Chapter 6 Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism Two radical
MS
Published · 65 slides · 0 views
1 / 1
Description
Chapter 6 Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism Two radical and still-influential environmental philosophies that emerged in the 1970s: --Deep Ecology --Ecofeminism Deep ecology: an environmental ethic that calls for radical change in our
Related Topics
Share
Embed code
Download this presentation From Below
"Chapter 6 Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism Two radical" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
01
Chapter 6 Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism<br>
02
Two radical and still-influential environmental philosophies that emerged in the 1970’s: --Deep Ecology --Ecofeminism<br>
03
Deep ecology: an environmental ethic that calls for radical change in our lifestyles and in our basic attitudes toward nature.<br>
04
Deep ecology is “radical” in the sense that it: 1) asks deep and searching questions about how we should live, how society should be structured, and how humans should relate to nature.<br>
05
Deep ecology is “radical” (cont’d) 2) Calls for far-reaching changes in politics, economics, how we relate to nonhuman nature, and how we live our everyday lives.<br>
06
Deep ecology is “radical” (cont’d) 3) In some forms, calls for ecosabotage and other forms of radical direct action to achieve environmental ends.<br>
07
The founder and leading proponent of deep ecology = Arne naess (1912 – 2009), a distinguished and prolific Norwegian philosopher.<br>
08
Other leading deep ecologists: * George sessions (1938 – 2016) * Bill devall (1938 – 2009)<br>
09
Other leading deep ecologists (cont’d): * Dave Foreman (1946 – 2022) (co-founder of earth first!) * Warwick Fox (1954 - )<br>
10
In a famous 1973 paper, Arne Naess contrasts “deep” and “shallow” ecology.<br>
11
Shallow ecology is anthropocentric and focuses solely on how environmental problems affect humans (e.g., soil erosion, pollution, etc.).<br>
12
deep ecology is non-anthropocentric and focuses on the health and well-being of nature as a whole.<br>
13
Deep ecology is “deep” in the sense that . . . 1) It asks “deep” philosophical and normative questions (unlike mainstream ecology, which studies nature empirically and scientifically).<br>
14
Deep ecology is “deep” in the sense that . . . (cont’d): 2) It seeks to address the root causes of environmental problems (e.g., anthropocentrism and oppressive, hierarchical social structures).<br>
15
Deep ecology is “deep” in the sense that . . . (cont’d): 3) It calls for deep changes in how we view and interact with nonhuman nature, how human societies should be structured, and in how we live our personal lives.<br>
16
What is deep ecology? What are its key claims? It’s an evolving, diverse movement, and so not easy to summarize in a few bullet points.<br>
17
In asking what deep ecology is about, we must distinguish claims embraced by: --nearly all deep ecologists --many deep ecologists --only a few deep ecologists (or even a single leading theorist).<br>
18
Here let’s focus on views embraced by many and nearly all deep ecologists.<br>
19
Claims embraced by nearly all deep ecologists include, most notably, the eight principles stated in the Deep Ecology platform.<br>
20
The deep Ecology platform was co-written by Arne Naess and George Sessions in 1984. There are several different versions. Here’s the original 1984 formulation:<br>
21
The deep Ecology platform (in brief): 1. The well-being of all life forms on earth has intrinsic value.<br>
22
The deep Ecology platform (cont’d): 2. Richness and diversity of life-forms contribute to these intrinsic values and are also values in themselves.<br>
23
The deep Ecology platform (cont’d): 3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.<br>
24
The deep Ecology platform (cont’d): 4. Humanity can still flourish with a substantially smaller human population, and the flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a reduction.<br>
25
The deep Ecology platform (cont’d): 5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive and the situation is rapidly worsening.<br>
26
The deep Ecology platform (cont’d): 6. Policies must therefore be changed. These will affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.<br>
27
The deep Ecology platform (cont’d): 7. The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than seeking an increasingly higher standard of living.<br>
28
The deep Ecology platform (cont’d): 8. Those who accept the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.<br>
29
Three things to note about The platform: 1) It’s a consensus document, deliberately expressed in vague and general language to express major points of agreement. Most leading deep ecologists, in fact, hold more radical views.<br>
30
three things to note about The platform (cont’d): For example, most leading deep ecologists call for a huge reduction of human population, hold that all life forms have equal inherent value, and reject capitalism, industrialism, social classes, and large nation-states.<br>
31
three things to note about The platform (cont’d): 2). When deep ecologist speak of all “life” as having intrinsic value, they use “life” broadly to include such things as rivers, mountains, and other non-living collectives. They are thus ecocentrists, not biocentrists, as the language of the Platform seems to suggest.<br>
