10 Chapter3
10 Chapter3
10 Chapter3
‘deep ecology’ was first introduced by Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosophy professor
in the1970s. He was a renowned Norwegian social activist and the first chairperson of
commands an important role. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the
deep ecological movement enjoys wide currency and considerable status in the
international environmental movement. Before delving into this issue let us, at the
very outset, find out the distinction between Deep and Shallow ecology. We think the
distinction between deep and shallow ecology will help us to properly understand the
program of deep ecology in proper. Here we will attempt to develop a coherent ethical
scheme to serve as a common foundation for the ethics of our dealings with other
humans, with nonhuman individuals, and with ecosystems and other environmental
between environmental philosophies that are shallow and those that are deep. Shallow
ecology is primarily concerned solely with the welfare of human beings or one
some sense or other. Of course, it would not be a strong anthropocentrism, but weak
anthropocentrism. Shallow ecology deals with those philosophies that broaden the
scope to include concern for non-human organisms. These are said not to be deep
because they still focus on discrete individuals, whereas deep philosophies are holistic
57
in nature. According to Naess, deep ecology entails, “rejection of the man-in-
in the biospherical net or field of intrinsic relationships hold between two things. An
intrinsic relation between two things A and B is such that the relation belongs to the
definitions or basic constitutions of A and B, so that without the relation, A and B are
no longer the same things. Thus, we think that the total field-image dissolves not only
We think that the terms deep and shallow have tended to become evaluative to those
used to suggest a deeper, more aware understanding, and deeper, more significant
values, whereas shallow seems to suggest limited awareness and superficial values.
This clearly suggests that from anthropocentric perspective deep ecology is more
with environmental philosophy, we are in some sense or other concerned with both
deep and shallow ecology. Unlike shallow ecology, deep ecology represents a holistic
view and takes everything as a whole. Having said this, one cannot have the
While elucidating deep and shallow ecology, Naess proposes several points as
applicable to both environmental philosophy and social philosophy and then he tries
to extract considerable analogy between the two fields. He then seems to realize that
30
Naess, “The Shallow and Deep Ecology, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary” Inquiry 16,
1973, p.95.
58
both environmentally and socially, the individual is seen as a knot in a holistic fabric
and let live’, egalitarianism, and classlessness. In this regard, ecosystems or eco-
decentralize and symbiotic nature. Eco-philosophy thus paves the way for deep
system of philosophy where ecological justice in the real sense of the term can be
protected and preserved. Ecosystem ensures the equal right to live and blossom and
ensures no beings are in a privileged moral position compared to others. Thus, in our
message based on a holistic web where no beings are to have a privileged moral
position and that all have an equal right to live and blossom. Within this holistic web,
the moral standing of the individuals would be determined within the whole. What is
good for the whole would be equally good for the individual. That means individual
or atomic goodness does not make any sense without preconceiving the good of the
whole. According to Naess, individuals has its identity only in terms of the whole
does lend itself to the interpretation that individuals have only a derivative moral
identity and significance. There are those social philosophies that take a purely
holistic stance.
Unlike shallow ecology, deep ecology banks on the total field model or total image
model that dissolves not only the man-in-environment concept, but every compact
thing-in-milieu concept. Individuals have self-identity, but they also have identity as
59
components of greater wholes. There is self-identity at the individual level as well as
at the holistic level. Therefore, we must not neglect the shallow concern for
individuals in favor of the depths of holism. There are morally significant interests on
all levels. In this regard, our environmental philosophy must have both deep and
ecosystems with ecosystems, and the interests of individuals may well compete with
those of ecosystems. While there is symbiosis in nature, live and let other live,
interaction for mutual benefit, there are also conflicts of interest. Fortunately, we are
not called upon to police the biosphere. This is not just because we lack wisdom and
power; rather our actions have consequences for others, human and non-human, and
Sooner or later, wherever we draw moral lines, we must in some way arrive at an
accommodation with the world around us. There are different ways in which we may
aware that entities other than individual human beings have morally significant
interests. This awareness at the shallow level will often be enough to allow us to reach
morally adequate decisions. There is the biosphere as a whole and the biosphere is a
self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the
chemical and physical environment. It thus has a composite identity with its own
characteristic signature, as distinct from being the mere sum of its parts. 31 According
to Lovelock, the biosphere is a homeostatic organic unity, a life process with its own
self-identity and wellbeing needs. In this regard he further remarks that it ‘is an
31
See, Lovelook, J. E., Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979, ix-
x.
60
subdued and conquered. It is also an alternative to that equality depressing picture of
around an inner circle of the sun.”32 Lovelock here does not peruse the ethical
implications; rather he asserts that the interests of the biosphere are morally
significant.
exclusive concern with issues of pollution and resource conservation. The deep
ecology movement was more fully elaborated by him in terms of seven principles.
