Environmental Policy Perspectives:

 

an Archetype Matrix of possible views and considerations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAA 627 Environmental Policy and Management

University of Maine at Orono

Instructor: Ed Laverty, Ph.D.

Submitted by Steve Crate

February 24 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © Stephen C. Crate 2004,2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

INTRODUCTION.. 3

BACKGROUND.. 4

THE FOUR WORLD VIEW PARADIGMS. 6

ISHMAEL and the LEAVERS & TAKERS. 10

TAKERS. 10

LEAVERS. 11

Where Do I fit? The Environmental Archetype Matrix. 11

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 13

TAKERS RULE. 13

References. 14


 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

“Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course”[i].

Union of Concerned Scientists, November 18, 1992, Washington D.C.

 

The above statement, whether true or not, must give a cause for concern to all responsible citizens living on earth. These 1600 scientists can’t all be wrong. As scientists they must have a rational basis for their beliefs and opinions. What of the people in corporations, or churches, or social service institutions? They also have opinions, positions and constituencies to protect. What of the trees, plants, animals and other forms of life? Do all forms of life strive to survive? Who is right? Or more importantly, is there a right and/or a wrong view of Environmental policy?

 

Before we answer any of these questions we must understand the ideas and theories that form the basis of our Environmental Policy discussions? This article will present background perspective that includes a brief discussion of the historical roots of environmental policy from Western Christianity and science, to four “world view”[ii] paradigms that represent current thinking in environmental policy. A fifth perspective that has emerged in the last decade will also be mentioned. The article will then compare these views with the bilateral antithetical perspective (i.e., leavers and takers) presented in the book Ishmael written by Daniel Quinn. To assist readers in identifying their own individual philosophical view in light of these concepts an Environmental Archetype Matrix (EAM)[iii] is presented that may help clarify concepts and positions. The matrix should not be viewed as completed model. It has not been tested or mathematically validated but created as concept to assist in analyzing the various positions in a quantitative way. The article will conclude with a statement advocating for one particular view given our current social, educational and economic times.

BACKGROUND

 

Environmental policy has its roots in Judeo/Christian religious tradition combined with western scientific research and technology. In addition to these historical foundations, four basic theoretical paradigms have emerged over the course of the last 50 years with a fifth perspective that may be a subset of one or a new paradigm worth considering.

 

The source of the religious perspective is the Judeo/Christian tradition. Particularly church history and the book of Genesis in the Bible.

In the beginning…. And it was good… Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have domination over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air, and over cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

 

Since the Bible has had a tremendous influence on many of our laws, traditions and cultural mores, it makes sense that it would also contribute to the development of an environmental theoretical model. This religious perspective includes a significant impact of the Western Christian premise of “victory of Christianity over paganism” (White 1962). White goes on saying, “by destroying pagan animism Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.” He continues, “ Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” [iv] This translates into a view that Christianity supports and encourages an anthropocentric view of the environment which theoretically gives authority to exploit nature for mans purpose. It is important to note here that this Western Christian view, while prominent in early America has been challenged by other Christian rites and religious beliefs that have entered American consciousness over the course of recent history. These include Eastern Christianity where God, exists in all that lives and is a mystery to be sought after but never wholly obtained rather than the giver of authority for any rational purpose. In fact, according to the Contemplative[v] tradition, mans’ desire to control everything is a human shortcoming that must be overcome. This challenges the Western Christian view that man is superior to nature and suggests a cooperative relationship with respect due all life. St. Francis of Assisi[vi] a Roman Catholic Saint who in fact held nature and animals in the highest esteem is another contrasting example. Additionally, Hindu, Buddhist and Native American beliefs show a reverence for all life. Another view eco-spirituality [vii] has emerged very recently as a new paradigm that will command considerable attention in the years to come.

 

A second influence came from science and technology.

Natural science conceived as the effort to understand the nature of things, had flourished in several eras and among several peoples. Similarly there had been an age-old accumulation of technological skills, sometimes growing rapidly, sometimes slowly.But it was not until four generations ago that Western Europe and Notth America arranged a marriage between science and technology, a union of the theoretical and the empirical approached to our natural environment. [viii]

 

There exists a “Public Trust”[ix] regarding the use of Science and Technology with the environment that through invention, ingenuity, creativity and research human problems can be solved and ultimately fixed. For any political, academic or business leader to admit limitations in science and deny this optimism would be a destructive force for humanity. However, there are limits to what science and technology can achieve. Learning to balance the relevant possibilities from the mad scientist foolishness is a key to the future role of science and technology. This historical past and future role certainly is pertinent to environmental policy discussion. When two scientists say different things about the damaging effect on the environment of this chemical, or that manufacturing process or this forestry management policy the public trust for science is questioned and science looses ground with its potential sustaining influence. It then becomes a political marketing campaign to support one position over another and the “truth” gets lost.

