Summary on Chapter from Modules 05-08 philosophy

M06Lec02: Guha's Third World Critique of Deep Ecology

This lecture will help you understand: • The Third World critique of Deep

Ecology • Wilderness preservation vs. Third

World environmental concerns • The German Greens • The Chipko movement • The integration of ecological

concerns with livelihood and work

Ramachandra Guha, Indian sociologist and historian (1957-)

Guha’s Third World Perspective

• When deep ecologists critique "the" dominant worldview, they fail to acknowledge that many humans are not part of that dominance. Thus deep ecologists are too broad in their critique and, consequently, too broad in their positive program.

Wilderness Preservation

• Guha argues that, despite its claims to universality, deep ecology is uniquely an American ideology, essentially a radical branch of the wilderness preservation movement.

• If it were put into practice, deep ecology would have disastrous consequences, especially for the poor and agrarian populations in underdeveloped countries.

Guha’s Two Claims

1. Deep ecology is uniquely American. 2. The social consequences of putting deep

ecology into practice on a worldwide basis are very grave indeed.

4 Defining Characteristics of Deep Ecology

1. Transition from an anthropocentric to a biocentric perspective.

2. Focuses on the preservation of unspoiled wilderness and the restoration of degraded areas to a more pristine condition.

3. The invocation of the Eastern spiritual tradition.

4. Deep ecology believes itself to be the leading edge of the environmental movement.

1. Criticism of the Anthropocentric- Biocentric Distinction

• According to Guha the anthropocentric- biocentric distinction is irrelevant to environmental concerns. – It is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with

the two fundamental ecological problems facing the globe. These are:

• Overconsumption by the industrialized world and by urban elites in the Third World.

• Growing militarization, both ongoing regional wars and the arms race, i.e., the prospect of nuclear annihilation.

2. Criticism of the Emphasis on Wilderness

• He rejects the view “that intervention in nature should be guided primarily by the need to preserve biotic integrity rather than by the needs of humans.”

• In his view, India’s tiger reserves are an example of “elite ecological imperialism” that results in “a direct transfer of resources from the poor to the rich.” – "Thus, Project Tiger, a network of parks hailed

by the international conservation community as an outstanding success, sharply posits the interests of the tiger against those of poor peasants living in and around the reserve."

3. The Invocation of the Eastern Spiritual Tradition

• “Complex and internally differentiated religious traditions--Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism--are lumped together as holding a view of nature believed to be quintessentially biocentric.”

• Guha argues this “appropriation of Eastern traditions” is selective and lazy. – It does not bother to differentiate between alternative

religious and cultural traditions and does violence to the historical record.

• Not all of Eastern traditions can be said to rest on a mystical affinity with nature. Eastern cultures, as well as Western cultures, have manipulated nature and caused significant ecological destruction too!

The “Orient”

• Guha argues that this romantic and essentially positive view of the East is merely the flip side of the scientific and essentially negative view of the so-called "Orient" by Western scholars.

• According to Guha, "both views are monolithic, simplistic, and have the characteristic effect of denying agency and reason to the East and making it the privileged orbit of Western thinkers."

4. Deep Ecology Believes Itself to Be Radical

• Although deep ecology views in itself as the leading edge of the environmental movement it is best viewed as merely a radical trend within the wilderness preservation movement.

• Its practical emphasis on the preservation of unspoiled nature is virtually identical with the American wilderness preservation movement.

American Elitism

• At worst Deep Ecology is elitist in its attempts to preserve wilderness experiences for only a select group of economically and socio-politically well- off people, namely, you and me!

• To this extent, deep ecology coexists with the consumer society without seriously questioning its ecological and sociopolitical basis. – It views nature as a source of aesthetic pleasure and

contemplation.

Green Party of Germany (Die Grünen)

• The Green Party traces its origins to the student protest movement of the 1960s, the environmentalist movement of the 1970s, and the peace movement of the early 1980s.

• The focus of the environmentalist protest was nuclear power, and the movement was directed especially at German labor, businesses, and politicians, all of whom enthusiastically endorsed the use of nuclear power, particularly after the sharp rise in oil prices in 1973.

The Chipko movement (literally "to cling" in Hindi)

• Social ecological movement that practiced the Gandhian methods of satyagraha (“"insistence on truth"–“soul force”) and non-violent resistance, through the act of hugging trees to protect them from being felled.

• The modern Chipko movement started in the early 1970s in the Himalayas with growing awareness towards rapid deforestation.

• March 26, 1974, a group of peasant Indian women acted to prevent the cutting of trees and reclaim their traditional forest rights that were threatened by the contractor system of the state Forest Department.

Survival

• “The sections of society most critically affected by environmental degradation-- poor and landless peasants, women, and tribals. . . . [For them] it is a question of sheer survival, not of enhancing the quality of life.”

Livelihood and Work

• Both the German and Indian environmental traditions allow for greater integration of ecological concerns with livelihood and work.

• They also place a greater emphasis on equity and social justice on the grounds that without social regeneration environmental regeneration has very little chance of succeeding.

• This is of course the same kind of claim we find in social ecology.

Guha’s Conclusion

• "A truly radical ecology in the American context ought to work toward a synthesis of the appropriate technology, alternate lifestyle, and peace movements. By making the (largely spurious) anthropocentric-biocentric distinction central to the debate, deep ecologists may have appropriated the moral high ground, but they are at the same time doing a serious disservice to American and global environmentalism."

Green Missionaries?

• Guha likens deep ecologists to what he calls “Green missionaries.” They represent a movement aimed at further dispossessing the world’s poor and indigenous people.

Deep Ecology's Response

• Deep ecology movement is not narrowly focused on wilderness. For instance, bioregionalism is highlighted as an ecologically sensible way of life for people throughout the world.

• There is also a critique of inappropriate technology.

• There is also critique of over-consumption by the rich.

• Arne Naess is a recognized world authority on Gandhi’s philosophy and has incorporated Gandhi into his personal ecological philosophy.

• Guha is not the “impartial” or representative spokesperson of the Third World.

• There are many people throughout the Third World who place a high priority on efforts to protect biodiversity and wild Nature in their countries.

• For example, the well-known Indian physicist/ecofeminist, Vandana Shiva, claims that deep ecology’s insistence on the intrinsic value and protection of wild species and habitat is the only way to ensure a healthy life-style for the world’s poor in the long run.

Vandana Shiva, philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist (1952-)

The Question

• To what extent are environmentalists justified in displacing indigenous people from their homes in order to set up preserves to protect wild ecosystems, endangered species, and the evolutionary development of nature?