These are:
On the basis of the aforesaid seven principles, Naess creates an ecological world
view. The first principle is metaphysical in nature. It states that the identity of
each individual at any ecological level is not logically independent from the rest
32
Ibid. p.12.
61
Naess, this metaphysics of inter-relatedness is added to and enhanced by an ethics
are equally entitled to live and blossom. Accordingly, it can be said that within
this theory, human beings are not morally privileged as we notice in the traditional
or classical ethics. In traditional ethics, it has generally been assumed that men are
the only legitimate moral agents and men alone have the power or capacity to
evaluate everything. However, men have completely lost such moral privilege
when we talk of the interrelatedness of the ecological scheme of things. Here, all
other forms of life are accorded moral consideration, similar to that afforded to
man. We are arguing in favor of ecological diversity and symbiosis and in turn we
invoke the service of the egalitarian ethic just by way of promoting the project of
life on earth. These moral standards actually help us to promote the egalitarian
project of life on earth. The great advantage of this theory is that it will enhance
the opportunities for all beings to live and blossom. This clearly suggests how the
egalitarianism. And this in turn paves the way for the recognition of the values of
diversity and symbiosis. We think that the value of diversity again leads to the
fourth principle which states that certain forms of difference are not to be
encouraged particularly those differences arising not out of mutuality but out of
exploitation and suppression of one group by another. The fight against pollution
and resource depletion is then included as part of the deep as well as shallow
62
Many contend that the principles which Naess uses to define the deep ecology
approach in his early article are highly abbreviated and presented in an ad hoc
ecological world-view. Deep ecology could thus be read as signifying that our
world is ecological or relational to its ontological depths and our relationship with
ecology would reveal that it covers an interdisciplinary stream of thought that was
paradigm’. This new paradigm can be compared and contrasted with the dominant
was built on the classical scientific view of nature as well as the liberal view of
society. According to this view, the physical world was understood in mechanistic
individuals driven together by the blind law of self-interest. Thus, the dominant
world view was a principle of division where matter was divided up into logically
morally insignificant attributes. As a result of that human beings could be set apart
from and above the rest of nature. Under the dominant enlightenment world view,
To humans, nature has only instrumental or use value and nothing more than that.
Under the dominant world view, humans dominate the rest of the world; here
things are divided and separated. Here humans are quickly led to a world of
63
opposition and hierarchies and in which some groups see themselves as justified
in talking control of other groups. Here humanity sees itself as justified in and
capable of taking charge of nature. This paradigm is based on the principle of the
division of reality into independent parts or units. The new paradigm appears
within Naess’ deep ecology, the main objective of which is to deny the man-in-
Western thought. It is based on the principle of relation rather than division, and
ontological ‘egalitarianism’. In other words, it can be said that the deep ecology
Besides Naess, some of its early interpreters and followers, namely, Fox, Devall
and Sessions have expressed the same regarding the deep ecology movement.
Even though Naess has been regarded as the main architect of the deep ecology
movement based on the relational whole, but the core relational principles could
Spinoza and Gandhi while developing his idea of deep ecology. There are many
theories developed in Indian ethics and religion based on the concept of deep
honor of his own spiritual home and some of his ecological inspiration as the "T"
64
associated with ecological selfhood - an ideal of human self-realization. 33 It
with wider and wider circles of being. According to Naess, such identification is
possible because, for Naess, the self is not identical with the body, or with the
mind, or with a mere conjunction of mind and body. The self is not a fixed entity,
cultivation. Even Plato in his Republic remarked that humans’ self is a bundle of
qualities. One has to cultivate it. Human’s self thus encompass everything with
nothing but the final stage of maturity. It is a higher stage where we achieve the
say after Naess that here we identify not merely with our family, our community,
our culture, or with humanity as a whole, rather with our immediate environment.
It is the place where we born, we stand offer birth or to which we belong, our
land, and our earth. In this way, Naess envisages self-realization as involving the
transition not only from ego to social self, but from social self to ecological self.
When we identify with nature at large in this way, our innate self-love expands in
proportion to our new sense of self and our self-interest becomes convergent with
the interest of the rest of life. It is a stage where one feels that to love other is self-
love, to think for other is self-thinking, to feel for other is self-feeling; to defense
33
Naess, 1987, 1989a.
65
other is self-defense. Accordingly, it can be said that defense of nature becomes a
matter of self-defense. In this regard, Naess goes on to say that this process of
enlightened being would be one who sees the ‘same’ in everything and is thus not
alienated from anything. The question then is: why should one aspire to or desire a
kind of cosmic or ecological self-realization? Where this urge does comes from?