 

 

THE FOUR WORLD VIEW PARADIGMS

 

The four World View paradigms or ideologies collectively constitute our current social and cultural view of how human society should interact with the environment. Each considers economic, moral and scientific factors with unique weight and/or priority granted depending on the utilitarian premise. These factors create a dynamic tension amongst the factions as government makes environmental policy decisions.

 

The four perspectives are: resource utilization (RU), environmentalism (EV), social ecology (SE) and deep ecology DE. A fifth perspective Eco feminism (EF) clearly presents a competing view that also deserves mention in this descriptive document. EF may be a subset of one of the four paradigms or it may be a new emerging view that takes a more balanced view.

 

Resource Utilization (RU) is best described as a philosophy that holds production and use of resource and the economic value of that resource as the most significant measure of utility. This view reflects a dualism, that humans are separate from nature and not only separate, but also superior. Nature exists for human consumption and use. This reflects an anthropocentric, man as center of existence, view as the only reality for the way things should be. Other RU characteristics include:

-        A consideration that material and economic growth is needed for growing human populations

-        The free market generated material and economic growth

-        There are no limits to material and economic growth.

-        Science, technology and the free market will solve environmental problems and resource scarcity.

-        There are no limits to material and economic growth.[x]

 

 

This uncaring response to natural resource use holds true from an (RU) perspective even if resource depletion occurs more rapidly with a more efficient process.

 

The second paradigm is environmentalism. Environmentalism (EV) maintains some concepts from RU including the dualism and anthropocentric orientation. However EV adds stewardship, open vs. closed economy and the notion of pubic vs. free goods. EV characteristics include:

-        Humans have an obligation to protect the natural environment

-        Environmental problems are defined in terms of public health, recreation and aesthetics.

-        Environmental problems and resource scarcity will be solved by incorporation environmental costs and benefits in the market through government regulations, tax incentives/disincentives, pollution rights etc.

-        Environmental protection is compatible with sustainable material and economic development.[xi]

 

Environmentalism was a response to the extremism of RU. It adds cost/benefit analysis to the decision making process reducing the apparent single minded mission of resource utilization proponents.

Thirdly, social ecology (SE) includes dualism from (RU) and (EV) but adds an equality component. SE is eco-centrist and includes animism and social justice as integral part of this paradigm definition. The characteristics of social ecologists are:

-        The human species is only as valuable as its contribution the the larger ecosystem.

-        Humans as social beings must act politically to represent the interests of ecosystems.

-        Social and economic injustice causes humans to exploit ecosystems.

-        Basic societal change, particularly in the distribution of economic power, is required to solve ecological problems and resource scarcity.

-        Environmental protection is compatible with sustainable community development.[xii]

 

Social Ecology changes the playing field adding a constituent advocacy for living species that cannot negotiate for them selves in the human world of social and political power. The spotted owl and the amoeba need some representation in order to compete with the corporate conglomerates, entrepreneurs and other community development proponents.

 

The forth paradigm is deep ecology. Deep Ecology (DE) takes social ecology one-step further. All things in existence are equal. Human beings, rocks, fish, rivers and oceans, even the micro-organisms. This is referred to as bio-centric egalitarianism; the world revolves around all living things. Animism, self-realization and self-interest are part of this paradigm because if we look out for each other we all survive. This is a collective collaboration for survival of the world and without this collective consciousness the world, as we know it is doomed. The characteristics of deep ecology include:

-        The human species is only as valuable as it’s contribution to the larger ecosystem.

-        Humans have no right to reduce the richness and diversity of life forms except to satisfy “vital needs

-        The flourishing of human life and culture is compatible with (and the flourishing of non-human life requires) a substantial decrease of human population.

-        Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive and the situation is rapidly worsening.

-        Ideological change, appreciating that life quality (dwelling in situation of inherent value) rather adhering to an increasing higher standard of living will result in profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

-        Environmental protection is compatible with sustainable bio-regionalism.[xiii]

 

Deep ecology seems a radical view in light of the industrial revolution and other developments in American society. The suggestion that human population be reduced is a threatening notion that cannot be under stated. The originator of Deep Ecology[xiv], Arne Naess meant DE to be a philosophy that one can integrate into daily living to encourage choices aligned with a surviving environment.

