ecology, deep_international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences

8/13/2019 Ecology, Deep_International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences

1/6

rold GlasserInternational Encyclopedia of theSocial n Behavioral Sciences

Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Bates,Editors-in-Chief

Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001Volume 6, pp 4041-4045.

Ecology, DeepThe term deep ecology was introduced by Norwegianphilosopher and mountaineer Arne Naess 1912-) in1972 at t he T hi rd W orl d Future Research Conferencein Bucharest. After a distinguished academic career.Naess chose early retirement to focus his expertise onaddressing the global ecolo2:ical crisis. Naess coinedthe dee p ec ology ;nd shallow ecology tojuxtapose what he regarded as two radically differentap pr oac he s for p ro bl em at iz in g Problematisierenand responding to the ecological crisis Naess 1973).Deep ecology posits that along with humans specialcapacities for reason and moral consciousness comeequally special responsibilities, particularly in relationto the flourishing of nonhuman life and the ecologicalsustainability the planet. In the years since ~ t r o

Ecology, Deepducing the term, Naess a nd other supporters of thedeep ecology m ov em en t have wr it ten extensively,elaborating and popularizing the term in variousdirections. Considerable controversy and confusionhas en su ed, in part because deep ecology calls for aradical rethinking of our rel at ionshi p t o each othera nd n atu re, because provocative terminology an dp hi lo so ph ic al vagueness have been employed, a ndb ecau se deep ecology has un fo ld ed ov er time, withsubstantial emendation. As a result, deep ecology hascome to mean m an y things to m an y people. Regrettably, the term is n ow oft en used w it ho ut discrimination to refer to three distinct entities: a) theparticular ecophilosophical approach a dvance d byNaess and other theoreticians of the deep ecologymo ve me nt; b) the in ter na tio naL g rass roots, oftenactivist o riented deep ecology movement; an d cNaess personal systematization of a philosophy ofecological harmony, Ecosophy After introducingdeep ec ol ogy as a uni que approach to ecophilosophy,the evolution of deep ecology will be reviewed and theremaining two entities will be briefly considered. Deep Ecology as EcophilosophyT he purpose of deep ecology as an ecophilosophicalapproach is to assist individuals in the process ofweaving descriptive and prescriptive premises aboutthe world. ecological science, and their ultimate beliefsinto a cohesive framework for guiding decisionsinvolving society and nature---ecologically inspiredt ot al views or ecosophies. This focus on praxis responsibility and action) separates the deep ecologyapproach from more descriptive inquiriesinto environmental philosophy that focus on axiological questions, such as extending rights to certainnonhumans or grading intrinsic value. The o nto ogically inspired deep ecology approach emphasizeseliminating the perception of fundamental peopleenvironment and spiritual/physical cleavages. Its primary strategy for overcoming the ecological crisis is tohelp individuals avoid pseudorational thinking.Naess argues that many regrettable environmentaldec isions a re m ade i n a sta te of philosophicalstupor:where narrow con cer ns a re conf us ed with, an d th ensubstituted for, more fundamental ones. In proposingthe deep shallow contrast, Naess applies his researchon empirical semantics, philosophy of science, Spino za, th e i nq ui rin g skepticis m of Sextus Empiricus,and Gandhi on nonviolent communication. His technical semantic distinction is directed at the individual slevel of problematizing the extent to which they canand do coherently and consistently trace their views,practices. and actions back to their ultimate beliefs orbedrock assumptions.In relating this notion of persistently asking deeperquestions to the ecological crisis, Naess broadens hisconcept of ,depth. In the context of deep ecology as ane co ph il os op hi ca l a pp ro ac h, d ep th refers to b ot h th e

