.
Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)
1. Title
Deep Ecology: A Critical Introduction
2. Keywords
Anthropocentrism, Deep Ecology, environmentalism, intrinsic value, Shallow Ecology.
3. Introduction
There is no single, unambiguous, universally-agreed definition of environmentalism (or cognate terms such as environmental and environmentalist). However, for the purposes of this Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR), environmentalism can be understood as referring to texts (in various media) and actions (undertaken by individuals or groups) of a broadly political nature that are – or are claimed to be – concerned in some way with conserving, improving, preserving, protecting or saving the ‘environment’. Of course, just as there are competing definitions of environmentalism, so there is also disagreement as to what constitutes the ‘environment’ - as well as what it means to conserve, improve, preserve, protect or save it - and, of course, the reasons advanced in support of such proposals and activity. Thus, what is called ‘environmentalism’ can actually be seen as a collection of many different environmentalisms; each with its own characteristic set of assumptions about the nature and cause of environmental ‘problems’, and the most appropriate response to those problems. (It should also be noted that some of these environmentalisms are themselves subject to further internal fragmentation.) This interpretation of ‘environmentalism’ is deliberately all-embracing, so that it includes, for example, activity associated with governmental / political organisations (including those not generally seen as being ‘green’) and business organisations (including those accused of causing the greatest environmental damage) – as well as the more obvious activity of environmental pressure groups. Consequently, whilst some of these environmentalisms can be seen as variations on a theme, others appear to stand in more or less direct opposition to one another.
One of these environmentalisms is Deep Ecology, which Clare Palmer describes as follows:
“Deep ecology was a term first used in print by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1973. Naess argued that the environmental movement had two key strands, which he called the “shallow” and the “deep”. The shallow movement, he maintained, was primarily concerned with human welfare and with issues such as the exhaustion of natural resources. In contrast, the deep environmental movement (with which Naess identified himself) was concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the ways in which humans relate to their environment. In particular, deep ecology incorporated insights from modern physics and ecology into human understanding of the natural world. Much Western philosophy, Naess argued, relies on an outdated view of the world, in which humans are believed to be separate from one another and from the natural world. … The new science, [Naess] maintained, understands humans not as isolated, separate objects but rather as interconnected with each other and constantly in relationship with everything around them - part of the flow of energy, the web of life. From this perspective, the first priority in analyzing environmental issues must be transforming one’s fundamental way of looking at the world, to develop what Naess calls a more “holistic” outlook.
Though deep ecology has developed and taken many forms since 1973, this plea for a profound change in the way many westerners think about the world is still at its heart. Not surprisingly, deep ecologists argue that such a change in worldview entails a corresponding change in values and ultimately a change in our environmental ethic.”(1)
David Pepper describes the value position associated with Deep Ecology in the following terms: “The view of what a green society should be like stems from a firm belief in bioethics and nature’s intrinsic value.” Thus, according to Pepper, Deep Ecologists “oppose anthropocentrism, defined as (a) seeing human values as the source of all value, and (b) wanting to manipulate, exploit and destroy nature to satisfy human material desires.”(2)
Deep Ecology can be considered an important feature of contemporary environmentalism for a number of reasons. For example, the terms “deep” and its complement “shallow” are frequently used – by advocates of Deep Ecology and others – as a means of classifying the many different forms of environmentalism; whilst Deep Ecology itself has been adopted as a philosophy and basis for action by certain pressure groups (eg Earth First!) and by some of the more radical members of political parties (eg the UK Green Party).
4. Aim
The aim of this TLR is to provide students with a introduction to Deep Ecology, one of the most important stands in contemporary environmentalism. More specifically, it invites them to think critically about the principles and social implications of Deep Ecology. It is based around a close reading of an extract from one of the seminal Deep Ecology texts; and analysis - from a Deep Ecological perspective - of texts produced by a range of governmental, political, non-governmental and business organisations.
5. Learning outcomes
After using this TLR, students should:
6. Pre-requisites
It would be helpful if students had at least an elementary knowledge of environmental ethics and/or values. Where they do not have this knowledge, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:
It would also be helpful if students were familiar with the idea that knowledge (including values-based knowledge and scientific knowledge) is socially constructed, and that the production of knowledge can be viewed as a process of making ‘knowledge claims’. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:
7. How to use TLR
The TLR has been designed to be used with a class of up to about 20 students broadly as follows.
Stage 1
i) Introduce the TLR, reviewing the nature of the content, the aims and learning outcomes, and the way in which the TLR will be used.
ii) Conduct an all-class discussion focusing on the key points to have be emerged from the students’ preparatory work (see Section 12 – Preparation).
iii) Divide the class into groups of 4-5 students, and give each student a copy of Handout 2 (see Appendix B). Instruct each group member to:
Parts (i) and (ii) and the issuing of instructions for part (iii) would require about 60 minutes of class time. Part (iii) would need to be completed during private study.