 

The fifth emerging paradigm is called eco-feminism. Eco-spirituality mentioned earlier in this article has many of the same goals of eco-feminism without the gender bias reflected in much of the material. There are two approaches to eco-feminism. The “earth mother” or Gaian approach and the Anti Naturism or Gender Neutral approach. The Gaian approach seeks to end the domination of women and nature by reasserting the feminine values of motherhood, nurturing, emotion, cyclical time and “seld in relationship.”[xv]

 

The Gender Neutral approach seeks to end the domination of women and nature by ending gender distinctions. This is an equalizing approach to power and control and extends the environmental policy and management discussion to an overall political battle.

 

 

 

 

ISHMAEL and the LEAVERS & TAKERS

 

The book “Ishmael” presents revealing insight into our culture’s view of its self and the relationship we have with the environment. Author Daniel Quinn presents an environmental Guru in the image of a Gorilla who sets out to enlighten an individual who responds to a newspaper advertisement for a person to save the world. The gorilla named Ishmael, presents an idea, through a series of meetings, of how our self-image as a people has developed over the course of history. This process has both consciously and unconsciously promoted and maintained the “story” of how things came to be the way they are. He refers to that little voice “Mother Culture”, that lives in our collective ancestral minds, and provides a reminder of the myth.

TAKERS

Mother culture keeps us on the path of the takers. We have a responsibility to get more, grow more, create more and better mousetraps. Contentment is stagnation and counter productive. Man is superior to all nature. Nature exists for human consumption alone. Any other purpose is contrary to human survival and a threat to human existence. Takers are Darwin lovers. Those who are strong survive and take what they want from the weak. The weak and diseased will die and that is the way is it supposed to be. Death is part of life, but not human life. Humans must build a legacy to their existence. Humans must prevail over nature. Humans must control nature, agriculture, and manufacturing using every natural resource available. Science will invent ways to replace used up natural resources. It will be a wonderful life, we humans will have all we need.

 

 

LEAVERS

 

Ishmael’s theory is that the Leavers originally inhabited this earth. They used natural resources only as they needed them and left the rest. They were the Aztecs and the Native Americans and other cultures that did not exploit nature for their own survival. The Leavers may not have been cultured in our sense of the word. In fact we might call them primitive. Yet they lived in a cooperative relationship with the environment, which did not deplete our natural resources but rather enhanced them. The Leavers developed a synergy, a supportive relationship that sustained both the natural resources and homo sapiens. The leavers were the native people, the wanderer-gathers. Existence was a life-death cycle experienced by all living things. Death is not an end but a new beginning. The leavers encourage and promoted a natural sustainability through cooperation with the environment.

 

These two positions are archetypal in that no one individual is only one or the other but as one reads the book it becomes obvious that each position exists within us with in some fashion. We each then begin to ask the question; Where do I fit in?

 

Where Do I fit? The Environmental Archetype Matrix

 

Considering what position I might place myself, I discovered that I had great difficulty with this task. . I considered my history since birth, and having an undergraduate psychology degree, found rationale to live in one paradigm or another I created a quantifiable way to determine where I, or any other individual who completes a self-analysis regarding these philosophical paradigms where fit in relation to each of the paradigms. (See figure 1, page 12) This model involves a quadrant analysis of the concepts developed in Ishmael and the paradigms outlined by Dr. Edward Laverty in his public administration graduate class Environmental Policy and Management. It includes a contrast of environmental resource and economic sustainability. The model exists on a continuum with the extreme natural resource exploitation and most economic benefit of RU in grid box (A, 20) and the extreme resource protection position with little economic benefit in grid (T, 1). The eco-feminism actually adds a three dimensional aspect to this model.

 

Figure 1

-

 

This model allows one to plot them selves in relationship to the theoretical positions and then consider the relationship to sustainability. Clearly this is an undeveloped model. However, it presents a way to determining the relationships of each paradigm and thus begin the conversation that must take place when deciding environmental policy direction. This is the second draft of the model and may represent more closely the true nature of each paradigm.

 

 

 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

 

The material above covers most of the philosophical viewpoints considered in the environmental policy debate. In addition to these topics consideration must be given to where private property fits in the discussion. Some have proposed that privately owed property can be better protected then publicly owned property. As private property limits can be set and enforced against the general public. However, publicly owned property, it has been argued, must be available to the public which makes it more susceptible to irresponsible use.