To respond to this, Naess says that it is in our own best interest to do so. Again
where does this interest come from? To reply to this, it can be said that self-
realization is nothing but a sort of actualization that lies within. To Naess, self-
realization actually represents the actualization of our greatest potential for being.
There are two different stages of the same individual self, one stage is narrow and
the other stage is richer. It is the process of becoming through which a narrow
individual self can open up and eventually be transformed into richer self. In this
regard Mathews says, “Our self is richer to the extent that it encompasses more
reality, and if we take the basic impulse of the self to be to preserve and enrich its
own being, then self-realization represents the fulfilment of the impulse at the core
yet he still promises that the joy and meaningfulness of life are increased through
condition of widening the self. Such expansion is akin to ‘falling in love outward’.
Naess consciously focuses on the rewards rather than the costs of ecological self-
and more reliable if it arises out of self-interest rather than resting on moral reason
34
Mathews, F., “Deep Ecology”, included in A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, edited by
Dale Jamieson, Blackwell, Publishers, 2000, p. 221.
66
or a sense of duty. In this regard, Naess appeals to the Kantian distinction between
moral acts and beautiful acts. He then says that an act qualifies as moral,
stands against the natural inclination of the agent. On the contrary, an act is said
deliberation and out of the natural inclination of the agent. Kant is in favor of the
concept of the moral act. Naess is unimpressed with the record of morality in
bringing about morally right conduct. He thinks that the natural world will be
perceiving the interests of nature as the interests of one’s own wider self. What we
learn from Naess is that the ecological self-realization is in the trust and deepest
interests of the human self. As a result of that, it gives rise to the steadfast
path to both personal fulfillment and ecological wisdom and virtue. In this regard,
Naess makes ‘seeking one’s own good’ rather than ‘saying the world’ a central
realization had informed his original version of the principles of deep ecology
However, later on, Naess along with George Sessions and Devall published a
book entitled Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered (1984) in which they
set up new set of principles and described them as the platform of the deep
67
interconnectedness and to an ethos of biocentric egalitarianism was dropped and
statement of the ‘intrinsic value’ of the non-human world. Here deep ecology is
understood with regard to intrinsic value. The eight principles of the new platform
(i) The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on earth
principles are in some sense or other linked with the first principle of deep
ecology movement.
(ii) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these
values, i.e., the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life
(iii) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to
(iv) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial
68
(v) Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and
(vi) Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic,
(vii) The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling
(viii) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or
with the natural world and to restore intrinsic value to all biotic as well as abiotic
communities. It states that all non-human life has equal intrinsic value not as a
abolishes human dominance over and interference in nature. Humans are entitled
to take from the biosphere whatever they truly need for a culturally rich,
materially simple life, but no more that. It further states that we, as humans, are
not entitled to multiply beyond the numbers needed for us to sustain meaningful
cultures. The message is that humanity should, as far as possible, leave nature
alone. Both Naess and Sessions are of the opinion that instead of human
interference in the non-human world, the fight to preserve and extend areas of
wilderness or near wilderness should continue and should focus on the general
69
and game preserves are not large enough to allow for such speciation.” 35It thus
seems that the idea of non-interference in nature thus gives expression to the
world-view or alternative metaphysical paradigm, has thus given way to the more
has been nullified and importance has been given to the intrinsic value of all non-
human natural communities. Thus, the proposal of deep ecology in one sense
order to identify someone as a deep ecologist, one has to commit to the deep
ecological platform and more importantly to the principle of intrinsic value which
metaphysics all have a sense of deep ecology. All of these schools of thought view
Christian religion, where men are represented as the sons of God and it has
equally been asserted that what men are doing in the universe are doing with the
While answering to the query about depth, Naess pointed out that he had intended
the word ‘deep’ in deep ecology to signify depth of questioning. The essence of
deep ecology (as compared to the science of ecology, and with what we call
35
Naess and Sessions, 1995, p.52.
70
‘deep’ stresses that we should ask why and how, where others do not. Here, the
questioning goes deep and deeper. Unlike deep ecology, ecology, as a science
does not ask what kind of a society would be the best for maintaining particular
ecosystems. Deep ecology is not about ecology of science. Unlike the ecology of
science, deep ecology banks on humans’ conscience. The depth in deep ecology is
principle of deep ecology. Deep ecology thus would remain as deep within
perception of deep ecology has gradually changed over the period. It was largely
due to the efforts of Devall and Sessions that deep ecology started to gain
currency in the English-speaking world in the mid 1980s. Interestingly, their book
Deep Ecology, included the new platform, encompasses the views of nature
perceptual change, deep ecology still carries some of its earlier metaphysical
position which construes our human identity and purpose essentially in terms of
our relationships with the natural world, and eventually, with the cosmos, rather
than with regard to gender and class. Thus, deep ecology is the classic example of
eco-philosophy. It has been treated as a classic case mainly for the reason that it
has come closer and closer to nature not by giving arguments from the science of
Deep ecology thus appears as a holistic approach of nature where humans’ do not
find themselves as the superior biotic agents. This theory does not work on the
71
basis of ecological science, but on the basis of self-realization or self-examination
by humans.
