory, Naess cannot be exonerated for failing to anticipate the unfortunate derogatory connotations of his terminology.

2. The Unfolding Of Deep Ecology

Naess’ (1973) inaugural article, The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary, gave both an appellation and a rudimentary philosophical framework to a movement that had been nascent for well over a century. Deep ecology as both a liberatory social movement and an ecophilosophical approach draws on at least five roots: (a) the nonanthropocentrism and reverence for wildness given voice by Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, and John Stuart Mill; (b) the ecological perspective gleaned from a scientific understanding of humans’ role in creating environmental degradation, articulated by George Perkins Marsh, Aldo Leopold, Rachael Carson, and Paul Ehrlich; (c) the ecocentric vision and social criticism brought to life by the writing and activism of Paul Shepard, Gary Snyder, Edward Abbey, and Dave Brower; (d) the belief in the ultimate unity of all life, communicated through the nonviolent conflict resolution work of Gandhi; and (e) the call for individuals to be conscious of their value priorities and to counteract passivity and despair by actively making them manifest in their daily life, explicated in the philosophical systematization of Spinoza.

Naess’ brief initial article, along with establishing the deep/shallow contrast, outlined a seven-point survey, which was intended to summarize the shared norms and perspectives of the deep ecology movement. This survey introduced terms and slogans, such as ‘rejection of the human-in-environment image in favor of the relational, total field image,’ ‘biospherical egalitarianism—in principle,’ and ‘complexity, not complication.’ While Naess employed vagueness here intentionally to encourage widespread acceptance, these often enigmatic generalizations acted as a lightening rod for controversy.

Apart from the continuous emphasis on maintaining the ‘diversity’ of both human cultures and nature and the reincarnation of the ‘relational, total field image’ notion as Naess’ subtle and rich concept of ‘gestalt ontology,’ these terms neither figure in Naess’ more seasoned renditions of the significant tenets of the deep ecology movement nor his more mature descriptions of deep ecology as an ecophilosophical approach. Nevertheless, they do continue to resurface in many popular discussions and critiques of deep ecology. Most of the terms Naess introduces in the 1973 article, such as diversity, complexity, autonomy, decentralization, symbiosis, egalitarianism, and classlessness, do, however, figure prominently as key norms in his subsequent derivations of Ecosophy T (1977, 1989).

Naess’ only book length discussion of deep ecology began with a short mimeograph, Økologi og Filosfi (Ecology and Philosophy), published in 1971. The fifth revision and expansion of this initial work resulted in the 1976 classic, Økologi, Samfunn, og Livsstil (Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle), which has been translated into Swedish, English (1989), Italian, Japanese, and Czech. Perhaps the earliest intimation that deep ecology should be separated into a social movement, an ecophilosophical approach, and Ecosophy T occurs in 1986, with Naess’ article, ‘The deep ecology movement: Some philosophical aspects.’ This research paper offered an early presentation of the ‘deep ecology platform,’ which was prepared in collaboration with philosopher George Sessions in 1984.

In the late 1970s Naess’ project was taken up and popularized by the California-based team of Sessions and sociologist Bill Devall. Sessions had earlier initiated the process of popularizing deep ecology with his Ecophilosophy Newsletter, published in six volumes, intermittently from 1976 to 1984. Devall and Sessions’ collaboration culminated in the first English language, book length discussion of deep ecology (1985). Subsequently, the two deep ecology theorists worked independently. Devall published extensively on deep ecology practice (1988). Sessions continued to write on the historical foundations and theory of deep ecology, producing the most comprehensive deep ecology anthology to date (1995).

Two additional anthologies are dedicated to the exploration of deep ecology, Reed and Rothenberg (1993) focus on the Norwegian roots of deep ecology and Drengson and Inoue (1995) present an introduction to deep ecology theory and practice. Deep ecology essays and responses to critiques also figure prominently, along with ecofeminism and political ecology, in Zimmerman et al.’s leading environmental philosophy anthology (2001). In addition, Witoszek and Brennan (1999) produced one volume on deep ecology criticism, which includes dialogic responses by both Naess and his interlocutors. All of these collections, however, are necessarily highly selective. As the primary architect of deep ecology, Naess has more than 75 published articles and book chapters and more than 60 unpublished pieces to his credit. The most comprehensive selection of these articles appears in volume 10 of the 11 volume Selected Works of Arne Naess (2002) .

The most significant intellectual history of deep ecology and exhaustive effort to characterize what is ‘distinct’ about it was offered by Fox (1990). Subsequently, Glasser (1997) argued that Fox’s distilling of deep ecology into ‘Self-realization!’ results in a vitiated version of deep ecology. McLaughlin (1993) takes up a discussion of deep ecology as a response to industrialism’s role in creating and perpetuating the ecological crisis. The relationship between Naess’ earlier philosophical work and deep ecology is explored by Glasser (1996), who also mines the policy implications of deep ecology. Cramer (1998) measures the degree of influence that deep ecology principles have had on American environmental politics.

While discussions of deep ecology appear in many popular and academic journals, only the Trumpeter Journal of Ecosophy has been devoted to advancing deep ecology theory and practice. The Trumpeter was under the editorship of Alan Drengson from 1983 to 1997. Subsequently, it has continued as an on-line journal, under the editorship of Bruce Morito.

3. The Deep Ecology Movement

The deep ecology movement is an informal, global affiliation of individuals who believe that overcoming the ecological crisis will require radical changes in the way humans relate to each other and nature. Its supporters are united not by their commitment to deep ecology as an academic ecophilosophy (which they may not recognize or embrace), but by their common commitment to ultimate premises that value nature for its own sake and their general rejection of anthropocentrism. What distinguishes the deep ecology movement from deep ecology as ecophilosophy is that it embodies praxis rather than merely philosophizes about it. The intuitions of deep ecology are not articulated as professional philosophy, but as art, poetry, ritual, conservation biology, grassroots activism, simple lifestyles, bioregionalism, and ecologically sustainable design, farming, fishing, and forestry.

The movement is perhaps best characterized as the group of individuals that do (or would) endorse the eight point Deep Ecology Platform. The ‘Eight Points,’ which summarize 10 years of thinking about deep ecology, were prepared to supersede the problematic seven point (1973) characterization. The first three points outline a high-level norm for protecting the planet’s full diversity and richness of life forms— species, cultures, watersheds, landscapes, and ecosystems. Because the scale and character of human interference with the biosphere are currently excessive and thus incompatible with this norm and the thriving of human life and cultures (points 4 and 5), the next two principles outline a series of changes in practice and policy that can help bring them in line. The final point, without calling for specific actions or imposing particular priorities, urges those who embrace the prior seven points to help effect change.

The Eight Points are intended to express at a generic and abstract level the central views that supporters of the deep ecology movement hold in common. The Platform principles are not intended to characterize common views in particular situations. Since 1984, the Eight Points have been republished extensively along with detailed commentary and gained wide currency. Although they are frequently taken as the ‘heart’ of deep ecology, the eight points alone cannot effect the breadth and complexity of deep ecology as an ecophilosophical approach.

While the Platform can clearly serve as an ‘ecological pillar’ for Green politics, it has been criticized for not integrating the other three pillars. These concerns have been fueled by the sometimes inflammatory and ostensibly misanthropic statements that have been made by ‘Earth Firsters’ and others who have taken inspiration from deep ecology. While the Platform principles do not directly address social justice, grassroots democracy, and nonviolence, they are in no way inimical to them. Quite the contrary, the practical policy changes required by point six leave open immeasurable opportunities for collaboration with the peace and social justice movements. For instance, how can society characterize what constitutes a bundle of ‘vital needs’ for particular communities in particular situations (Point 3); how can society create new accounting systems that operationalize the distinction between ‘quality of life’ and ‘standard of living’ (Point 7); and how can society develop policies to support long-term population reduction through noncoercive and democratic means (Point 4).

4. Ecosophy T

Naess’ personal application of the deep ecology approach results in a normative-derivational systematization akin to that of Spinoza or Aristotle. He refers to his own deep ecological total view as Ecosophy T. Naess’ systematization is normative because it calls for a particular set of prescriptive premises. It is derivational by virtue of being a logical systematization, where premise-conclusion chains generate successively more specific norms (general ecological and ecopolitical principles and concrete decisions), which ‘follow’ from previously accepted premises and hypotheses.