 

TAKERS RULE

 

Innovation, science, entrepreneurship, human creativity all can be considered as taker factions. They justify invention and creativity in the name of human benefit. Yet in Ishmael the takers are blamed for the destruction of our planet. Each day when we shower we kill thousands of bacteria that have grown on our bodies over the night. Should we stop showering? Antibiotics and other medical treatments are designed to eradicate disease processes in the human body. Should we all cease to utilize these medical breakthroughs? No of course not. Does not the development of science constitute a social Darwinism. Takers recognize that in order for humanity to survive they must overcome the forces that impede survival. Therefore a modified Taker position is best course of action and the basis for a sound environmental policy. Humanity deserves to survive and flourish for many generations. Humanity should not feel guilty about the wonderful things science and innovation has created. Humans simply must make better choices. If better choices are not made eventually humanity will die and some other organism will survive. And that my friend… is the way things should be.


 

References



 

[i] Issued in Washington D.C., by the Union of Concerned Scientists on behalf of over 1600 scientists including a majority of living Nobel Laureates in the sciences. Reprinted by permission in The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rd Edition, Donald VanDeveer & Christine Pierce, eds. Wadsworth a division of Thomas Learning, Inc., 2003, pg. Xxvii

 

[ii] Laverty, Edward, Ph.D. from a lecture In PAA627 Environmental Policy and Management January 20, 2004

 

[iii] EAM Environmental Archetype Matrix created by Stephen C. Crate January 2004. All rights reserved Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2006 Stephen C. Crate, May be used and further developed with grateful reference to the original model creator. Collaborative comments and suggestions designed to evolve this model will be greatly appreciated.

 

[iv] White, Lynn, Jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1962

 

[v] … ancient prayer practices of the Christian contemplative heritage, notably the Fathers and Mothers of the Desert, Lectio Divina, (praying the scriptures), The Cloud of Unknowing, St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila.. It was distilled into a simple method of prayer in the 1970’s by three Trappist monks, Fr. William Meninger, Fr. Basil Pennington and Abbot Thomas Keating at the Trappist Abbey, St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts. http://www.centeringprayer.com/

 

[vi] Foley, Leonard, O.F.M., Who was St Francis, Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals and the ecology, was a Roman Catholic saint who took the gospel literally by following all Jesus said and did. On the internet at http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Francis/who_was.asp

 

[vii] See Living Water Spiritual Center mission at: http://www.e-livingwater.org/index.htm and, eco-spirituality at: http://www.thegreenfuse.org/spirit.htm

 

[viii] White, Lynn Jr., The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rd Edition, Donald VanDeveer & Christine Pierce, eds. Wadsworth a division of Thomas Learning, Inc., 2003, pg. 53

 

[ix] The Public Trust Doctrine is an historical and currently evolving concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of essential natural and cultural resources. It is receiving increased attention in the United State because of the growing awareness of the duty of care owed the environment. The Public Trust Doctrine may prove useful as the nations of the world develop their own ecologically based real property law.

Found on the Internet at: http://www.braypapers.com/PTD.html

 

[x] Laverty, Edward, Ph.D. From a lecture in PAA627 Environmental Policy and Management, January 20, 2004, University of Maine at Orono, Public Administration Graduate Department

 

[xi] Laverty, Edward, Ph.D. From a handout in PAA627 Environmental Policy and Management, January 20, 2004, University of Maine at Orono, Public Administration Graduate Department

 

[xii] Laverty, Edward, Ph.D. From a handout in PAA627 Environmental Policy and Management, January 20, 2004, University of Maine at Orono, Public Administration Graduate Department

 

[xiii] Laverty, Edward, Ph.D. From a handout in PAA627 Environmental Policy and Management, January 20, 2004, University of Maine at Orono, Public Administration Graduate Department

 

 

[xiv] “ Deep Ecology was originally developed by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. It has grown into a worldwide movement of considerable influence. Naess does not lay out Deep Ecology as a rigid system, but instead presents a set of principles which he invites people to integrate into their own personal philosophy of life. Deep Ecologists emphasize that human beings are only part of the ecology of this planet, & believe that only by understanding our unity with the whole of nature can we come to achieve full realization of our humanity. Deep Ecology believes that all organisms are equal: Human beings have no greater value than any other creature, for we are just ordinary citizens in the biotic community, with no more rights than amoebae or bacteria. From the internet at: http://www.thegreenfuse.org/deepecology.htm

 

[xv] Laverty, Edward, Ph.D. From a handout in PAA627 Environmental Policy and Management, January 20, 2004, University of Maine at Orono, Public Administration Graduate Department

 

1