Having said this, we still find some problems in deep ecology. It has been stated
that deep ecology is a clear shift away from western anthropocentrism to non-
division between humankind and nature, where humanity was seen as set apart
from and above. It states men are the measures of everything because men alone
can have the faculty of rational thought on the basis of which they can judge
everything. Thus, men are the higher order or superior beings and men can
dominate and exploit nature according to their desires. We think that deep
ecologists sought to heal this conceptual divide between humankind and nature by
revising the latter as having meaning and value of its own. It acknowledges equal
intrinsic value to all natural communities. Intrinsic value or inherent value is not
something that has been given; rather it is possessed as an end in itself. This
standpoint of deep ecology actually nullifies the division between men and nature,
deep ecology has been challenged by eco-feminists. For them, deep ecologists fail
to understand the political roots of the human/nature divide in the real sense of the
the dualistic thinking that serves to naturalize and legitimate political oppression
men. Thus, feminists find a dualistic thinking as the core dichotomy, namely,
72
dualism, human/nature dualism, culture/nature dualism, reason/emotion dualism,
systematically ranked over the other. All these relations reflected through pairs are
the society and it would really be hard to overlook them. All these are interlinked
and it would be very difficult to ignore. The upshot of this kind of analysis is that
since the ideology which justifies the domination of nature by humankind is only
Eco-feminists then assert that the task of changing the thinking that underlies the
environment crisis turns out to be far greater and more complex than deep
feminists in some sense or other are of the opinion that the domination and
environment.
However, deep ecologists such as Warwick Fox and others have attempted to
domination of women will be justified by their association with nature. Fox calls it
colonial regimes where indigenous peoples will be assimilated with nature while
the colonizers will be taken to exemplify humanness. In such a case the liberation
73
suggest that arguments attempting to prioritize the domination of nature are
equally favor humans’ domination over nature as they think that human
society. For them, if the psychology of domination prevailing in the society in the
hierarchies, but hierarchies based on other social variables, such as, gender, age,
the relevance of domination comes only when societies are predicated to the
simply does not arise. Murray Bookchin, the originator of social ecology, explains
74
obstruct the self-realization of the individual. It states that we cannot realize our
true human potential when we are in thrall to the will of others, i.e., when we are
in conflict with the will of others. Our true human potential is, according to
Bookchin, a function of our place in nature. In this model, it does not make sense
to say that we are an integral part of nature. The problem of deep ecology
conceptually which is not the reality in practice. Social ecology thinks the other
way round. It affirms that humans are deeply related with others and there is
nothing wrong to assume it. But what is absolutely implausible to think that there
Bookchin thus denies deep ecology movement based on the principle that human
beings are simply part and parcel of nature. Humans cannot be regarded as
ordinary members of the biotic community. Nor it can be right to assume that
According to Bookchin both are wrong. For him humanity has evolved out of, and
remains inextricably continuous with the non-human world, but is no longer part
of it in just the same way that other species is. Of course humans may think by
their own that they are integral part of nature, but that does not make sense to
distinguishes between first nature, i.e., the non-human component and the second
Thus, social ecologists unlike deep ecologists adhere to the view that an
ecological way of life involves not turning away from society but rather a deeper
participation in society. Deep ecology does not refer to one specific and
75
approaches to ecological issues that share some fundamental ecocentric and non-
inherent worth and it might be rejected by deep ecologists who are more inclined
towards political activism. The ambiguity can itself be ground for criticism. Many
criticize the deep ecology movement as an empty vessel that makes too much
noise. For them in a real sense deep ecology movement based on self-realization is
an idle theory and it does not work in environmental ethics. It is abstruse and
metaphysical and as a result of that it does not match with environmental ethics.
Environmental ethics, being a wing of applied ethics, cannot address anything that
become unintelligible. The Deep ecological perception that humans are no better
ecology denies the moral priority of humans and it has been criticized by many
classical and traditional ethicists. The real problem with deep ecology is that it has
dominant world views. It would be wrong to assume and generalize that humans
in general are responsible for environmental degradation. Many humans are not
part of the dominance. Thus, deep ecologists are too broad in their critique and
thus overly broad in their program. Having said this, we can still say that the deep
76
understand that the environmental issues are not simply ethical issues.
***
77