210 CHAPTER 10
to the most important distinction within the green movement; that is, the divide between what Arne Naess (see p. 222) termed ‘ shallow ecology ’ and ‘ deep ecology ’. The ‘shallow’ or ‘humanist’ perspective accepts the lessons of ecology but uses them
essentially to further human needs and ends. In other words, it preaches that if we conserve and cherish the natural world, it will continue to sustain human life. This amounts to a form of ‘light’ or ‘enlightened’ anthropocentrism, and is reflected in a concern with issues such as cutting back on the use of finite, non-renewable resources and reducing pollution. While some regard such a stance as a form of ‘weak’ ecologism, others classify it as environmentalism to distinguish it more clearly from ecologism. The ‘deep’ perspective, however, advances a form of ‘strong’ ecologism that dismisses any lingering belief that the human species is in some way superior to, or more important than, any other species, or indeed nature itself. It is based on the more challenging idea that the purpose of human life is to help sustain nature, and not the other way around. (Deep ecology is discussed in greater detail later in the chapter.)
Shallow ecology: A green ideological perspective that harnesses the lessons of ecology to human needs and ends, and is associated with values such as sustainability and conservation. Deep ecology: A green ideological perspective that rejects anthropocentrism and gives priority to the maintenance of nature, and is associated with values such as biocentric equality, diversity and decentralization.
PERSPECTIVES ON . . . NATURE LIBERALS see nature as a resource to satisfy human needs, and thus rarely question human dominion over it. Lacking value in itself, nature is invested with value only when it is transformed by human labour, or when it is harnessed to human ends. CONSERVATIVES often portray nature as threatening, even cruel, characterized by an amoral struggle and harshness that also shapes human existence. Humans may be seen as part of nature within a ‘great chain of being’, their superiority nevertheless being enshrined in their status as custodians of nature. SOCIALISTS, like liberals, have viewed and treated nature as merely a resource. However, a romantic or pastoral tradition within socialism has also extolled the beauty, harmony and richness of nature, and looks to human fulfilment through a closeness to nature. ANARCHISTS have often embraced a view of nature that stresses unregulated harmony and growth. Nature therefore offers a model of simplicity and balance, which humans would be wise to apply to social organization in the form of social ecology. FASCISTS have often adopted a dark and mystical view of nature that stresses the power of instinct and primal life forces, nature being able to purge humans of their decadent intellectualism. Nature is characterized by brutal struggle and cyclical regeneration. FEMINISTS, notably ecofeminists, tend to view nature as creative and benign, qualities that they tend to share with women generally. In this view, the quest to counteract male domination should therefore see women aligning themselves – ‘female nature’, patriarchy and the environmental crisis being linked. ECOLOGISTS, particularly deep ecologists, regard nature as an interconnected whole, embracing humans and non-humans as well as the inanimate world. Nature is sometimes seen as a source of knowledge and ‘right living’, human fulfilment coming from a closeness to and respect for nature, not from the attempt to dominate it.
Powered by FlippingBook