4041


2/6

Eco ogr. Deepgeneral level of pr oblematizing on e employs in seekingou t the underlying, coevolving causes of the ecologicalcrisis an d the extent of one s willingness to consider abroad array of social an d policy responses. even if theynecessitate changes that represent a radical departurefrom the status quo.The shallow, currently more influential. approachis identified with treating the symptoms of environmental degradation. such as p ol lu ti on an d resourcedepletion. Its central concern is t he h ealt h an d prosperity of people in the economically privilegedcountries. This reform-oriented approach is groundedno t in ultimate premises that p lu mb t he relationshipbetween humans and nature. but in technologicaloptimism. economic progress, an d scientific management. A core premise is that all environmentalproblems are manageable-nature is a puzzle to bedeciphered byhuman ingenuityan d manipulated. albeitmore efficiently. for human benefit. From this perspective remedy for environmental problems is limitedto economic. technological, and managerial reforms.This effort to paUiate human i mp acts r at her t hanp ro be a nd address their underlying causes , favors asearch for technical solutions to what aremore likelyethical. sociaL and political problems. By truncatingthe realm of problematizing. the shallow approach.perhaps inadvertently, prunes th e set of c011ceivablesocial changes to a narrow incrementalism.The deep approach. as the other hand while in no\vay discounting the exigency of addressing pollutionan d resource depletion. adopts a broader. long-term.more skeptical stance. Doubtful about technologicaloptimism. critical of limitless economic growth an ddecidedly against valuing nature in purely instrumenta l terms, it asks if the shallow approach sproposed solutions t ak e i nt o con si derati on the pervasiveness an d severity of t he p ro bl ems they hope torectify. Drawing on a wide diversi ty of philosophicalor religious ultimate premises, which acknowledgethat every living being has value in itself, the deepapproach sees the flourishing of nature an d culture asfundamentally intertwined. Nature is viewed asmentor. standard, an d partner rather than vassal. Akey premise is t ha t e nv ir on me nt al m an ag em en t ismuch more about managing the h ab it s and desires ofhumans than man ag in g n at ur e. R emed y for environmental problems is sought by identifying an d responding to the complex roof causes of the ecologicalcrisis, dedicating special attention t o p ro tect in g thewild an d free from thoUQ:htless human interference.Taking less for granted, deep approach calls for thepublic questioning of every practice, assumption andvalue that propels the ecological crisis.By juxtaposing these two, almost caricatured perspectives, Naess employs a technique of Gandhiannonviolent communication designed to confront coredisagreements. Th e premise is that society s potentialto overcome the ecological crisis rests on maneuveringdiscussion to its root causes. On e of t he p ri ma ry r oo t4 4

causes. Naess asserts. is the widespread disjunctionbetween people s core beliefs an d actions. People, ingeneraL neither comprehend how their practices an devervdav.lifestvle choices harm the environment. no rrecogniie hO\\ these consequences ma y be in directconflict with their core beliefs-this is the primaryweakness of the shallow approach. A crucial. underlying hypothesis of the deep approach is that teasingou t the presumed inconsistencies between anindividual s actions an d their fundamental beliefs willeffect constructive change instead of generating moreserious ancillary conflict.

Rather than simply calling for a ne , environmentalethic or a change in fundamental values. Naessapproach to ecophilosophy centers o n t ransfo rmin gpractice an d policy by chal lenging individuals todevelop more thoroughly reasoned. consistent an decologically inspired total views. Some will take issuewith the core premise underlying this goaL namelythat thoroughly reasoned an d consistent positions dogenerally lead to improved policies an d actions. Thereare. however. important indirect procedural benefitsthat ca n result from attempting to couple reason an dvalues in decision making.In an y case. Naess intended his distinction betweenthe shallow an d deep approaches to environmentalismto be restricted to argumentation patterns an d thediversity of policy and lifestyle changes that are givenconsideration. Th e distinction was never intended toshed light on the depth of particular individuals orthe ir values. Nevertheless. as an expert in semanticsan d communication theory. Naess cannot he exonerated for failing to anticipate the unfortunate derogatory connotations of his terminology.

2. The Uni olding oi Deep EcologyNaess 1973 inaugural article. The Sha (}\1 ([nd heDeep. Long- nge ECO Ogl oU l71en : A Summor .gave both an appellation an d a rudimentary philosophical framework to a m ov em en t t ha t had beennascent for well over a century. Deep ecology as botha liberatory social movement an d an ecophilosophicalap pr oach d raws on at least five roots: (a) the nonanthropocentrism an d reverence for wildness givenvoice by Henry David Thoreau. John M ui r. and JohnStuart Mill; (b) the ecological perspective gleanedfrom a scientific understanding of humans role increating environmental degradation art iculated byGeorge Perkins M ar sh AI da L eo po ld . RachaelCarson and Paul Ehrlich: (c) the ecocentric vision an dsocial criticism brought to life by th e writing an dactivism of Paul Shepard Gary Snyder, EdwardAbbey a nd D av e Brower; (d) the beliefin the ultimateunity of all life, communicated through the nonviolentconflict resolution work of Gandhi; an d (e) the call fo rindividuals to be conscious of their value priorities an dto counteract passivity an d despair by actively making


3/6

them manifes t in their daily life, explicated in thephilosophical systematization of Spinoza.

Naess brief initial article, along with establishingthe deep/shallow contrast outlined a seven-pointsurvey, which was intended to summarize the sharednorms an d perspectives of the deep ecology movement.This survey introduced terms an d s logans, such asrejection of the human-in-environment image in favorof the relat ionaL total field image, biosphericalegalitarianism-in principle. an d complexity, no tcomplication. While Naess employed vagueness hereintentionally to encourage widespread acceptance.these often enigmatic generalizations acted as a lightening ro d for controversy.

Apart from the continuous emphasis on maintaining th e diversity of both human cultures an d naturean d t he r ei nc ar na ti on of the relat ionaL total fieldimage notion as Naess subtle an d rich concept ofgestalt ontology. these terms neither figure in Naessmore seasoned renditions of the significant tenets ofthe deep ecology movement no r his more maturedescriptions of deep ecology as an ecophilosophicalapproach. Nevertheless. they do continue to resurfacein m an y p op ul ar discussions an d critiques of deepecology. Most of the terms Naess introduces in the1973 article, such as diversity, complexity. autonomy.decentralization, symbiosis. egalitarianism. and classlessness. do. however. figure prominently as key normsin his subsequent derivations of Ecosophy T (J 977.1989).

Naess only book length discussion of deep ecologybegan with a short mimeograph 0ko ogi og Fi m/iEco ogy and Phi o,l o Jhr), published in 1971. Th e fifthrevision an d expansion of this initial work resulted inthe 1976 classic, @ko ogi, Sumjill l7 og LiD sri (Ecology, Community an d Lifestyle), which has beentranslated into Swedish. English (1989). Italian. Japanese, an d Czech. Perhaps the earliest intimation thatdeep ecology should be separated into a social movement, an ecophilosophical approach. an d Ecosophy Toccurs in 1986. with Naess article. T he deep ecologymovement: Some philosophical aspects. This articleoffered an early presentation of the deep ecologyplatform: which was prepared in collaboration withphilosopher George Sessions in 1984.In th e late 1970s Naess project was taken up an dpopularized by the California-based team of Sessionsan d sociologist Bill Devall . Sessions ha d earlierinitiated the process of popularizing deep ecology withhis Ecophilosophy News etrer. published in sixvolumes, intermittently from 1976 to 1984. Devall an dSessions collaboration culminated in th e first Englishlanguage, book length discussion of deep ecology(1985). Subsequently, th e two deep ecology theoristsworked independently. Devall published extensivelyon deep ecology practice (1988), Sessions continued towrite on th e historical foundations and theory of deepecology, producing the most comprehensive deepecology anthology to date (1995).

Ecology, DeepT wo a dd it io na l anthologies are dedicated to the

exploration of deep ecology, Reed a nd R ot he nb erg(1993) focus on the Norwegian roots of deep ecologyan d Drengson an d Inoue (1995) present an introdu cti on t o deep ecology theory an d practice. Deepecology essays an d responses to critiques also figureprominently al on g wi th ecofeminism an d politicalecology. in Zimmerman et al.s leading environmentalphilosophy anthology (2001). In addit ion, Witoszekan d Brennan (1999) produced one volume on deepecology criticism. which includes dialogic responses byboth Naess an d his interlocutors. All of these collections, however. are necessarily highly selective. As theprimary architect of deep ecology, Naess has morethan 75 published articles an d book chaptersan d m ore t ha n 60 unpublished pieces to his credit.Th e most comprehensive selection of these articlesappears in volume of the volume SelectedWorks Arne Naess (2002) .