Naess’ survey of Ecosophy T is built on a single, highly aggregated and complex ultimate norm, ‘Selfrealization!’ He likens it to ‘the universal self,’ ‘the absolute,’ and the Sanskrit atman. Naess uses a capital ‘S’ to distinguish the norm from ego-realization and an exclamation mark to identify it as an imperative. ‘Self-realization!’ is an ecocentric-ontological analogue of the pareto rule in economics. The premise is that increased realization of any individual or species rests on advancing (or at least not hindering) the realization potential of all other species and individuals. While working from a single ultimate norm enables Naess to eliminate the potential for norm conflicts, it also embodies a certain artificiality that necessitates considerable word magic.

Naess draws his support for the Deep Ecology Platform from his Ecosophy T. Other supporters of the deep ecology movement, however, need not and should not draw directly on Naess’ systematization. The Platform can be ‘derived’ from a broad variety of sometimes dissonant, ultimate norms, including those inspired by all of the world’s major religions, ecofeminism, creation myths, Leopold’s ‘Land Ethic,’ and E. O. Wilson’s ‘Biophilia Hypothesis’ to name a few. Ultimate premises are essential building blocks for developing an ecosophy, but their breadth and abstractness insure that they only serve as general guides.

5. Methodological Issues And Future Directions

Deep ecology has been criticized for being too critical of pragmatic efforts to address acute environmental problems. It has also been accused of being inherently fascist, antihumanist, anti-feminist, and against having indigenous peoples share wilderness areas with nonhumans. None of these criticisms are borne out by a sophisticated reading of the literature on deep ecology as an ecophilosophical approach. This is not to suggest that deep ecology as an ecophilosophical approach has all the answers. In inspiring many people to reconsider their value priorities and more consistently relate them to their lifestyles and everyday actions, deep ecology opens more questions than it answers. Three key issues for future research loom on the horizon. First, how can society motivate value priorities for ecological sustainability when individuals do not accept the premise that nonhumans have intrinsic value? Second, does taking a deep ecological perspective over a shallow ecological perspective actually result in better policy—policies that result in long-term protection of cultural and biological diversity, using democratic, noncoercive, and ethically unobjectionable, means. Third, how can deep ecology help to resolve conflicts in environmental decision making when they result not from pseudorational thinking, but real value conflicts.

Bibliography:

1. Cramer P F 1998 Deep Environmental Politics: The Role of Radical En ironmentalism in Crafting American Environmental Policy. Praeger, Westport, CT
2. Devall B 1988 Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology. Gibbs Smith, Salt Lake City, UT
3. Devall B, Sessions G 1985 Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Gibbs Smith, Salt Lake City, UT
4. Drengson A, Inoue Y (eds.) 1995 The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA
5. Fox W 1990 Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: De eloping New Foundations for Environmentalism. Shambhala, Boston
6. Glasser H 1996 Naess’ deep ecology approach and environmental policy. Inquiry 39: 157–87
7. Glasser H 1997 On Warwick Fox’s assessment of deep ecology. Environmental Ethics 19: 69–85
8. McLaughlin A 1993 Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology. State University of New York, Albany, NY
9. Naess A 1973 The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry 16: 95–100
10. Naess A 1986 The deep ecology movement: Some philosophical aspects. Philosophical Inquiry 8: 10–31
11. Naess A 1989 Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. [Translated and revised by Rothenberg D]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
12. Naess A 2002 Selected Papers: Deep Ecology, Vol. X of the selected works of Arne Naess
13. Reed P, Rothenberg D (eds.) 1993 Wisdom and the Open Air: The Norwegian Roots of Deep Ecology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN
14. Sessions G (ed.) 1995 Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Shambhala, Boston
15. Witoszek N, Brennan A (eds.) 1999 Philosophical Dialogues: Arne Naess and the Progress of Ecophilosophy. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD
16. Zimmerman M E, Callicott J B, Sessions G, Warren K J, Clark J (eds.) 2001 Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