Stage 2
i) Instruct the students - working in groups - to present a brief summary to their fellow group members of their answers to the study questions concerning their chosen organisation/text.
ii) Conduct an all-class discussion focusing on the key points to have emerged from the group work. This might lead on to a more general discussion of criticisms that have been made of Deep Ecology (3), including charges that:
Stage 2 would require about 90 minutes of class time.
8. Instructions to students
As directed by tutor.
9. Stimulus Material
This TLR is based around the following reading:
Note: If this reading cannot be obtained, an abridged extract from the same publication can be found in the following:
10. Degree stage
This TLR has been designed to be used a degree stage three – but could be used at degree stage two provided that the students satisfied the pre-requisites (see Section 6).
11. Resource requirements
Students should have reasonable access to the internet.
12. Preparation
The students should be given a copy of the Reading (see Section 9 - Stimulus Material) and Handout 1(see Appendix A); and instructed to read the Introduction and Reading, and answer the Study Questions, prior to this exercise. They should also be given a brief introduction to the TLR at this stage.
13. Links with other TLRs
This TLR has been designed as part of a set of TLRs to be used (ideally) in the following order:
However, it can be used independently of TLRs (1) to (3) provided that students satisfy the pre-requisites as specified in Section 6, and does not need to be followed by TLRs (5) to (7) in order for the learning outcomes to be achieved (see Section 5).
14. Follow-up activities
See Section 15 - Recommended reading and Section 13 - Links with other TLRs.
15. Recommended reading
For students who wish to deepen their knowledge of the ideas encountered in this TLR, the following texts are recommended:
A considerable amount of information relating to Deep Ecology can now be found on the internet. Resources available at the time of writing this TLR include:
http://www.deep-ecology.org/home.html
Website of the Institute of Deep Ecology
http://forests.org/ric/Deep-Eco/biblio.htm
Bibliography compiled by the Institute of Deep Ecology
http://abacus.bates.edu/~jrounds/deep.html
“A collection of links and some thoughts” relating to Deep
Ecology
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~jdingler/deepeco.html
Comprehensive bibliography relating to Deep Ecology / radical
environmentalism.
http://environment.tqn.com/library/weekly/bldeep.htm
“A set of links to articles and sites dealing with Deep Ecology”
(1) Environmental Ethics (Oxford: ABC-Clio, 1997), pp. 15-16.
(2) Modern Environmentalism. An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 17-19.
(3) These criticisms are derived in part from David Pepper’s Modern Environmentalism. An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 28-31. The purpose of putting them to the students is not to persuade them that Deep Ecology is somehow ‘wrong’, but to encourage them to begin to develop an informed and critical understanding of Deep Ecology. The extent to which students are able to pursue this critique of Deep Ecology will depend upon the degree to which they have already developed philosophically- and sociologically-informed critical thinking skills.
(4) Devall, W and Sessions, G (1985) Deep Ecology. Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books. Chapter 5, Deep Ecology. (pp. 63-77)
Introduction
There is no single, unambiguous, universally-agreed definition of environmentalism (or cognate terms such as environmental and environmentalist). However, for the purposes of this Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR), environmentalism can be understood as referring to texts (in various media) and actions (undertaken by individuals or groups) of a broadly political nature that are – or are claimed to be – concerned in some way with conserving, improving, preserving, protecting or saving the ‘environment’. Of course, just as there are competing definitions of environmentalism, so there is also disagreement as to what constitutes the ‘environment’ - as well as what it means to conserve, improve, preserve, protect or save it - and, of course, the reasons advanced in support of such proposals and activity. Thus, what is called ‘environmentalism’ can actually be seen as a collection of many different environmentalisms; each with its own characteristic set of assumptions about the nature and cause of environmental ‘problems’, and the most appropriate response to those problems. (It should also be noted that some of these environmentalisms are themselves subject to further internal fragmentation.) This interpretation of ‘environmentalism’ is deliberately all-embracing, so that it includes, for example, activity associated with governmental / political organisations (including those not generally seen as being ‘green’) and business organisations (including those accused of causing the greatest environmental damage) – as well as the more obvious activity of environmental pressure groups. Consequently, whilst some of these environmentalisms can be seen as variations on a theme, others appear to stand in more or less direct opposition to one another.
One of these environmentalisms is Deep Ecology, which Clare Palmer describes as follows:
“Deep ecology was a term first used in print by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1973. Naess argued that the environmental movement had two key strands, which he called the “shallow” and the “deep”. The shallow movement, he maintained, was primarily concerned with human welfare and with issues such as the exhaustion of natural resources. In contrast, the deep environmental movement (with which Naess identified himself) was concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the ways in which humans relate to their environment. In particular, deep ecology incorporated insights from modern physics and ecology into human understanding of the natural world. Much Western philosophy, Naess argued, relies on an outdated view of the world, in which humans are believed to be separate from one another and from the natural world. … The new science, [Naess] maintained, understands humans not as isolated, separate objects but rather as interconnected with each other and constantly in relationship with everything around them - part of the flow of energy, the web of life. From this perspective, the first priority in analyzing environmental issues must be transforming one’s fundamental way of looking at the world, to develop what Naess calls a more “holistic” outlook.
Though deep ecology has developed and taken many forms since 1973, this plea for a profound change in the way many westerners think about the world is still at its heart. Not surprisingly, deep ecologists argue that such a change in worldview entails a corresponding change in values and ultimately a change in our environmental ethic.”(1)
David Pepper describes the value position associated with Deep Ecology in the following terms: “The view of what a green society should be like stems from a firm belief in bioethics and nature’s intrinsic value.” Thus, according to Pepper, Deep Ecologists “oppose anthropocentrism, defined as (a) seeing human values as the source of all value, and (b) wanting to manipulate, exploit and destroy nature to satisfy human material desires.”(2)
Deep Ecology can be considered an important feature of contemporary environmental for a number of reasons. For example, the terms “deep” and its complement “shallow” are frequently used – by advocates of Deep Ecology and others – as a means of classifying the many different forms of environmentalism; whilst Deep Ecology itself has been adopted as a philosophy and basis for action by certain pressure groups (eg Earth First!) and by some of the more radical members of political parties (eg the UK Green Party).
(1) Environmental Ethics (Oxford: ABC-Clio, 1997), pp. 15-16.
(2) Modern Environmentalism. An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 17-19.
Study Questions
Read the following text and answer the questions below.
Devall, W and Sessions, G (1985) Deep Ecology. Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books. Chapter 5, Deep Ecology. (pp. 63-77)
1. Referring to the “two ultimate norms or intuitions” of Deep Ecology (self-realization and biocentric equality), Devall and Sessions state: “They cannot be validated, of course, by the methodology of modern science based on its usual mechanistic assumptions and its very narrow definition of data.” (p66) Why, then, do you think Deep Ecologists might accept them as a basis for their worldview? How convincing do you find these reasons?
2. In their account of self-realization (pp. 66-67) Devall and Sessions suggest that the “self” of someone living in a society based on the principles Deep Ecology is somehow more “real” that that of someone living in contemporary Western society. This implies that people have some kind of fixed, intrinsic or natural self that Deep Ecology would allow to unfold, but which is somehow thwarted or perverted in contemporary Western society. What reasons do you think a Deep Ecologist might advance in support of such a view of the self - as opposed to the view that the Deep Ecological self is no more or less real than any other kind of self? How convincing do you find these reasons?
3. In their account of biocentric equality (pp. 67-69) Devall and Sessions state that “all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom”. They then concede that this is “true in principle, although in the process of living, all species use each other as food, shelter, etc.” How do you think a Deep Ecologist might defend this apparent contradiction against the charge that it is meaningless to say that something has a right in principle if that right does actually count for anything in practice? How convincing do you find these reasons?
4. To what extent are you own attitudes towards, and interactions with, the environment consistent with the principles of Deep Ecology? Give examples drawn from your own life to support your answer.
5. To what extent do you think it is (a) possible and (b) desirable to live according to principles of Deep Ecology within the context of contemporary western society?
Instructions
For this activity, you will be divided into groups of 4-5 students. You will then be asked to:
1. Select an organisation that is in some way actively involved in environmental politics or activism. This could be a governmental body, political party, pressure group or business organisation. (Each group member should select a different organisation. See below for a list of possible organisations and their website URLs.)
2. Obtain a copy of an ‘environmentalist’ text produced by your chosen organisation. This might be, for example, a mission statement, statement of aims and objectives, policy document, campaign leaflet, or description of activities. Ideally, your text should be not more than 10 pages in length to ensure that it is of a manageable length for analysis. (Note that many organisations now make such documents available on their websites.)
3. Answer a set of study questions (see below) in relation to your chosen organisation/text.
4. Discuss your work with fellow group members and the class as a whole during a subsequent lecture, seminar, workshop, etc.
Study Questions
1. What criticisms could be made – from the perspective of Deep Ecology – of the views outlined in your text?
2. What criticisms could be made – from the perspective of Deep Ecology – of the organisation more generally? (In order to answer this question, you will need to know something about the nature, purpose, activities etc of your chosen organisation.)
3. To what extent could the text be made more consistent with the principles of Deep Ecology?
4. To what extent do you think it would be (a) possible and (b) desirable for your organisation to act in accordance with the principles of Deep Ecology?
Organisations
You are free to choose your own organisation (provided that it is in some way involved in environmental politics or activism, and has produced an appropriate ‘environmentalist’ text). Alternatively, you may select one from the list given below.