The most significant intellectual history of deepecology an d exhaustive effort to characterize what isdistinct about it was otfered by Fo x (1990). Subsequently. Glasser (1997) argued t ha t F ox s distilling ofdeep ecology into Self-realization results in a vitiatedversion of deep ecology. McLaughlin (1993) takes upa discussion of deep ecology as a response to industrialism s role in creating an d perpetuating the ecological crisis. Th e relationship between Naess earlierphilosophical work and deep ecology is explored byGlasser (1996), who also mines the policy implicationsof deep ecology. Cramer (1998) measures the degree ofinfluence that deep ecology principles have ha d onAmerican environmental politics.While discussions of deep ecology appear in manyp op ul ar a nd academic journals. only the TrumpeterJourna oj Ecosophy has been devoted to advancingdeep ecology theory an d practice. The Trumpeter wasunder the editorship of A la n D re ngson f rom 1983 to1997. Subsequently it has continued as an on-linej o urn aL u nd er the editorship of Bruce Morito.

3. The Deep Ecology j\;Iol ementTh e deep ecology movement is an informal. globalaffiliation of individuals who believe that overcomingthe ecological crisis will require radical changes in theway humans relate to each other and nature. Itssupporters are united no t by their commitment to deepeco logy as an academic ecophilosophy (which theymav no t recognize or embrace), bu t bv their commoncorl 1mitment to ultimate premises that ~ l u nature forits ow n sake an d their general rejection of anthropocentrism. What distinguishes the deep ecology movem en t f ro m deep ecology as ecophilosophy is that itembodies praxis rather than merely philosophizesabout it. Th e intuitions of deep ecology are no tarticulated as professional philosophy, bu t as artpoetry ritual. conservation biology, grassroots acti-

4043


4/6

Eco ogl. Deepvism. simple lifestyles. bioregionalism. and ecologically sustainable design. farming. fishing. andforestn,

The movement is perhaps best characterized as thegroup of indIviduals that do (or would) endorse theeight point Deep Ecology Platform. The 'EightPoints.' \\hich summarize 10 years of thinking aboutdeep ecology. were prepared to supersede tbe problematic seven point (1973) characterization, The firstthree points outline a high-level norm for protecting theplanet's full diversity and richness of life formsspecies. cultures. watersheds. landscapes. and ecosystems. Because the scale and character of humaninterference with the biosphere are currently excessiveand thus incompatible with this norm and the thriv ingof human life and cultures (points 4 and 5). the next\\ principles outline a series of changes in practiceand policy that can help bring them l line. The finalpoin\. \ ,i tbout calling for specific actions or imposingparticular priorities, urges those who embrace theprior seven points to help effect change.

The Eight Points are intended to express at a genericand


5/6

term protection of cultural and biological diversity,using democratic, noncoercive, and ethically unobjectionable, means. Third, how can deep ecology helpto resolve conflicts in environmental decision makingwhen they result no t from pseudorational thinking,bu t real value conflicts.

See also: Environmental and Resource Management;Environmental Cognition. Perception, and Attitudes;Environmental Conservation: E thi ca l Co nc er ns:Human-Environment Relationships; Nature, Concepts of: Environmental and Ecological Social Movements: Environmental Movements

BibliographyCramer P F 1998 Di i p Encironll1i nlal Polilics: Thi Role o f

Radical El1cirollmellla ism ill em/lillg Ami rican EI1l ironl17enIaPolit .\ . Praeger. Westport, CT

Devall 1988 Simp i ill , vlealls. Rich ill Ends: Praclicing DeepEco ogr. Gibbs Smith. Sal t Lake City. UT

Devall B. Sessions G 1985 Deep Eco ogr LiI ing as if Nillurc, v/allered. Gibbs S mi th . S al t L ak e C it y. UT

