[pf] "A fundamental dilemma facing activists" by David Orton.

At 22:13 19/8/2000 +1200, I (David Mac) wrote to GreenViews-NZ, with
Subject: Introduction to deep ecology :-
>· This is a contribution to the philosophical side of being green - 
>deep ecology's lowering of the status of humans to "just another species"
>—that shouldn't have an effect on the other species greater than the 
>typical effect of a wideranging species on the others—resonates with me. 
 ... [and the main body was David Orton's "Introduction to deep ecology",
part of a talk given to the Green Party of Canada convention on August 6th.]

· The second article below by David Orton <greenweb@fox.nstn.ca> contains:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 - [begin excerpt]

  ... the dilemma we all face about whether or not we believe industrial
capitalism is here to stay and we must work with it, or we must oppose it
even if there is not yet any viable alternative. 
     Rudolf Bahro, a founding member of the West German 'Die Gruenen', in
1980 was elected to the Federal Executive. For him, green politics was
about capturing people's consciousness, not accumulating votes. By 1985 he
had resigned from the Party. His resignation statement noted how the Greens
did not want to get out of the industrial system: "Instead of spreading
consciousness they are obscuring it all along the line." 
     For Bahro, industrialized nations needed to reduce their impact upon
the Earth to one tenth of what it was. "Development" was finished. 
     Within the environmental movement, the resolution of this dilemma can
result in two different paths: managerial, or radical environmentalism.
Reforms that shore up industrial capitalist society, or reforms that
subvert this society. 

Natural capitalism
     One way of prolonging the life of industrial society was through the
propagation and acceptance of the concept of 'sustainable development.' ...
     The latest "offering," to encourage activists to continue working with
and not in fundamental opposition to this society, is to be found in the
1999 book _Natural Capitalism_, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter
Lovins. This book, by its title, suggests that capitalism is "natural", and
that Nature can be treated within a capitalist framework. The authors see
the solutions to the environmental crisis as bringing Nature within this
accounting framework. This assumes that forests, seas, wild animals, etc.
have "prices," not, as in deep ecology, intrinsic values. ... The authors
aim to show through their many examples that "resources" (I do not myself
use this term) can be saved, more profits can be made, growth can continue,
and employment can increase if we start "costing" Nature. This is the
ultimate anthropocentrism!
 ...
     Val Plumwood has noted, "the danger from deep ecology's political
naïveté comes from capture by the liberal right." But Plumwood also points
out that deep ecology "has the potential to develop more radical answers."
Val Plumwood was the original Crocodile Dundee who Hollywood turned into a
man. Her very interesting essay is called "Deep Ecology, Deep Pockets and
Deep Problems: A Feminist Ecosocialist Analysis" and is in a book which
just came out, called _Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the
Philosophy of Deep Ecology_, edited by Katz, Light, and Rothenberg. Of the
14 essays in this book, two are excellent and two others are worthwhile
reading. A major problem seems to me that deep ecology academics too often
appear to write and publish for themselves and not for the radical ecology
movement.

 - [end excerpt]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:38:11
From: David Orton <greenweb@fox.nstn.ca>
Subject: A fundamental dilemma
To: deep-ecology@igc.apc.org

Hello fellow deep ecology list members:
Thanks to all who commented  on the "Introduction to deep ecology" posting
from my talk to the Canadian Green Party on August 6. Below is another
section from the talk, which concerns what I believe to be "A fundamental
dilemma facing activists." All comments are appreciated.

Best and for the Earth,
David Orton

---------------------------

A fundamental dilemma facing activists.

     As a green, the life and work of Rudolf Bahro (1935-1997), has
inspired me. But his life has also illustrated the dilemma we all face
about whether or not we believe industrial capitalism is here to stay and
we must work with it, or we must oppose it, even if there is not yet any
viable alternative. This fundamental dilemma goes back to the shallow/deep
distinction made by Naess in 1972. How we resolve this dilemma determines
what kind of ecological politics we can pursue.

     Bahro, a founding member of the West German 'Die Gruenen', in 1980 was
elected to the Federal Executive. For him, green politics was about
capturing people's consciousness, not accumulating votes. By 1985 he had
resigned from the Party. His resignation statement noted how the Greens did
not want to get out of the industrial system: "Instead of spreading
consciousness they are obscuring it all along the line." Bahro particularly
repudiated the continuing justification of animal experimentation by the
green party.

     For Bahro, industrialized nations needed to reduce their impact upon
the Earth to one tenth of what it was. "Development" was finished. Like the
Norwegian deep ecology philosopher Arne Naess, Bahro had a biocentric, not
human-centered world view. Unlike Naess, Bahro was steeped in the culture
of the left. Another important contribution of Bahro was that he came to
see the necessary link between environmental and green politics and
spiritual transformation, although he lost his way on this path. (For an
evaluation of Bahro, critique, and defense of his contributions, see the
section on him in Green Web Bulletin #68, "Ecofascism: What is It? A Left
Biocentric Analysis.")