32
three things to note about The platform (cont’d): 3). Many leading deep ecologists are pantheists or metaphysical holists, believing that only one thing ultimately exists (nature/God), and that we and everything else are part of that one reality. Some see this as the Core of deep ecology, though it is not reflected in the Platform.<br>
33
Enduring attractions of deep ecology include its stress on: --wilderness preservation --biodiversity preservation --the intrinsic value of all life forms<br>
34
Enduring attractions of deep ecology (cont’d): --environmental activism and commitment<br>
35
common objections to deep ecology: 1) it goes too far in calling for drastic reductions in human population.<br>
36
common objections to deep ecology (cont’d): 2) It goes too far in claiming that humans may interfere with nonhuman nature only to satisfy vital human needs.<br>
37
common objections to deep ecology (cont’d): 3) Deep ecology’s call for the “rewilding” of huge swaths of earth would have devastating effects on human welfare, especially in developing countries.<br>
38
common objections to deep ecology (cont’d): 4) Many leading deep ecologists are “utopian” in their call for small, classless, non-industrialized, green societies.<br>
39
common objections to deep ecology (cont’d): 5) Deep ecologists who embrace metaphysical holism (= the view that all reality is One) provide no good argument for that view.<br>
40
Ecofeminism: a form of feminism that opposes sexism (the systematic subordination of women) and naturism (the systematic subordination of nature), and asserts that there are important connections between these two forms of oppression.<br>
41
What connections might there be between sexism and naturism?<br>
42
Ecofeminists commonly cite two connections: historical and conceptual.<br>
43
Historical connections: Historically, women have been “naturized” (i.e., identified with nonhuman nature) and nature has been “feminized’ (i.e., identified with women or supposed female attributes).<br>
44
examples of how women have been naturized: Common derogatory animal terms for women (“foxes,” “chicks,” “vixens,” etc.).<br>
45
examples of how nature has been feminized: --common terms such as “mother nature,” “mother earth,” etc. --linkage of nature with supposed female/motherly qualities (nurturance, fertility, sustenance, care, etc.).<br>
46
What conceptual connections might there be between sexism and naturism? That is, how might they be grounded on a similar logic or set of assumptions?<br>
47
According to noted ecofeminist Karen warren, sexism and naturism are conceptually linked by a common “logic of domination.”<br>
48
According to warren, a logic of domination is based on “an oppressive conceptual framework.”<br>
49
An oppressive conceptual framework = a set of beliefs or assumptions that allegedly justify one party in oppressing another.<br>
50
According to Warren, oppressive conceptual frameworks typically include three features:<br>
51
Three features (cont’d): 1) value dualisms (that is, paired concepts, where one is seen as opposed and inferior to the other.)<br>
52
examples of common value dualisms: --reason/emotion --human/nature --soul/body --mental/physical --active/passive --male/female<br>
53
Three features (cont’d): 2) up-down thinking (i.e., thinking based on supposed value hierarchies—x is superior to Y—that allegedly ground entitlements).<br>
54
Three features (cont’d): 3) a logic of domination (i.e., thinking based on the assumption that superiority justifies domination of supposed inferiors).<br>
55
According to Warren, conceptual linkages between sexism and naturism have historically been used to justify patriarchy.<br>
56
defenders have patriarchy have commonly reasoned: (1) Women are rightly identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are rightly identified with the “human” and the realm of the mental.<br>
57
Argument for patriarchy (cont’d): (2) whatever is rightly identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior to whatever is rightly identified with the “human” and the realm of the mental.<br>
58
Argument for patriarchy (cont’d): (3) so, women are inferior to men. (4) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is justified in subordinating Y.<br>
59
Argument for patriarchy (cont’d): (5) Therefore, men are justified in subordinating women.<br>
60
According to Warren, this argument fails because: 1) It rests on bogus value dualisms. 2) It rests on bogus identifications (e.g., it’s false that only men are rightly identified with the “human”).<br>
61
Argument fails (cont’d): 3) The logic of domination is bogus: the fact that x is, or is believed to be, superior to y generally does not justify x in subordinating or oppressing Y.<br>
62
Warren further claims: Anyone who opposes patriarchy must also oppose naturism because they both rest on a similar faulty logic of domination. True?<br>
63
A possible counter to warren’s claim: patriarchy and naturism are not truly comparable.<br>
64
Why some might say sexism and naturism aren’t truly parallel (cont’d): 1) Sexism is wrong because women aren’t inferior to men in ways that matter to equal rights, equal opportunities, equal respect, etc.<br>
65
Why some might say sexism and naturism aren’t truly parallel (cont’d): 2) naturism is not wrong because humans really are superior to “nature” (i.e., nonhuman life-forms and inanimate nature). Good responses??<br>