Drengson A.Inoue Y eds .) llJ95 The Di ep Ecologr J oci mi lIl:All IlIlwi/l/clOrr Alllho og.r. North Atlantic Books. Berkeley,CA

Fox W 1990 Toward a Trallspersona Eco ogy: Dae oping .Vi llFOllndiil ions .fin El1cirrJIlmcn/(l isl11. Shambhala. Boston

Glasser 1996 Naess deep ecology appro,lch ,lnd environmenwl policy. Im lIir 39: 15787

G la ss er H 1997 On Warwick Fox s assessment of deep ecology.EI11 irol1mcnlal Ei/ncs 19: 09-85

McLaughlin A 1993 Rcgarding Nalllrc: Industrialism and DeepEco ogr. Slate University of New York. Albany, NY

Naess A 1973 The shallow and t he d eep. long-range ecologym ov em en t. A summary. Il1quirr 16: 95-100

N aess A 1986 The deep ecology movement: Some philosophicalaspects. Phi osophical Inquin 8: 10-31

N ae ss A 1989 Eco ogr. Commllnitr, and Lifestylc OUlfinc o/anEcosophy. [Translated and revised by Rothenberg DJ.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

N ae ss A 2002 Se le cte d Papers: Deep Ecology. Vol. X of theselected works of Arne Naess

Reed P. Rothenberg D eds .) 1993 Wisdom ilndthe Open Air: TheNonl cgian Roois oj Deep Ecologr. University of MinnesotaPress. Minneapolis. MN

Sessions G ed.) 1995 Deep Ecology/or Ihe T\I cntr-First CClllurl .Shambhala. Boston

Witoszek N. Brennan A eds.) 1999 Philosophical Dialogucs:Arne Naess and the Progrcss Ecophilosophv. Rowman andLittlefield. Lanham. MD

Zimmerman M E. Callicott J B, Sessions G. Warren K J, ClarkJ eds.) 2001 Enrirol1l11el1tal Philosophy: From Allimal Rights 1Radical Eco ogy. 3 rd edn . P rent ice-Hall , Englewood Cliffs,NJ

H Glasser

Ecolour 0+ Auing0 ecology gingThe ecology of aging basically draws upon the ideathat old age is a period of adult development profoundly influenced by the environment. Becauseage-related losses in vision, hearing, mobility, and cognitive capacity h av e a d irec t i mp ac t o n t he rel at io ns hi pb et we en t he orQ:anism and the environment. theolder person sh C>uld be par ti cul ar ly vulnerable toenvironmental demands. In other words, this researchparadigm views contextual f act or s as being cr uci aldeterminants of everyday behavior and life satisfaction. According to Lawton and Nahemow 1973.p. 621), t he e co lo gy of aging is defined as a system ofcontinual adaptation in which both the organism andthe environment change o ve r ti me in a non randommanner. Within this adaptational system. the ecologyof-aging paradigm emphasizes the role of the pln sicaland spatial environment on b eh av io r. T hu s. h ou si ngr ese ar ch Ag in g in P la ce ) maybe regarded as mostt yp ic al for t he e co lo gi ca l approach to aging.

Del elopmcJ1t ol the FieldSince aging has long been regarded as a process mostlydetermined by a biolog ical program inherent in theorganism, the explicit consideration of environmentalvariables which affect the course and outcome ofhuman a gi ng w as an important step in the historicaldevelopment of gerontology. This paradigm shift wasgreatly influenced by:

a)The growing role of the social science perspectivewithin Q:erontoloQ:v w hi ch b eg an in t he l at e fortie s andset t h e ~ stage f o ~ the m r ~ i n field of social ger- - ....


6/6

ILI

InternationalEncyclopedia the SocialBehavioral Sciences

Editors in ChiefNeil SmelserCenter fo r dvancedStudy in the Behavioral Sciences Stanford C USPaul B Baltes

Max Planck Institute for Hunwn Development Berlin Cermanv

Volume

2 1ELSEVIER

MSTERD M P RIS NEW YORK OXFORD SH NNON SING PORETOKYO

~. . . . ..

ecology, deep_international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences

Documents