Deep ecology
Deep ecology is an environmental philosophy that emphasizes ecological activism and a spiritual connection to nature. First coined by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1972, the term encourages moving beyond anthropocentrism—the belief that nature exists solely for human use—and promotes a more holistic worldview. Deep ecology encompasses three main aspects: a commitment to critically analyzing environmental ethics, a set of shared values among various environmental activists (such as the intrinsic value of nature and the importance of biodiversity), and philosophies that advocate for ecocentrism and a deep communion with the natural world.
The philosophy draws on diverse influences, including non-Western spiritual traditions and the writings of prominent figures like Henry David Thoreau. However, it is not without controversy; critiques arise from various perspectives, including ecofeminism, which highlights the need to address gender differences in environmental experiences, and social ecology, which connects environmental issues to broader social and political structures. Some deep ecologists have also faced criticism for a perceived misanthropy and for idealizing untouched wilderness. Despite these debates, deep ecology continues to significantly influence environmental activism and discussions about our relationship with the natural world.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Deep ecology
DEFINITION: School of environmental philosophy based on environmental activism and ecological spirituality
The thinking of deep ecologists has attracted criticism from some quarters at the same time it has expanded approaches to environmental ethics.
The term “deep ecology” was first used by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1972 to suggest the need to go beyond the anthropocentric view that nature is merely a resource for human use. Since that time, the term has been used in three major ways. First, it has been used to refer to a commitment to deep questioning about environmental ethics and the causes of environmental problems; such questioning leads to critical reflection on the fundamental worldviews that underlie specific environmental ideas and practices. Second, the term has been used to refer to a platform of generally agreed-upon values that a variety of environmental activists share; these values include an affirmation of the intrinsic value of nature, the recognition of the importance of biodiversity, a call for a reduction of human impact on the natural world, greater concern with quality of life than with material affluence, and a commitment to changing economic policies and the dominant view of nature. Third, “deep ecology” has been used to refer to particular philosophies of nature that tend to emphasize the value of nature as a whole (ecocentrism), an identification of the self with the natural world, and an intuitive and sensuous communion with the earth.
Because of its emphasis on fundamental worldviews, deep ecology is often associated with non-Western spiritual traditions, such as Buddhism and Native American cultures, as well as with radical Western philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza and Martin Heidegger. It has also drawn on the nature writing of Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Robinson Jeffers, and Gary Snyder. Deep ecology’s holistic tendencies have led to associations with the Gaia hypothesis, and its emphasis on diversity and intimacy with nature has linked it to bioregionalism. Deep ecological views have also had a strong impact on environmental activism, including the Earth First! movement.
Deep ecologists have sometimes criticized the animal rights perspective for continuing the traditional Western emphasis on individuals while neglecting whole systems, as well as for a revised speciesism that still values certain parts of nature (animals) over others. Some deep ecologists have also been critical of mainstream environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club for not confronting the root causes of environmental degradation.
Ecofeminists have criticized deep ecology for failing to consider gender differences in the experience of the self and nature, for failing to examine the connection between the oppression of women and human treatment of nature, and for promoting a holism that, the ecofeminists assert, disregards the reality and value of individuals and their relationships. Social ecologists have criticized deep ecology for failing to critique the relationship between environmental destruction on the one hand and social structure and political ideology on the other. In addition, a distrust of human interference with nature has led some deep ecology thinkers to present pristine wilderness, with no human presence, as the ideal. In rare and extreme cases, deep ecologists have implied a misanthropic attitude. In some instances, especially in early writings by deep ecologists, such criticisms have had considerable force. However, these problematic views are not essential to deep ecology, and a number of deep ecologists have developed a broadened view that overlaps with ecofeminism and social ecology.
Bibliography
Bender, Frederic L. The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books, 2003.
Devall, Bill. "The Deep Ecology Movement." The International Journal of Ecopsychology, vol. 7. no. 1, 18 Sept. 2023, digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=ije. Accessed 16 July 2024.
Devall, Bill. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith, 1988.
Diehm, Christian. "Darwin and Deep Ecology." Ethics and the Environment 19.1 (2014): 73–93.
Katz, Eric, Andrew Light, and David Rothenberg, eds. Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.
Khalfaoui, Mathias. "Deep Ecology: An Often Misunderstood Theory." Earth.org, 28 July 2023, earth.org/deep-ecology-an-often-misunderstood-theory/. Accessed 16 July 2024.
Kober, Gal. "For They Do Not Agree in Nature: Spinoza and Deep Ecology." Ethics and the Environment 18.1 (2013): 43–63.