     Within the environmental movement, the resolution of this dilemma can
result in two different paths: managerial or radical environmentalism.
Reforms that shore up industrial capitalist society or reforms that subvert
this society. If we stand as environmentalists or greens in opposition to
industrial capitalist society, then we cannot accept "status" awards from
that society such as environmentalists accepting awards from provincial or
federal departments of the environment. In any environmental issue I have
been involved with, such departments work with the Earth destroyers, not
defenders. We who oppose industrial capitalism, seek to promote a totally
different kind of social recognition.

Natural capitalism
     One way of prolonging the life of industrial society was through the
propagation and acceptance of the concept of 'sustainable development.'
Helga and I went to the "First Planetary Meeting of Green Parties" in Rio,
May 30/31, 1992 as observers, and the statement coming out of that meeting
endorsed sustainable development. But sustainable development is now old hat.
     The latest "offering," to encourage activists to continue working with
and not in fundamental opposition to this society, is to be found in the
1999 book _Natural Capitalism_, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter
Lovins. This book, by its title, suggests that capitalism is "natural", and
that Nature can be treated within a capitalist framework. The authors see
the solutions to the environmental crisis as bringing Nature within this
accounting framework. This assumes that forests, seas, wild animals, etc.
have "prices," not, as in deep ecology, intrinsic values. Also, that the
inherent growth/profit/consume- oriented capitalist economic model should
be worked with, and not opposed as fundamentally anti-ecological. The
authors aim to show through their many examples that "resources" (I do not
myself use this term) can be saved, more profits can be made, growth can
continue, and employment can increase if we start "costing" Nature. This is
the ultimate anthropocentrism!

     There are lots of interesting examples in this book, of waste being
eliminated and more profits being made. The book also speaks of "human
capitalism", although this is a secondary focus, where "responsible
government" is combined with "vital entrepreneurship". Curitiba in Brazil,
is used as an example of this human capitalism. _Natural Capitalism_
acknowledges that natural capital is rapidly declining and becoming a
limiting factor on continued growth. Increasing population is taken for
granted by the authors. Generally in this book, there is a much more
progressive view of capitalism, in alleged harmony with Nature and with a
social conscience. So this is against Thatcherism or Reaganism. But the
fundamental questions remain for the activists' dilemma. Can one reform
capitalism? Is it here forever? Or do we work from the position that we
must create an alternative?

     I just finished reading Naomi Klein's book which came out this year,
_No Logo: Taking Aim At the Brand Bullies_. She takes a stand on a
fundamental dilemma that I am concerned with. Her book shows how "branding"
works - the loss of public space, secure work, etc. and the current
fight-back by activists around the world. I recommend her book although her
focus is much more on the social justice side than the environment. Also,
she ultimately accepts globalization and capitalism. Klein argues that
activists should "embrace globalization but seek to wrest it from the grasp
of the multinationals." I myself cannot accept this, even though there is
at present no alternative economic model.

Right ecocentrism
     Within deep ecology, there is a position I have called "right
ecocentrism," that is, resolving the fundamental dilemma in the direction
of working within the industrial capitalist system, and accepting the
market economy. I know a number of right ecocentrists and we cooperate on
activist mutual-interest work. Right ecocentrists agree with left
biocentrists on the ecological and ethical side, but seem to believe that
an ecocentric society can be implemented within the existing society. Hence
one sees a kind of "retreatism", that is, a movement away from the radical
and subversive essence of deep ecology to an acceptance of capitalism,
private property and an economic growth framework. Appeals are often
directed to decision makers within the system. An example of a deep ecology
philosopher who I would characterize as a right ecocentrist would be
Michael Zimmerman. He accepts the market economy, and has importance
because he is the senior editor in an anthology of environmental philosophy
essays which is now in its third edition.

     Val Plumwood has noted, "the danger from deep ecology's political
naivete comes from capture by the liberal right." But Plumwood also points
out that deep ecology "has the potential to develop more radical answers."
Val Plumwood was the original Crocodile Dundee who Hollywood turned into a
man. Her very interesting essay is called "Deep Ecology, Deep Pockets and
Deep Problems: A Feminist Ecosocialist Analysis" and is in a book which
just came out, called _Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the
Philosophy of Deep Ecology_, edited by Katz, Light, and Rothenberg. Of the
14 essays in this book, two are excellent and two others are worthwhile to
read. A major problem seems to me that deep ecology academics too often
appear to write and publish for themselves and not for the radical ecology
movement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Visit the Green Web Home Page at:

        http://fox.nstn.ca/~greenweb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics