Showing posts with label Val Plumwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Val Plumwood. Show all posts

2020/11/24

Ecofeminism - Wikipedia

Ecofeminism - Wikipedia

Ecofeminism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ecofeminism is a branch of feminism that sees environmentalism, and the relationship between women and the earth, as foundational to its analysis and practice. Ecofeminist thinkers draw on the concept of gender to analyse the relationships between humans and the natural world.[1] The term was coined by the French writer Françoise d'Eaubonne in her book Le Féminisme ou la Mort (1974).[2][3] Ecofeminist theory asserts a feminist perspective of Green politics that calls for an egalitarian, collaborative society in which there is no one dominant group.[4] Today, there are several branches of ecofeminism, with varying approaches and analyses, including liberal ecofeminism, spiritual/cultural ecofeminism, and social/socialist ecofeminism (or materialist ecofeminism).[4] Interpretations of ecofeminism and how it might be applied to social thought include ecofeminist art, social justice and political philosophy, religion, contemporary feminism, and poetry.

Ecofeminist analysis explores the connections between women and nature in culture, religion, literature and iconography, and addresses the parallels between the oppression of nature and the oppression of women. These parallels include but are not limited to seeing women and nature as property, seeing men as the curators of culture and women as the curators of nature, and how men dominate women and humans dominate nature. Ecofeminism emphasizes that both women and nature must be respected.[5]

Though the scope of ecofeminist analysis is broad and dynamic,[6] American author and ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak has offered one way of categorizing ecofeminist work: 1) through the study of political theory as well as history; 2) through the belief and study of nature-based religions; 3) through environmentalism.[7]


Contents
1Overview
2Gendering Nature
3Concepts
3.1Modern Science and Ecofeminism
3.2Vegetarian Ecofeminism
3.3Materialist Ecofeminism
3.4Spiritual Ecofeminism/Cultural Ecofeminism
4Environmental movements
4.1Movements of the 1970s and 80s
5Major critiques
6Theorists
7See also
8References
9Further reading
9.1Key works
9.2Anthologies
9.3Journal articles
9.4Fiction
10Poetry
11External links
Overview[edit]

In the 1993 essay entitled "Ecofeminism: Toward Global Justice and Planetary Health" authors Greta Gaard and Lori Gruen outline what they call the "ecofeminist framework". The essay provides a wealth of data and statistics in addition to outlining the theoretical aspects of the ecofeminist critique. The framework described is intended to establish ways of viewing and understanding our current global situations so that we can better understand how we arrived at this point and what may be done to ameliorate the ills.

Gaard and Gruen argue that there are four sides to this framework:
The mechanistic materialist model of the universe that resulted from the scientific revolution and the subsequent reduction of all things into mere resources to be optimized, dead inert matter to be used.
The rise of patriarchal religions and their establishment of gender hierarchies along with their denial of immanent divinity.
Self and other dualisms and the inherent power and domination ethic it entails.
Capitalism and its claimed intrinsic need for the exploitation, destruction and instrumentalization of animals, earth and people for the sole purpose of creating wealth.

They hold that these four factors have brought us to what ecofeminists see as a "separation between nature and culture" that is for them the root source of our planetary ills.[8]

Françoise d'Eaubonne.

Ecofeminism developed out of anarcha-feminist concerns with abolishing all forms of domination, while focusing on the oppressive nature of humanity's relationship to the natural world.[9] According to Françoise d'Eaubonne in her book Le Féminisme ou la Mort (1974), ecofeminism relates the oppression and domination of all marginalized groups (women, people of color, children, the poor) to the oppression and domination of nature (animals, land, water, air, etc.). In the book, the author argues that oppression, domination, exploitation, and colonization from the Western patriarchal society has directly caused irreversible environmental damage.[10] Françoise d'Eaubonne was an activist and organizer, and her writing encouraged the eradication of all social injustice, not just injustice against women and the environment.[10]

This tradition includes a number of influential texts including: Women and Nature (Susan Griffin 1978), The Death of Nature (Carolyn Merchant 1980) and Gyn/Ecology (Mary Daly 1978). These texts helped to propel the association between domination by man on women and the domination of culture on nature. From these texts feminist activism of the 1980s linked ideas of ecology and the environment. Movements such as the National Toxics Campaign, Mothers of East Los Angeles (MELA), and Native Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE) were led by women devoted to issues of human health and environmental justice.[11] Writings in this circle discussed ecofeminism drawing from Green Party politics, peace movements, and direct action movements.[12]

Modern ecofeminism, or feminist eco-criticism, eschews such essentialism and instead focuses more on intersectional questions, such as how the nature-culture split enables the oppression of female and nonhuman bodies. It is also an activist and academic movement that sees critical connections between the exploitation of nature and the domination over women both caused by men.[citation needed]
Gendering Nature[edit]

Petra Kelly

Ecofeminist theory asserts that capitalism reflects only paternalistic and patriarchal values. This notion implies that the effects of capitalism have not benefited women and has led to a harmful split between nature and culture.[13] In the 1970s, early ecofeminists discussed that the split can only be healed by the feminine instinct for nurture and holistic knowledge of nature's processes.

Since then, several ecofeminist scholars have made the distinction that it is not because women are female or "feminine" that they relate to nature, but because of their similar states of oppression by the same male-dominant forces. The marginalization is evident in the gendered language used to describe nature, such as "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature", and the animalized language used to describe women. Some discourses link women specifically to the environment because of their traditional social role as a nurturer and caregiver.[14] Ecofeminists following in this line of thought believe that these connections are illustrated through the coherence of socially-labeled values associated with 'femininity' such as nurturing, which are present both among women and in nature.

Alternatively, ecofeminist and activist Vandana Shiva wrote that women have a special connection to the environment through their daily interactions and that this connection has been underestimated. According to Shiva, women in subsistence economies who produce "wealth in partnership with nature, have been experts in their own right of holistic and ecological knowledge of nature's processes". She makes the point that "these alternative modes of knowing, which are oriented to the social benefits and sustenance needs are not recognized by the capitalist reductionist paradigm, because it fails to perceive the interconnectedness of nature, or the connection of women's lives, work and knowledge with the creation of wealth (23)".[15] Shiva blames this failure on the Western patriarchal perceptions of development and progress. According to Shiva, patriarchy has labeled women, nature, and other groups not growing the economy as "unproductive".[16]

Concepts[edit]
Modern Science and Ecofeminism[edit]

In Ecofeminism (1993) authors Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies ponder modern science and its acceptance as a universal and value-free system. They view the dominant stream of modern science not as objective science but as a projection of Western men's values.[17] The privilege of determining what is considered scientific knowledge and its usage has been controlled by men, and for the most part of history restricted to men. Bondi and Miles list examples including the medicalization of childbirth and the industrialization of plant reproduction.[17]

Bondi argues that the medicalization of childbirth has marginalized midwife knowledge and changed the natural process of childbirth into a procedure dependent on specialized technologies and appropriated expertise.[17] A common claim within ecofeminist literature is that patriarchal structures justify their dominance through binary opposition, these include but are not limited to: heaven/earth, mind/body, male/female, human/animal, spirit/matter, culture/nature and white/non-white. Oppression, according to them, is reinforced by assuming truth in these binaries, which factuality they challenge, and instilling them as 'marvelous to behold' through what they consider to be religious and scientific constructs.[18]
Vegetarian Ecofeminism[edit]

The application of ecofeminism to animal rights has established vegetarian ecofeminism, which asserts that "omitting the oppression of animals from feminist and ecofeminist analyses […] is inconsistent with the activist and philosophical foundations of both feminism (as a "movement to end all forms of oppression") and ecofeminism."[19] It puts into practice "the personal is political," as many ecofeminists believe that "meat-eating is a form of patriarchal domination…that suggests a link between male violence and a meat-based diet."[19] During a 1995 interview with On the Issues, Carol J. Adams stated, "Manhood is constructed in our culture in part by access to meat-eating and control of other bodies, whether it's women or animals".[20] According to Adams, "We cannot work for justice and challenge the oppression of nature without understanding that the most frequent way we interact with nature is by eating animals".[20] Vegetarian ecofeminism combines sympathy with the analysis of culture and politics to refine a system of ethics and action.[19]
Materialist Ecofeminism[edit]

Ecofeminism as materialist is another common dimension of ecofeminism. A materialist view connects some institutions such as labor, power, and property as the source of domination over women and nature. There are connections made between these subjects because of the values of production and reproduction.[21] This dimension of ecofeminism may also be referred to as "social feminism," "socialist ecofeminism," or "Marxist ecofeminism." According to Carolyn Merchant, "Social ecofeminism advocates the liberation of women through overturning economic and social hierarchies that turn all aspects of life into a market society that today even invades the womb".[4] Ecofeminism in this sense seeks to eliminate social hierarchies which favor the production of commodities (dominated by men) over biological and social reproduction.
Spiritual Ecofeminism/Cultural Ecofeminism[edit]

Spiritual ecofeminism is another branch of ecofeminism, and it is popular among ecofeminist authors such as Starhawk, Riane Eisler, and Carol J. Adams. Starhawk calls this an earth-based spirituality, which recognizes that the Earth is alive, and that we are an interconnected community.[22] Spiritual ecofeminism is not linked to one specific religion, but is centered around values of caring, compassion, and non-violence.[23] Often, ecofeminists refer to more ancient traditions, such as the worship of Gaia, the Goddess of nature and spirituality (also known as Mother Earth).[23] Wicca and Paganism are particularly influential to spiritual ecofeminism. Most Wicca covens demonstrate a deep respect for nature, a feminine outlook, and an aim to establish strong community values.[24]

In her book Radical Ecology, Carolyn Merchant refers to spiritual ecofeminism as "cultural ecofeminism." According to Merchant, cultural ecofeminism, "celebrates the relationship between women and nature through the revival of ancient rituals centered on goddess worship, the moon, animals, and the female reproductive system."[4] In this sense, cultural ecofeminists tend to value intuition, an ethic of caring, and human-nature interrelationships.[4]
Environmental movements[edit]

Susan A. Mann, an eco-feminist and professor of sociological and feminist theory, considers the roles women played in these activisms to be the starter for ecofeminism in later centuries. Mann associates the beginning of ecofeminism not with feminists but with women of different race and class backgrounds who made connections among gender, race, class and environmental issues. This ideal is upheld through the notion that in activist and theory circles marginalized groups must be included in the discussion. In early environmental and women's movements, issues of varying races and classes were often separated.[25]

Beginning in the late 20th century, women worked in efforts to protect wildlife, food, air and water.[26] These efforts depended largely on new developments in the environmental movement from influential writers, such as Henry David Thoreau, Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and Rachel Carson.[27][28] Fundamental examples of women's efforts in the 20th century are the books Silent Spring by Rachel Carson and Refuge by Terry Tempest Williams.

Ecofeminist author Karren Warren lists Aldo Leopold's essay "Land Ethic" (1949) as a fundamental work to the ecofeminist conception, as Leopold was the first to pen an ethic for the land which understands all non-human parts of that community (animals, plants, land, air, water) as equal to and in a relationship with humans. This inclusive understanding of the environment launched the modern preservation movement and illustrated how issues can be viewed through a framework of caring.[10]

Women have participated in environmental movements, specifically preservation and conservation beginning in the late nineteenth century and continuing into the early twentieth century.[29]
Movements of the 1970s and 80s[edit]

In India, in state of Uttarakhand in 1973, women took part in the Chipko movement to protect forests from deforestation. Non-violent protest tactics were used to occupy trees so that loggers could not cut them down.[10]

Wangari Maathai

In Kenya in 1977, the Green Belt Movement was initiated by environmental and political activist Professor Wangari Maathai. It is rural tree planting program led by women, which Maathai designed to help prevent desertification in the area. The program created a 'green belt' of at least 1,000 trees around villages, and gave participants the ability to take charge in their communities. In later years, the Green Belt Movement was an advocate for informing and empowering citizens through seminars for civic and environmental education, as well as holding national leaders accountable for their actions and instilling agency in citizens.[30] The work of the Greenbelt Movement continues today.

In 1978 in New York, mother and environmentalist Lois Gibbs led her community in protest after discovering that their entire neighborhood, Love Canal, was built on top of a toxic dump site. The toxins in the ground were causing illness among children and reproductive issues among women, as well as birth defects in babies born to pregnant women exposed to the toxins. The Love Canal movement eventually led to the evacuation and relocation of nearly 800 families by the federal government.[31]

In 1980 and 1981, women organized a peaceful protest at the Pentagon. Women stood, hand in hand, demanding equal rights (including social, economic, and reproductive rights) as well as an end to militaristic actions taken by the government and exploitation of the community (people and the environment). This movement is known as the Women's Pentagon Actions.[12]

In 1985, the Akwesasne Mother's Milk Project was launched by Katsi Cook. This study was funded by the government, and investigated how the higher level of contaminants in water near the Mohawk reservation impacted babies. It revealed that through breast milk, Mohawk children were being exposed to 200% more toxins than children not on the reservation. Toxins contaminate water all over the world, but to due environmental racism, certain subversive groups are exposed to a much higher amount.[32]

The Greening of Harlem Coalition is another example of an ecofeminist movement. In 1989, Bernadette Cozart founded the coalition, which is responsible for many urban gardens around Harlem. Cozart's goal is to turn vacant lots into community gardens.[33] This is economically beneficial, and also provides a way for very urban communities to be in touch with nature and each other. The majority of people interested in this project (as noted in 1990) were women. Through these gardens, they were able to participate in and become leaders of their communities. Urban greening exists in other places as well. Beginning in 1994, a group of African-American women in Detroit have developed city gardens, and call themselves the Gardening Angels. Similar garden movements have occurred globally.[34]

The development of vegetarian ecofeminism can be traced to the mid-80s and 90s, where it first appeared in writing. However, the roots of a vegetarian ecofeminist view can be traced back further by looking at sympathy for non-humans and counterculture movements of the 1960s and 1970s.[19] At the culmination of the decade ecofeminism had spread to both coasts and articulated an intersectional analysis of women and the environment. Eventually, challenging ideas of environmental classism and racism, resisting toxic dumping and other threats to the impoverished.[35]

Vandana Shiva
Major critiques[edit]

In the 1980s and 1990s ecofeminism began to meet a lot of criticism from anti-essentialist feminism, which heavily critiqued what they viewed as essentialism. The essentialist view saw ecofeminism as reinforcing and growing patriarchal dominance and norms.[21] Through analysis done by post structural and third wave feminists it was argued that ecofeminism equated women with nature. This dichotomy is dangerous because it groups all women into one category and enforces the very societal norms that feminism is trying to break.

The major criticism of ecofeminism is that it is essentialist.[36] The ascribed essentialism appears in two main areas:
Ecofeminism demonstrates an adherence to the strict dichotomy, among others, between men and women. Some ecofeminist critiques note that the dichotomy between women and men and nature and culture creates a dualism that is too stringent and focused on the differences of women and men. In this sense, ecofeminism too strongly correlates the social status of women with the social status of nature, rather than the non-essentialist view that women along with nature both have masculine and feminine qualities, and that just like feminine qualities have often been seen as less worthy, nature is also seen as having lesser value than culture.[37]
Ecofeminism asserts a divergent view regarding participation in existing social structures. As opposed to radical and liberation-based feminist movements, mainstream feminism is tightly bound with hegemonic social status strives to promote equality within the existing social and political structure,[38] such as making it possible for women to occupy positions of power in business, industry and politics, using direct involvement as the main tactic for achieving pay equity and influence. In contrast, many ecofeminists oppose active engagement in these areas, as these are the very structures that the movement intends to dismantle.[37]

Out of this critique rose the anti-essentialist argument. Ecofeminist and author Noel Sturgeon says in an interview that what anti-essentialists are critiquing is a strategy used to mobilize large and diverse groups of both theorists and activists.[39] Additionally, ecofeminist and author Charlene Spretnak, modern ecofeminism is concerned about a variety of issues, including reproductive technology, equal pay and equal rights, taxis poisoning, Third World development, and more.[7]

Ecofeminism as it propelled into the 21st century became aware of the criticisms, and in response ecofeminists with a materialist lens began doing research and renaming the topic, i.e. queer ecologies, global feminist environmental justice, and gender and the environment.[35]

Social ecologist and feminist Janet Biehl has criticized ecofeminism for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature and not enough on the actual conditions of women.[40] She has also stated that rather than being a forward-moving theory, ecofeminism is an anti-progressive movement for women.[40]

Rosemary Radford Ruether also critiqued this focus on mysticism over work that focuses on helping women, but argues that spirituality and activism can be combined effectively in ecofeminism.[41]

A. E. Kings has criticized ecofeminism for limiting itself to focusing only on gender and the environment, and neglecting to take an intersectional approach. Kings says that ecofeminists claim to be intersectional, however have fallen short on their commitment until recently.[42]

Feminist thought surrounding ecofeminism grew in some areas as it was criticized; vegetarian ecofeminism contributed intersectional analysis; and ecofeminisms that analyzed animal rights, labor rights and activisms as they could draw lines among oppressed groups. To some, the inclusion of non-human animals also came to be viewed as essentialist.
Theorists[edit]
Judi Bari – Bari was a principal organizer of the Earth First! movement and experienced hostility due to her womanhood.
Françoise d'Eaubonne – Called upon women to lead an ecological revolution in order to save the planet. This entailed revolutionizing gender relations and human relations with the natural world.[2]
Greta Gaard – Greta Gaard is an American ecofeminist scholar and activist. Her major contributions to the field connect ideas of queer theory, vegetarianism, and animal liberation. Her major theories include ecocriticism which works to include literary criticism and composition to inform ecofeminism and other feminist theories to address wider range of social issues within ecofeminism. She is an ecological activist and leader in the U.S. Green Party, and the Green Movement.[43]
Sallie McFague – A prominent ecofeminist theologian, McFague uses the metaphor of God's body to represent the universe at large. This metaphor values inclusive, mutualistic and interdependent relations amongst all things.[44]
Carolyn Merchant – Historian of science who taught at Berkeley for many years. Her book The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution is a classic ecofeminist text.
Mary Mellor – UK sociologist who moved to ecofeminist ideas from an interest in cooperatives. Her books Breaking the Boundaries and Feminism and Ecology are grounded in a materialist analysis.
Maria Mies – Mies is a German social critic who has been involved in feminist work throughout Europe and India. She works particularly on the intersections of patriarchy, poverty, and the environment on a local and global scale.[41]
Val Plumwood – Val Plumwood, formerly Val Routley, was an Australian ecofeminist intellectual and activist, who was prominent in the development of radical ecosophy from the early 1970s through the remainder of the 20th century. In her works "Feminism and the Mastery of Nature" she describes the relationship of mankind and the environment relating to an eco-feminist ideology.[45]
Alicia Puleo – The author of several books and articles on ecofeminism and gender inequality, Alicia Puleo has been characterized as "arguably Spain's most prominent explicator-philosopher of the worldwide movement or theoretical orientation known as ecofeminism."[46]
Rosemary Radford Ruether – Has written 36 books and over 600 articles exploring the intersections of feminism, theology, and creation care.[47]
Ariel Salleh – Australian ecofeminist with a global perspective; a founding editor of the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism; author of two books and some 200 articles examining links with deep and social ecology, green politics and eco-socialism.
Vandana Shiva – Shiva is a Philosopher, author, activist, and feminist from India.[48] She was a participant in the Chipko movement of the 1970s, which used non-violent activism to protest and prevent deforestation in the Garhwal Himalayas of Uttarakhand, India then in Uttar Pradesh.
Charlene Spretnak – Spretnak is an American writer largely known for her writing on ecology, politics and spirituality. Through these writings Spretnak has become a prominent ecofeminist. She has written many books which discuss ecological issues in terms of effects with social criticisms, including feminism. Spretnak works had a major influence in the development of the Green Party. She has also won awards based on her visions on ecology and social issues as well as feminist thinking.[49]
Starhawk – An American writer and activist Starhawk is known for her work in spiritualism and ecofeminism. She advocates for social justice in issues surrounding nature and spirit. These social justice issues fall under the scope of feminism and ecofeminism. She believes in fighting oppression through intersectionality and the importance of spirituality, eco consciousness and sexual and gender liberation.[50]
Vanessa Lemgruber – Lemgruber is a Lawyer, brazilian writer,[51] activist, and ecofeminist[52] from Brazil. She defendes[53] the Rio Doce river in Brazil and advocates for water quality and zero waste movments.[54]
Douglas Vakoch – An American ecocritic whose edited volumes include Ecofeminism and Rhetoric: Critical Perspectives on Sex, Technology, and Discourse (2011),[55] Feminist Ecocriticism: Environment, Women, and Literature (2012),[56] and (with Sam Mickey) Ecofeminism in Dialogue (2018),[57] Literature and Ecofeminism: Intersectional and International Voices (2018),[58] and Women and Nature?: Beyond Dualism in Gender, Body, and Environment (2018).[59]
Karen Warren – Warren received her B.A. in philosophy from the University of Minnesota (1970) and her Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst in 1978. Before her long tenure at Macalester College, which began in 1985, Warren was Professor of Philosophy at St. Olaf College in the early 1980s. Warren was the Ecofeminist-Scholar-in-Residence at Murdoch University in Australia.[1] In 2003, she served as an Oxford University Round Table Scholar and as Women's Chair in Humanistic Studies at Marquette University in 2004. She has spoken widely on environmental issues, feminism, critical thinking skills and peace studies in many international locations including Buenos Aires, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Oslo, Manitoba, Melbourne, Moscow, Perth, the U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and San Jose.
Laura Wright — Wright proposed Vegan Studies as an academic discipline.
See also[edit]

Chipko movement
Cottagecore
Deep ecology
Deep Green Resistance
Ecofeminist art
Green syndicalism
Intersectionality
List of ecofeminist authors
Queer ecology
Romanticism
Social ecology
Vegan studies
Vegetarian ecofeminism
Women and the environment through history
Climate change and gender



References[edit]

^ Jump up to:a b MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286. ISBN 978-0-7748-1201-6.
^ Jump up to:a b (Merchant, Carolyn. "Chapter 8." In Radical ecology: the search for a livable world. New York: Routledge, 1992. 184)
^ Warren, Karen (September 2002). "Karen Warren's Ecofeminism". Ethics & the Environment. 7 (2): 12–26. doi:10.2979/ETE.2002.7.2.12.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e Merchant, Carolyn (2005). "Ecofeminism". Radical Ecology. Routledge. pp. 193–221.
^ Adams, Carol (2007). Ecofeminism and the Sacred. Continuum. pp. 1–8.
^ "Ecofeminist Movements" (PDF).
^ Jump up to:a b Spretnak, Charlene. "Ecofeminism: Our Roots and Flowering." Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Feminism, edited by Irene Diamond and Gloria Ornstein, Sierra Club Books, 1990, pp. 3-14.
^ Gaard, Greta and, Gruen, Lori (1993). "Ecofeminism: Toward Global Justice and Planetary Health". Society and Nature. 2: 1–35.
^ Tuana, Nancy; Tong, Rosemarie, eds. (2018). "Anarcha Feminist and Ecological Feminist Perspectives". Feminism And Philosophy: Essential Readings In Theory, Reinterpretation, And Application. Routledge. pp. 327–9. ISBN 0-8133-2212-X.
^ Jump up to:a b c d Warren, Karen J. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. Lanham, Maryland: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 9780847692996.
^ Merchant, Carolyn (2005). Radical Ecology. Routledge. pp. 169–173.
^ Jump up to:a b Lamar, Stephanie (1991). "Ecofeminist Theory and Grassroots Politics". Hypatia. 6 (1): 28–45. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb00207.x.
^ Oksala, Johanna (Spring 2018). "Feminism, Capitalism, and Ecology". Hypatia. 33 (2): 216–234. doi:10.1111/hypa.12395.
^ Stoddart, Mark; Tindall, D. B. (2011). "Ecofeminism, Hegemonic Masculinity, And Environmental Movement Participation In British Columbia, Canada, 1998-2007: "Women Always Clean Up The Mess"". Sociological Spectrum. 31 (3): 342–368. doi:10.1080/02732173.2011.557065.
^ Shiva, Vandana (1988). Staying alive: women, ecology and development. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-0-86232-823-8.
^ Shiva, Vandana. "Development as a New Project of Western Patriarchy." Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Feminism, edited by Irene Diamond and Gloria Ornstein, Sierra Club Books, 1990, pp. 189-200.
^ Jump up to:a b c (Mies, Maria, and Vandana Shiva. Ecofeminism. Halifax, N.S. : Fernwood Publications; 1993. 24.)
^ Laura Hobgood-Oster. "Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution" (PDF). Retrieved March 17, 2012.
^ Jump up to:a b c d Gaard, Greta Claire (2002). "Vegetarian ecofeminism: A review essay". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 23 (2): 117–146. doi:10.1353/fro.2003.0006.
^ Jump up to:a b "Do Feminists Need to Liberate Animals, Too?". Carol J. Adams. Retrieved 2019-04-30.
^ Jump up to:a b "Ecofeminism: Is the Movement Still Relevant?". Gender Across Borders.
^ Starhawk. "Power, Authority, and Mystery: Ecofeminism and Earth-based Spirituality." Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, edited by Irene Diamond and Gloria Orenstein, Sierra Club Books, 1990, pp. 73-86.
^ Jump up to:a b Eisler, Riane. "The Gaia Tradition & The Partnership Future: An Ecofeminist Manifesto." Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, edited by Irene Diamond and Gloria Orenstein, Sierra Club Books, 1990, pp. 23-34.
^ Merchant, Carolyn (2005). "Spiritual Ecology". Radical Ecology. Routledge. pp. 124–125.
^ Mann, Susan A (2011). "Pioneers of U.S. Ecofeminism and Environmental Justice". Feminist Formations. 23 (2): 1–25. doi:10.1353/ff.2011.0028.
^ Glazebrook, Trish (Autumn 2002). "Karen Warren's Ecofeminism". Ethics & the Environment. 7 (2): 12–27. doi:10.2979/ete.2002.7.2.12.
^ Norlock, Kathryn J. (December 2011). "Building Receptivity: Leopold's Land Ethic and Critical Feminist Interpretation". Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture(Submitted manuscript). 5 (4): 491–509. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v5i4.491.
^ Seager, Joni (Spring 2003). "Rachel Carson Died of Breast Cancer: The Coming of Age of Feminist Environmentalism". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 28 (3): 945–973. doi:10.1086/345456.
^ Mann, Susan A. (2011). "Pioneers of U.S. Ecofeminism and Environmental Justice". Feminist Formations. 23 (2): 1–25. doi:10.1353/ff.2011.0028. JSTOR 41301654.
^ "Our History". The Green Belt Movement. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
^ "Love Canal". Center for Health, Environment, & Justice. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
^ Doverspike, Nicole (2012). "Mother's Milk Project". English 487W Blog: West of Everything. Retrieved October 9, 2016.
^ Bernstein, Emily (1993). "Neighborhood Report: Harlem; Sowing a Future With Green in It". The New York Times. Retrieved October 9, 2016.
^ Hawthorne, Susan (2002). Wild Politics: Feminism, Globalisation, Bio/diversity. Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex Press.
^ Jump up to:a b Gaard, Greta (2011). "Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism". Feminist Formations. 23 (2): 26–53. doi:10.1353/ff.2011.0017.
^ Gaard, Greta (Summer 2011). "Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism". Feminist Formations. 23 (2): 26–53. doi:10.1353/ff.2011.0017.
^ Jump up to:a b "Ecofeminism Critique". The Green Fuse.
^ hooks, bell. "Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center" Cambridge, MA: South End Press 1984
^ Michiels, Nete. "Social Movements And Feminism." Women & Environments International Magazine, no. 92/93, 2013, pp. 15-17.
^ Jump up to:a b Biehl, Janet (1991). Rethinking eco-feminist politics. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-392-9.
^ Jump up to:a b Ruether, Rosemary Radford (2003). Heather Eaton & Lois Ann Lorentzen (ed.). Ecofeminism and Globalization. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. pp. vii–xi. ISBN 978-0-7425-2697-6.
^ Kings, A.E. (Spring 2017). "Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism". Ethics and the Environment. 22: 63–87. doi:10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04.
^ "Greta Gaard". www.uwrf.edu. Retrieved 2019-10-08.
^ Ralte, Lalrinawmi. The World as the Body of God Ecofeminist Theological Discourse with Special Reference to Tribal Women in India. Archived 2016-05-22 at the Wayback Machine, rethinkingmission.org, accessed March 24, 2012
^ Plumwood, Val (2003). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. New Fetter Lane, London: Routeledge.
^ Johnson, Roberta (2013). "For a Better World: Alicia Puleo's Critical Ecofeminism". In Cibreiro, Estrella; López, Francisca (eds.). Global Issues in Contemporary Hispanic Women's Writing. Routledge. p. 107. ISBN 9780415626941. Retrieved 20 February 2019 – via Google Books.
^ LaRosa, Patricia. "Finding Aid for Rosemary Radford Ruether Papers, 1954-2002"(PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 December 2012. Retrieved 15 March2013.
^ "Who's Who of Women and the Environment". Retrieved 15 March 2013.
^ Charlene Spretnak, "The Early Years of the Green Movement in the United States", in Zelko and Brinkmann, eds., Green Parties, p. 48.
^ see Starhawk
^ https://www.amazon.com.br/Guia-ecofeminista-mulheres-direito-ecologia-ebook/dp/B08C1FNZ55/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=guia+ecofeminista&qid=1593658492&sr=8-1
^ https://medium.com/ecofeminist-talks
^https://sites.google.com/d/1xtLXhg1fJPFNUeszu6svDNtubQl3lcwM/p/1BtP5jbRogM3ZHVKVwT0-2M3bpQprHhqU/edit
^ https://www.instagram.com/ecofeminist.lab/
^ Vakoch, Douglas A (2011-01-01). Ecofeminism and rhetoric: critical perspectives on sex, technology, and discourse. New York: Berghahn Books. ISBN 9780857451873. OCLC 714734848.
^ Vakoch, Douglas A (2012-01-01). Feminist ecocriticism: environment, women, and literature. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739176825. OCLC 815941726.
^ Vakoch, Douglas A.; Mickey, Sam (2018). Ecofeminism in Dialogue. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 9781498569279. OCLC 1005695115.
^ Vakoch, Douglas A.; Mickey, Sam (2018). Literature and Ecofeminism: Intersectional and International Voices. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0815381723. OCLC 1020319048.
^ Vakoch, Douglas; Mickey, Sam (2018). Women and Nature?: Beyond Dualism in Gender, Body, and Environment. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781138053427. OCLC 975383028.
Further reading[edit]
Key works[edit]
Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh, by Helena Norberg-Hodge
The Body of God by Sallie McFague
The Chalice & The Blade: Our History, Our Future, by Riane Eisler
The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution by Carolyn Merchant
Ecofeminism by Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva
Ecofeminism in Latin America by Mary Judith Ross
Ecofeminist Philosophy by Karen J. Warren
Environmental Culture by Val Plumwood
Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, by Val Plumwood
Gaia & God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing, by Rosemary Radford Ruether
Integrating Ecofeminism, Globalization, and World Religions, by Rosemary Radford Ruether
Neither Man Nor Beast by Carol J. Adams
Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place by Terry Tempest Williams
The Resurgence of the Real: Body, Nature, and Place in a Hypermodern World by Charlene Spretnak
Sacred Longings: Ecofeminist theology and Globalization by Mary Grey
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
The Spiral Dance by Starhawk
Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development by Vandana Shiva
Thinking Green! Essays on Environmentalism, Feminism, and Nonviolence, by Petra Kelly
Tomorrow's Biodiversity by Vandana Shiva
Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her, by Susan Griffin
Breaking the Boundaries, by Mary Mellor
Ecofeminism as Politics: nature, Marx, and the postmodern, by Ariel Salleh
Anthologies[edit]
Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, edited by Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan
Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, edited by Greta Gaard
Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, edited by Karen J. Warren with editorial assistance from Nisvan Erkal
EcoFeminism & Globalization: exploring culture, context and religion, edited by Heather Eaton & Lois Ann Lorentzen
Ecofeminism and Rhetoric: Critical Perspectives on Sex, Technology, and Discourse, edited by Douglas A. Vakoch
Ecofeminism and the Sacred, edited by Carol J. Adams
Ecofeminism in Dialogue, edited by Douglas A. Vakoch and Sam Mickey
Feminist Ecocriticism: Environment, Women, and Literature, edited by Douglas A. Vakoch
Literature and Ecofeminism: Intersectional and International Voices, edited by Douglas A. Vakoch and Sam Mickey
The Politics of Women's Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual Power within the Feminist Movement, edited by Charlene Spretnak
Readings in Ecology and Feminist Theology, edited by Mary Heather MacKinnon and Moni McIntyre
Reclaim the Earth, edited by Leonie Caldecott & Stephanie Leland
Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, edited by Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein
Women and Nature?: Beyond Dualism in Gender, Body, and Environment, edited by Douglas A. Vakoch and Sam Mickey
Women Healing Earth: Third World Women on Ecology, Feminism, and Religion, edited by Rosemary Radford Ruether
GUIA ECOFEMINISTA - mulheres, direito, ecologia, written by Vanessa Lemgruber edited by Ape'Ku[1]



Journal articles[edit]
Gaard, Greta Claire (2011). "Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism". Feminist Formations. 23 (2): 26–53. doi:10.1353/ff.2011.0017.
Huggan, Graham (2004). ""Greening" Postcolonialism: Ecocritical Perspectives". MFS Modern Fiction Studies. 50 (3): 701–733. doi:10.1353/mfs.2004.0067.
Mack-Canty, Colleen (2004). "Third-Wave Feminism and the Need to Reweave the Nature/ Culture Duality". NWSA Journal. 16 (3): 154–179. doi:10.1353/nwsa.2004.0077.
MacGregor, Sherilyn (2004). "From care to citizenship: Calling ecofeminism back to politics". Ethics & the Environment. 9 (1): 56–84. doi:10.1353/een.2004.0007.
Mallory, Chaone (2013). "Locating Ecofeminism in Encounters with Food and Place". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 26 (1): 171–189. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9373-8.
Mann, Susan A. 2011. Pioneers of U.S. Ecofeminism and Environmental Justice, "Feminist Formations" 23(2): 1-25.
Wildy, Jade (2012). "The Artistic Progressions of Ecofeminism: The Changing Focus of Women in Environmental Art". International Journal of the Arts in Society. 6 (1): 53–65. doi:10.18848/1833-1866/cgp/v06i01/35978.
Fiction[edit]
See also: Feminist science fiction
"Clementa" by Jim Martin
A Door Into Ocean by Joan Slonczewski
Always Coming Home by Ursula K. Le Guin
Buffalo Gals, Won't You Come Out Tonight by Ursula K. Le Guin
The Fifth Sacred Thing by Starhawk
The Gate to Women's Country by Sheri S. Tepper
The Holdfast Chronicles by Suzy McKee Charnas
Native Tongue by Suzette Haden Elgin
The Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler
Prodigal Summer by Barbara Kingsolver
Surfacing by Margaret Atwood
The Wanderground by Sally Miller Gearhart
Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy
The Kin of Ata are Waiting for You by Dorothy Bryant
Bear by Marian Engel
The Temple of My Familiar by Alice Walker
A Bengali play, "NEELKANTHA DESH" (2010), by Supratim Roy
Sultana's Dream (1905), by Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain

Ecofeminism by Vandana Shiva
Poetry[edit]
The Sea of Affliction (1987, reprinted 2010) by Rosemarie Rowley
External links[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Ecofeminism

Wikiversity has learning resources about Women's Studies

Ecofeminism: Toward global justice and planetary health Feminist Greta Gaard and Lori Gruen's ecofeminist framework
ecofem.org Includes the regularly updated "Ecofeminism Bibliography"
ecofeminism.net
"An Ecology of Knowledge: Feminism, Ecology and the Science and Religion Discourse" Metanexus Institute by Lisa Stenmark
"Ecofeminism and the Democracy of Creation" by Catherine Keller (2005) ; cf. Carol P. Christ, "Ecofeminism," in Michel Weber and Will Desmond (eds.), Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Frankfurt / Lancaster, ontos verlag, 2008, pp. 87–98.
"Toward a Queer Ecofeminism" by Greta Gaard

show

v
t
e
Feminist theory


show

v
t
e
Feminism


show

v
t
e
Environmental humanities


show

v
t
e
Environmental social science


Authority control

BNF: cb12560461v (data)


^ https://www.amazon.com.br/Guia-ecofeminista-mulheres-direito-ecologia-ebook/dp/B08C1FNZ55/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=guia+ecofeminista&qid=1593658492&sr=8-1
Categories:
Ecofeminism
Environmentalism
Feminist theory
Feminism
Relational ethics
Environmental movements
Feminist movements and ideologies
Feminism and health
Feminism and history
Environmental social science concepts

2019/02/03

Deep ecology - Wikipedia



Deep ecology - Wikipedia



Deep ecology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search



This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Deep ecology"news · newspapers · books ·scholar · JSTOR (June 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)


Environment

Human impact (on the climate)
Issues
Environmentalism
Environmental studies
Environment in
Education
Humanities
Law
Policy
Science
Social science

Article index
Lists
Portal

Category
Commons


v
t
e

Part of a series on
Green politics


Core topics[show]

Four pillars[show]

Perspectives[hide]

Bright green environmentalism
Deep ecology
Eco-capitalism
Eco-feminism
Queer ecology
Eco-nationalism
Eco-socialism
Green anarchism
Green conservatism
Green left
Green liberalism
Green libertarianism
Social ecology
Green Zionism

Organizations[show]

Related topics[show]


v
t
e


Deep ecology is an ecological and environmental philosophy promoting the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs, plus a restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with such ideas.

Deep ecology argues that the natural world is a subtle balance of complex inter-relationships in which the existence of organisms is dependent on the existence of others within ecosystems.[1]Human interference with or destruction of the natural world poses a threat therefore not only to humans but to all organisms constituting the natural order.

Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain inalienable legal rightsto live and flourish, independent of its instrumental benefits for human use. Deep ecology is often framed in terms of the idea of a much broader sociality; it recognizes diverse communities of life on Earth that are composed not only through biotic factors but also, where applicable, through ethical relations, that is, the valuing of other beings as more than just resources. It describes itself as "deep" because it regards itself as looking more deeply into the actual reality of humanity's relationship with the natural world arriving at philosophically more profound conclusions than that of the prevailing view of ecology as a branch of biology.[2] The movement does not subscribe to anthropocentricenvironmentalism (which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for human purposes) since deep ecology is grounded in a quite different set of philosophical assumptions. Deep ecology takes a more holistic view of the world human beings live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that the separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole. This philosophy provides a foundation for the environmental, ecology, and green movements and has fostered a new system of environmental ethics advocating wilderness preservation, human population control, and simple living.[3]


Contents
1Origins
2Principles
3Development
4Environmental education

5Sources
5.1Scientific
5.2Spiritual
5.3Philosophical roots
5.3.1Spinoza

7Links with other philosophies
8Early influences
9Notable advocates of deep ecology
10Relevant journals
11See also
12References
13Bibliography
14Further reading
Origins[edit]

In his original 1972/73 deep ecology paper, Arne Næss claims the deep ecology movement arose from scientists – ecologists – who were out in the field studying the biodiversity and wild ecosystems throughout the world. They were also doing the work of philosophers, laying the foundations for the Age of Ecology and a new ecological worldview to replace the anthropocentric, mastery of Nature, and modernist worldview arising in the 17th and 18th centuries. Three of the most influential ecological spokespersons of the 1960s were Rachel Carson, David Brower, and Paul R. Ehrlich.[4] Some consider the publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962) as the beginning of the contemporary, long-range deep ecology movement. When her book appeared there was a long-standing movement for conservation of land and resources, as well as support for creating parks and other areas devoted to preserving wilderness and spectacular nature. 

Carson's writings were especially influential because they clearly showed how human well-being depends on the condition of whole biotic communities. She explained in practical terms how living beings are interrelated within ecosystems. She explained how pesticides used to control mosquitoes and other insects led to declines in some bird populations. Silent Spring helped show how complex food webs and networks of biotic relationships function. Since humans are at the top of many food chains, exposure to chemicals becomes more concentrated as these move up the chains. The chemicals also can be stored in human tissues and gradually accumulate over time, adversely affecting health. Carson showed the need for deep changes in human practices and ways of living.

The 1960s was a decade of vigorous social activism in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Australia. Some activism focused on war and peace and the issue of nuclear weapons. A well-known early environmental organization started with a focus on nuclear tests and their environmental hazards. Some people in British Columbia, Canada, were opposed to the test of a nuclear weapon by the US government on Amchitka Island. They hired a fishing vessel and sailed towards the nuclear test site in protest. This action led to the founding of Greenpeace, which became more identified with environmental issues as time went by. These great movements were further catalyzed by the now iconic images of the whole Earth floating in space taken during the return of the Apollo space missions from their journey to the moon. Among the astronauts that witnessed seeing the whole Earth firsthand was Edgar D. Mitchell, who in 1971, during the return mission of Apollo 14, had an epiphany that what is needed to solve the eco-crisis "is a transformation of consciousness".[5]

Principles[edit]

Proponents of deep ecology believe that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. If material goods do not guarantee happiness beyond a very moderate level, and over-consumption is endangering the biosphere, defining a new non-consumptive paradigm of well-being seems primordial, such a paradigm would be non-acquisitive/non-consumerist and non-hierarchical in relation to our place on Earth.[6] The ethics of deep ecology hold that the survival of any part is dependent upon the well-being of the whole. Proponents of deep ecology offer an eight-tier platform to elucidate their claims:

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs

The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening
Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality(dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

— Deep Ecology[7]

These principles can be reduced to three simple propositions:
Wilderness and biodiversity preservation
Human population control
Simple living (or treading lightly on the planet).[3]

Development[edit]

The phrase "deep ecology" was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1973.[8] Næss rejected the idea that beings can be ranked according to their relative value. For example, judgments on whether an animal has an eternal soul, whether it uses reason or whether it has consciousness (or indeed higher consciousness) have all been used to justify the ranking of the human animal as superior to other animals. Næss states that from an ecological point of view "the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species."[citation needed]

This metaphysical idea is elucidated in Warwick Fox's claim that humanity and all other beings are "aspects of a single unfolding reality".[9] As such deep ecology would support the view of Aldo Leopold in his book A Sand County Almanac that humans are "plain members of the biotic community". They also would support Leopold's land ethic: "a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Daniel Quinn, in his novel Ishmael, showed that an anthropocentric myth underlies our current view of the world.[10]

The ecological problems faced by the world today are partly due to the loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature - the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose - receives a radical critique in deep ecology.[5] Deep ecology developed a response to the anthropocentric view and several different actors played an important historical role in its development. Prominent among them was Joseph W. Meeker, who in 1973 told George Sessions about Arne Næss, whom Meeker knew personally.[11] As Warwick Fox related, "One of the things that initially interested Sessions about Næss was Næss's strong interest in, and innovative approach to, the work of Spinoza. Sessions says that he had himself 'arrived at Spinoza as the answer to the process of teaching history of philosophy by about 1972 and independently of being in contact with Næss.'"[citation needed] Sessions therefore wrote to Næss at this time, beginning a lifelong association. Meeker's (1972, 1997) book The Comedy of Survival: Studies in Literary Ecology emerged through the work of scholars seeking an environmental ethic. That book represents Meeker's founding work in literary ecology and ecocriticism, which demonstrates the relationship between the literary arts and scientific ecology, especially humankind's consideration of comedy and tragedy. It reminds readers that adaptive behaviors (comedy) promote survival, whereas tragedy estranges from other life forms. This thesis rests on Meeker's study of comparative literature, his work with biologist Konrad Lorenz, and his work as a field ecologist in the National Park service in Alaska, Oregon, and California.[5]

Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for environmental advocacy which may, in turn, guide human activity against perceived self-destruction. Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that the science of ecology shows that ecosystems can absorb only limited change by humans or other dissonant influences. Further, both hold that the actions of modern civilization threaten global ecological well-being. Ecologists have described change and stability in ecological systems in various ways, including homeostasis, dynamic equilibrium, and "flux of nature".[12] Regardless of which model is most accurate, environmentalists[citation needed] contend that massive human economic activity has pushed the biosphere far from its "natural" state through reduction of biodiversity, climate change, and other influences. As a consequence, civilization is causing mass extinction at a rate between 100 species a day and possibly 140,000 species a year, which is 10,000 times the background rate of extinction. Deep ecologists hope to influence social and political change through their philosophy. Næss has proposed, as Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke writes, "that the earth’s human population should be reduced to about 100 million."[13]

Environmental education[edit]

Ecology in the narrow sense refers to the biological science of ecology. However, ecological paradigms and principles are being developed and applied in almost all disciplines, and these paradigms have to do with the way we approach understanding the relationships and inter-connections within and between living beings which give to each its special place and identity. Human ecology, e.g., must certainly take account of the role of our subjective lives and spiritual needs, as well as our biological ones, in terms of their ecological effects. Ecology in this sense is not a reductionist undertaking, but a movement toward a more whole (or holistic) vision and understanding of world processes.[2] Deep ecology seeks to look into all levels of existence and might be viewed as radical by some; for them a more anthropocentric view is appropriate because it put humans at the center. Learning how to live in harmony with our surroundings is beneficial because stopping the global extinction crisis and achieving true ecological sustainability will require rethinking our values as a society. In that way education seems to be the best way to start. Sustainability education aims to help learners understand their interconnectedness with all life, to become creative problem solvers and active citizens, and to engage personally and intellectually in shaping our common future. Experiential learning and critical pedagogy are central to providing opportunities for learners to engage in transformative sustainability learning. The “Environment” broadly defined, remains somewhat neglected within development studies, despite a substantial increase in contributions to the field over the fifteen years since 2000. Undergraduate and postgraduate courses (with some notable exceptions) often “add on” environmental issues as special lectures or modules, and there remains a tendency for those who are grounded in the material and discursive struggles that define the discipline to consider the environment as an exotic special interest, a problem that manifests itself in societies that have the leisure to care about the natural world. Development of a modern education model promoting patriotism and civic responsibility, active social position and healthy lifestyle is closely linked to the development of environmental responsibility in the younger generation. Development of environmentally responsible personality in individual is of particular importance for graduates of educational institutions. Environmental education could be integrated in different curriculum in most fields: education for sustainable development in the context of ecopedagogy.

Ecopedagogy calls for the remaking of capitalist practices and seeks to re-engage democracy to include multispecies interests in the face of our current global ecological crisis. It does so by using different ideas that challenge the way we see education. In Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy and Planetary Crisis: The Ecopedagogy Movement, Richard Kahn (2010) reformulates Herbert Marcuse’s critical theories of society, and supports the kind of education that seizes the power of radical environmental activists and supports the earth democracy in which multispecies interests are represented. The destruction of habitats and threats to biodiversity resulting from expansion of human population and consumption is rarely addressed in a way that confronts students with the necessity to consider moral implications of such destruction.[14]Pedagogically, a return to education associated with significant life experiences, such as hiking in wilderness areas as a youth; as well as strategically significant education, action competence, social learning, and variations and combinations of those and many other pedagogical approaches developed in the past 40 years. Some of these pedagogical approaches have been disputed—for example, the belief that experiencing environment first hand is an essential component of engaging people in conservation has been disputed by arguments that these education efforts have been informed by behaviorist socio-psychology models that assumed a linear causality between education experience and pro-environmental behavior.[15] Rather, the critics have argued that people’s environmental behaviors are too complex and contextually dependent to be captured by a simple casual model. The process of environmental education of schoolchildren has the following methodological characteristics:
Goal-setting as the projected results reflects a model of environmentally responsible personality, taking into account trends in the development of key elements of education system; all natural sciences are involved in the development of basic ecological concepts.
The introduction of interactive training methods takes place at the high school level in teaching self-reflection, hypothesizing, predicting; school natural science education is rebuilt on the basis of system approach in accordance with the planned ecologization results. Implementation of relevant methodology will promote successful development of environmentally responsible personality in high school graduates.[15]

In higher education, the analysis of students’ individual writing assignments after viewing films/documentaries presents an interesting case of using radical ‘messages’ within the aims of environmental education in order to trigger both student’s engagement and critical thinking. The case study “If a Tree Falls and Everybody Hears the Sound” provides an example of how environmental advocacy and the objective of pluralistic education can be combined as mutually supportive means of achieving both democratic learning in which students’ individual opinions are seen as extremely valuable, and simultaneously provide an example of the type of ecopedagogy that supports learning for environmental sustainability. The role of environmental advocacy can be crucially important if the interests of all planetary citizens—and not just one species—are to be taken seriously.[14]

In her book Wild Children — Domesticated Dreams: Civilization and the Birth of Education, Layla AbdelRahim argues that the current institutions responsible for the construction and transmission of civilized epistemology are driven by the destructive premises at the foundation of civilization and human predatory culture.[16] In order to return to a viable socio-environmental culture, AbdelRahim calls for the rewilding of our anthropology (i.e. our place among other species) and of pedagogical culture, which in civilization is based on the same domestication methods of other animals.[16][17]


Sources[edit]

5.1] Scientific[edit]


Old-growth forest in Biogradska Gora National Park, Montenegro

Næss and Fox do not claim to use logic or induction to derive the philosophy directly from scientific ecology[8] but rather hold that scientific ecology directly implies the metaphysics of deep ecology, including its ideas about the self and further, that deep ecology finds scientific underpinnings in the fields of ecology and system dynamics.

In their 1985 book Deep Ecology,[18]Bill Devall and George Sessions describe a series of sources of deep ecology. They include the science of ecology itself, and cite its major contribution as the rediscovery in a modern context that "everything is connected to everything else." They point out that some ecologists and natural historians, in addition to their scientific viewpoint, have developed a deep ecological consciousness—for some a political consciousness and at times a spiritual consciousness. This is a perspective beyond the strictly human viewpoint, beyond anthropocentrism. Among the scientists they mention specifically are Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, John Livingston, Paul R. Ehrlich and Barry Commoner, together with Frank Fraser Darling, Charles Sutherland Elton, Eugene Odum and Paul Sears.

A further scientific source for deep ecology adduced by Devall and Sessions is the "new physics", which they describe as shattering Descartes's and Newton's vision of the universe as a machine explainable in terms of simple linear cause and effect. They propose that Nature is in a state of constant flux and reject the idea of observers as existing independent of their environment. They refer to Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics and The Turning Point for their characterisation of how the new physics leads to metaphysical and ecological views of interrelatedness, which, according to Capra, should make deep ecology a framework for future human societies. Devall and Sessions also credit the American poet and social critic Gary Snyder—with his devotion to Buddhism, Native American studies, the outdoors, and alternative social movements—as a major voice of wisdom in the evolution of their ideas.

The Gaia hypothesis was also an influence on the deep ecology movement.[19]

5.2] Spiritual[edit]

The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part of the Earth, not separate from it, and as such human existence is dependent on the diverse organisms within the natural world each playing a role in the natural economy of the biosphere. Coming to an awareness of this reality involves a transformation of an outlook that presupposes humanity's superiority over the natural world. This self-realisation or "re-earthing"[20] is used for an individual to intuitively gain an ecocentric perspective. The notion is based on the idea that the more we expand the self to identify with "others" (people, animals, ecosystems), the more we realize ourselves.Transpersonal psychology has been used by Warwick Fox to support this idea. Deep ecology has influenced the development of contemporary ecospirituality.[21]

A number of spiritual and philosophical traditions including Native American, Buddhist and Jain are drawn upon in a continuing critique of the philosophical assumptions of the modern European mind which has enabled and led to what is seen as an increasingly unsustainable level of disregard towards the rights and needs of the natural world and its ability to continue to support human life. In relation to the Judeo-Christian tradition, Næss offers the following criticism: "The arrogance of stewardship [as found in the Bible] consists in the idea of superiority which underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly respected middleman between the Creator and Creation."[22] This theme had been expounded in Lynn Townsend White, Jr.'s 1967 article "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis",[23] in which however he also offered as an alternative Christian view of man's relation to nature that of Saint Francis of Assisi, who he says spoke for the equality of all creatures, in place of the idea of man's domination over creation. Næss' further criticizes the reformation's view of creation as property to be put into maximum productive use: a view used frequently in the past to exploit and dispossess native populations. Many Protestant sects today regard the Bible's call for man to have stewardship of the earth as a call for the care for creation, rather than for exploitation.
The original Christian teachings on property support the Franciscan/stewardship interpretation of the Bible. Against this view, Martin Luther condemned church ownership of lands because "they did not want to use that property in an economically productive fashion. At best they used it to produce prayers. Luther, and other Reformation leaders insisted that it should be used, not to relieve men from the necessity of working, but as a tool for making more goods. The attitude of the Reformation was practically, "not prayers, but production." And production, not for consumption, but for more production." This justification was offered to support secular takings of church endowments and properties.[24]

Anthropologist Layla AbdelRahim sees the root of the anthropogenic degradation of the biosphere in the anthropology that constructs the human animal as the supreme predator. The ontological explanation offered for Human Supremacy by both science and religion, she says, alienate the human being from the community of life and allow for an immoral control and destruction of the wilderness, which, according to her contains the spirit and intelligence of life.[17]

Philosophical roots[edit]

5.3] Spinoza[edit]

Arne Næss, who first wrote about the idea of deep ecology, from the early days of developing this outlook conceived Baruch Spinoza as a philosophical source.[25]

Others have followed Næss' inquiry, including Eccy de Jonge, in Spinoza and Deep Ecology: Challenging Traditional Approaches to Environmentalism,[26] and Brenden MacDonald, in Spinoza, Deep Ecology, and Human Diversity—Realization of Eco-Literacies[27][citation needed].

One of the topical centres of inquiry connecting Spinoza to Deep Ecology is "self-realization." See Arne Næss in The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology movement and Spinoza and the Deep Ecology Movement for discussion on the role of Spinoza's conception of self-realization and its link to deep ecology.

Criticism, debate, and response[edit]
Knowledge of non-human interests[edit]


Animal rights activists state that for an entity to require rights and protection intrinsically, it must have interests.[28] Deep ecology is criticised for assuming that living things such as plants, for example, have their own interests as they are manifested by the plant's behavior—for instance, self-preservation being considered an expression of a will to live. Deep ecologists claim to identify with non-human nature, and in doing so, deny those who claim that non-human (or non-sentient) lifeforms' needs or interests are nonexistent or unknowable. The criticism is that the interests that a deep ecologist attributes to non-human organisms such as survival, reproduction, growth, and prosperity are really human interests. This is sometimes construed as a pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphism, in which "the earth is endowed with 'wisdom', wilderness equates with 'freedom', and life forms are said to emit 'moral' qualities."[29][30]
--------

"Deepness"[edit]

Deep ecology is criticised for its claim to being deeper than alternative theories, which by implication are shallow. When Arne Næss coined the term deep ecology, he compared it favourably with shallow environmentalism which he criticized for its utilitarian and anthropocentric attitude to nature and for its materialist and consumer-oriented outlook.[31] Against this is Arne Næss's own view that the "depth" of deep ecology resides in the persistence of its penetrative questioning, particularly in asking "Why?" when faced with initial answers.

Writer William D. Grey believes that developing a non-anthropocentric set of values is "a hopeless quest". He seeks an improved "shallow" view, writing, "What's wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that they do not really consider enough in what that well-being consists. We need to develop an enriched, fortified anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding conception."[32]

Bookchin's criticisms[edit]

Some critics, particularly social ecologist Murray Bookchin, have interpreted deep ecology as being hateful toward humanity, due in part to the characterization of humanity by some deep ecologists, such as David Foreman of Earth First!, as a pathological infestation on the Earth.[13] Bookchin[33][34] therefore asserts that "deep ecology, formulated largely by privileged male white academics, has managed to bring sincere naturalists like Paul Shepard into the same company as patently antihumanist and macho mountain men like David Foreman who preach a gospel that humanity is some kind of cancer in the world of life."[33] Bookchin mentions that some, like Foreman, defend seemingly anti-human measures, such as severe population control and the claim regarding the Third World that "the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve".[33] However, Bookchin himself later admitted that "statements made by Earth First! activists are not to be confused with those made by deep ecology theorists".[35] Ecophilosopher Warwick Foxsimilarly "warns critics not to commit the fallacy of 'misplaced misanthropy.' That is, just because deep ecology criticizes an arrogant anthropocentrism does not mean that deep ecology is misanthropic."[35] Likewise, The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology attempts to clarify that "deep ecologists have been the strongest critics of anthropocentrism, so much so that they have often been accused of a mean-spirited misanthropy"; however, "deep ecology is actually vitally concerned with humans realizing their best potential" and "is explicit in offering a vision of an alternative way of living that is joyous and enlivening."[36]

Bookchin's second major criticism is that deep ecology fails to link environmental crises with authoritarianism and hierarchy. Social ecologists like him believe that environmental problems are firmly rooted in the manner of human social interaction, and suggest that deep ecologists fail to recognise the potential for human beings to solve environmental issues through a change of cultural attitudes. According to Bookchin, it is a social reconstruction alone that "can spare the biosphere from virtual destruction."[33] Though some deep ecologists may reject the argument that ecological behavior is rooted in the social paradigm (which, according to their view, would be an anthropocentric fallacy), others in fact embrace this argument, such as the adherents to the deep ecologist movement Deep Green Resistance.

Botkin's criticism[edit]

Daniel Botkin[37] has likened deep ecology to its antithesis, the wise use movement, when he says that they both "misunderstand scientific information and then arrive at conclusions based on their misunderstanding, which are in turn used as justification for their ideologies. Both begin with an ideology and are political and social in focus." Elsewhere, though, he asserts that deep ecology must be taken seriously in the debate about the relationship between humans and nature because it challenges the fundamental assumptions of Western philosophy. Botkin has also criticized Næss's restatement and reliance upon the balance of nature idea and the perceived contradiction between his argument that all species are morally equal and his disparaging description of pioneering species.

Response[edit]

Some writers have misunderstood Næss, taking his ecosophy T, with its self-realization norm, as something meant to characterize the whole deep ecology movement as part of a single philosophy called "deep ecology". Næss was not doing either of these. He emphasized that movements cannot be precisely defined, but only roughly characterized by very general statements. They are often united internationally by means of such principles as found in the United Nations (UN) Earth Charter (1980), and in UN documents about basic human rights. Næss was doing something more subtle than many thought. He was not putting forth a single worldview and philosophy of life that everyone should adhere to in support of the international ecology movement. Instead, he was making an empirical claim based on overwhelming evidence that global social movements, from the grass roots up, consist of people with very diverse religious, philosophical, cultural, and personal orientations. Nonetheless, they can agree on certain courses of action and certain broad principles, especially at the international level. As supporters of a given movement, they can treat one another with mutual respect. Because of these misunderstandings Næss introduced an apron diagram to clearly illustrate his subtle distinctions.[5] The apron diagram is meant to illustrate logical, as distinct from genetic, relations between views and their connection with social movements, policies and practical actions. By "logical relations" this means verbally articulated relations between the premises and conclusions.[5] There is collective cooperation on global concerns, and yet a great variety of ultimate premises from which each person or group acts locally. Within global movements there is diversity at the local level because each place and community is different and must adapt to its unique setting. Thus, Næss stressed that his ecosophy T is not meant to hold for everyone, since it is tailored to his very modest lifestyle suitable to a place such as Tvergastein. The ultimate premises for his whole view might be conceptually incompatible with those in someone else's whole views. But even if this is true, they could both support the platform principles of the deep ecology movement and other social-political global movements, such as for peace and social justice. In recognizing the principle that all living beings have intrinsic worth, there is an acknowledgement that they are good for their own sake. This does not mean committing to biocentric equality or egalitarianism between species. Within the vast diversity of living beings, there are complex relationships the range of which is predation, competition, cooperation, and symbiosis. Many think that symbiosis and complementarity are important values to embrace as they are consistent with global cooperation, community life, and support for the deep ecology movement platform.

Links with other philosophies[edit]

Parallels have been drawn between deep ecology and other philosophies, in particular those of the animal rights movement, Earth First!, Deep Green Resistance, and anarcho-primitivism.

Peter Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation critiqued anthropocentrism and put the case for animals to be given moral consideration. This can be seen as a part of a process of expanding the prevailing system of ethics to wider groupings. However, Singer has disagreed with deep ecology's belief in the intrinsic value of nature separate from questions of suffering, taking a more utilitarian stance.[38] The feministand civil rights movements also brought about expansion of the ethical system for their particular domains. Likewise deep ecology brought the whole of nature under moral consideration.[39] The links with animal rights are perhaps the strongest, as "proponents of such ideas argue that 'All life has intrinsic value'".[40]

Many in the radical environmental direct-action movement Earth First! claim to follow deep ecology, as indicated by one of their slogans No compromise in defence of mother earth. In particular, David Foreman, the co-founder of the movement, has also been a strong advocate for deep ecology, and engaged in a public debate with Murray Bookchin on the subject.[41][42] Judi Bari was another prominent Earth Firster who espoused deep ecology. Many Earth First! actions have a distinct deep ecological theme; often these actions will be to save an area of old growth forest, the habitat of a snail or an owl, even individual trees. Actions are often symbolic or have other political aims. At one point Arne Næss also engaged in environmental direct action, though not under the Earth First! banner, when he chained himself to rocks in front of Mardalsfossen, a waterfall in a Norwegian fjord, in a successful protest against the building of a dam.[43]

There are also anarchist currents in the movement, especially in the United Kingdom. For example, Robert Hart, pioneer of forest gardening in temperate climates, wrote the essay "Can Life Survive?" in Deep Ecology & Anarchism.[44]

Notable advocates of deep ecology[edit]

Layla AbdelRahim
David Abram
Michael Asher
Judi Bari
Thomas Berry
Wendell Berry
Leonardo Boff
Fritjof Capra
Savitri Devi[13]
Michael Dowd
Vivienne Elanta
David Foreman
Warwick Fox
Chellis Glendinning
Edward Goldsmith
Félix Guattari
Paul Hawken
Martin Heidegger
Julia Butterfly Hill
Derrick Jensen
Bernie Krause
Satish Kumar
Dolores LaChapelle
Gilbert LaFreniere
Pentti Linkola
John Livingston
Joanna Macy
Jerry Mander
Freya Mathews
Terence McKenna
W. S. Merwin
Arne Næss
Peter Newman
David Orton
Val Plumwood
Theodore Roszak
John Seed
George Sessions
Elena Sharoykina
Paul Shepard
Vandana Shiva
Gary Snyder
Timothy Sprigge
Richard Sylvan
Douglas Tompkins
Oberon Zell-Ravenheart
John Zerzan
Relevant journals[edit]
Environmental Ethics
Environmental Values
Resurgence & Ecologist
See also[edit]

Sustainable development portal
Ecology portal
Environment portal
Evolutionary biology portal

ANCEP
ATWA
Biocentrism (ethics)
Biophilia hypothesis
Coupled human-environment system
Earth liberation
Ecocentrism
Eco-communalism
Ecofeminism
Ecotheology
Ecosophy
Ecosystem-based management
Environmental psychology
Gaianism
Human ecology
Intrinsic value (animal ethics)
Negative Population Growth
Neotribalism
Pantheism
Population Connection
Spiritual ecology
Sustainable development
The Revenge of Gaia
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
References[edit]

^ Ecosystems are also considered to be dependent on other ecosystems within the biosphere.
^ Jump up to:a b Smith, Mick (2014). "Deep Ecology: What is Said and (to be) Done?". The Trumpeter. 30 (2): 141–156. ISSN 0832-6193. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
^ Jump up to:a b John Barry; E. Gene Frankland (2002). International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics. Routledge. p. 161. ISBN 9780415202855.
^ Sessions, George (2014). "Deep Ecology, New Conservation, and the Anthropocene Worldview". The Trumpeter. 30 (2): 106–114. ISSN 0832-6193. Retrieved 12 May2018.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e Drengson, Alan; Devall, Bill; Schroll, Mark A. (2011). "The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, and Future Prospects (Toward a Transpersonal Ecosophy)". International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. 30 (1–2): 101–117. doi:10.24972/ijts.2011.30.1-2.101.
^ Anderson, Tom; Guyas, Anniina Suominen (2015). "Earth Education, Interbeing, and Deep Ecology". Studies in Art Education. 53 (3): 223–245. doi:10.1080/00393541.2012.11518865. ISSN 0039-3541.
^ Devall, Bill; Sessions, George (1985). Deep Ecology. Gibbs M. Smith. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-87905-247-8.
^ Jump up to:a b Næss, Arne (1973). "The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary" (PDF). Inquiry. 16 (1–4): 95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682. ISSN 0020-174X.
^ Fox, Warwick, (1990) Towards a Transpersonal Ecology (Shambhala Books)
^ Quinn, Daniel (1995), "Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit" (Bantam)
^ Jacob, Merle (1994). "Sustainable development and deep ecology: An analysis of competing traditions". Environmental Management. 18 (4): 477–488. doi:10.1007/BF02400853. ISSN 0364-152X.
^ Botkin, Daniel B. (1990). Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford Univ. Press, NY, NY. ISBN 0-19-507469-6.
^ Jump up to:a b c Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (1998). Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism. NY: New York University Press, ISBN 0-8147-3110-4
^ Jump up to:a b Kopnina, Helen (2015-03-01). "If a Tree Falls and Everybody Hears the Sound: Teaching Deep Ecology to Business Students". Journal of Education for Sustainable Development. 9 (1): 101–116. doi:10.1177/0973408215569119. ISSN 0973-4082.
^ Jump up to:a b Misiaszek, Greg William (2015). "Ecopedagogy and Citizenship in the Age of Globalisation: connections between environmental and global citizenship education to save the planet". European Journal of Education. 50 (3): 280–292. doi:10.1111/ejed.12138. ISSN 0141-8211.
^ Jump up to:a b Layla., AbdelRahim (2013). Wild children--domesticated dreams : civilization and the birth of education. Winnipeg: Fernwood Pub. ISBN 9781552665480. OCLC 829422058.
^ Jump up to:a b 1964-, AbdelRahim, Layla. Children's literature, domestication, and social foundation : narratives of civilization and wilderness. New York. ISBN 9780415661102. OCLC 897810261.
^ Devall, Bill; Sessions, George (1985). Deep Ecology. Gibbs M. Smith. pp. 85–88. ISBN 978-0-87905-247-8.
^ David Landis Barnhill, Roger S. Gottlieb (eds.), Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Ground, SUNY Press, 2010, p. 32.
^ "Deep Ecology & re-earthing ~ Q&A". users.on.net/~arachne/index.html. Retrieved 9 December 2011.
^ Aburrow, Yvonne (2013-01-26). "Eco-spirituality and theology". Sermons from the Mound. Patheos. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
^ Næss, Arne. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. p. 187. ISBN 0-521-34873-0
^ White, Jr, Lynn Townsend (March 1967). "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis". Science. 155 (3767): 1203–1207. doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203. PMID 17847526. (HTML copy, PDF copy).
^ Schlatter, Richard (1951). Private Property: the History of an Idea. (Rutgers Press)
^ Naess, A. (1977). "Spinoza and ecology". Philosophia. 7: 45–54. doi:10.1007/BF02379991.
^ de Jonge, Eccy (April 28, 2004). Spinoza and Deep Ecology: Challenging Traditional Approaches to Environmentalism (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Philosophy). Routledge. ISBN 978-0754633273.
^ MacDonald, Brenden James (2012-05-14). "Spinoza, Deep Ecology, and Human Diversity -- Schizophrenics and Others Who Could Heal the Earth If Society Realized Eco-Literacy". Trumpeter. 28 (1): 89–101. ISSN 1705-9429.
^ Feinberg, Joel. "The Rights of Animals and Future Generations". Retrieved 2006-04-25.
^ Joff (2000). "The Possibility of an Anti-Humanist Anarchism". Retrieved 2006-04-25.
^ Pister, E. Phil (1995). "The Rights of Species and Ecosystems". Fisheries. 20 (4). Archived from the original on 2006-08-22. Retrieved 2006-04-25.
^ Great River Earth Institute. "Deep Ecology: Environmentalism as if all beings mattered". Retrieved 2006-04-25.
^ Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology by William Grey
^ Jump up to:a b c d Bookchin, Murray (1987). "Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement". Green Perspectives/Anarchy Archives.
^ AtKisson, Allan (1989). "Introduction To Deep Ecology: Deep ecology is a new way to think about our relationship to the Earth - and thinking is a prelude to action". Context Institute.
^ Jump up to:a b Zimmerman, Michael E (1993). "Rethinking the Heidegger-Deep Ecology Relationship" (PDF). Environmental Ethics.
^ Alan Drengson and Yuichi Inoue, ed. (1995). The Deep Ecology Movement. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. p. 262. ISBN 9781556431982.
^ Botkin, Daniel B. (2000). No Man's Garden: Thoreau and a New Vision for Civilization and Nature. Shearwater Books. pp. 42, 39. ISBN 978-1-55963-465-6.
^ Kendall, Gillian (May 2011 ). The Greater Good: Peter Singer On How To Live An Ethical Life. Sun Magazine, The Sun Interview, Issue 425. Retrieved on: 2011-12-02
^ Alan AtKisson. "Introduction To Deep Ecology, an interview with Michael E. Zimmerman". In Context (22). Retrieved 2006-05-04.
^ Wall, Derek (1994). Green History. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-07925-9.
^ David Levine, ed. (1991). Defending the Earth: a dialogue between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman.
^ Bookchin, Murray; Graham Purchase; Brian Morris; Rodney Aitchtey; Robert Hart; Chris Wilbert (1993). Deep Ecology and Anarchism. Freedom Press. ISBN 978-0-900384-67-7.
^ J. Seed, J. Macy, P. Flemming, A. Næss, Thinking like a mountain: towards a council of all beings, Heretic Books (1988), ISBN 0-946097-26-7, ISBN 0-86571-133-X.
^ Deep Ecology & Anarchism. Freedom Press. 1993.
Bibliography[edit]
Bender, F. L. 2003. The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology Amherst, New York: Humanity Books.
Devall, W. and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep Ecology: Living As if Nature Mattered Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc.
Drengson, Alan. 1995. The Deep Ecology Movement
Katz, E., A. Light, et al. 2000. Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
LaChapelle, D. 1992. Sacred Land, Sacred Sex: Rapture of the Deep Durango: Kivakí Press.
Næss, A. 1989. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an EcosophyTranslated by D. Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, C. 2006. Ecofeminism vs. Deep Ecology, Dialogue, San Antonio, TX: Saint Mary's University Dept. of Philosophy.
Passmore, J. 1974. Man’s Responsibility for Nature London: Duckworth.
Sessions, G. (ed) 1995. Deep Ecology for the Twenty-first Century Boston: Shambhala.
Taylor, B. and M. Zimmerman. 2005. Deep Ecology" in B. Taylor, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, v 1, pp. 456–60, London: Continuum International.
GECEVSKA, Valentina, Vancho DONEV, and Radmil POLENAKOVIK. "A Review Of Environmental Tools Towards Sustainable Development." Annals Of The Faculty Of Engineering Hunedoara - International Journal of Engineering 14.1 (2016): 147-152.
Clark, John P. "What Is Living In Deep Ecology?." Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 30.2 (2014): 157-183.
Smith, Mick. "Deep Ecology: What Is Said And (To Be) Done?." Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 30.2 (2014): 141-156.
HOLY-LUCZAJ, MAGDALENA. "Heidegger's Support For Deep Ecology Reexamined Once Again." Ethics & The Environment 20.1 (2015): 45-66.
Hawkins, Ronnie. "Why Deep Ecology Had To Die." Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 30.2 (2014): 206-273.
Drengson, Alan, Bill Devall, and Mark A. Schroll. "The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, And Future Prospects (Toward A Transpersonal Ecosophy)." International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 30.1/2 (2011): 101-117.
Kopnina, Helen. "If A Tree Falls And Everybody Hears The Sound: Teaching Deep Ecology To Business Students." Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9.1 (2015): 101-116.
Kopnina, Helen. "Future Scenarios And Environmental Education." Journal of Environmental Education 45.4 (2014): 217.
Ponomarenko, Yelena, et al. "Modern Methodology And Techniques Aimed At Developing The Environmentally Responsible Personality." International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 11.9 (2016): 2877-2885.
Ehresman, Timothy, and Chukwumerije Okereke. "Environmental Justice And Conceptions Of The Green Economy." International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law & Economics 15.1 (2015): 13-27.
Marc R., Fellenz. "9. Ecophilosophy: Deep Ecology And Ecofeminism." The Moral Menagerie : Philosophy and Animal Rights. 158. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2007.
Diehm, Christian. "The Self Of Stars And Stone: Ecofeminism, Deep Ecology, And The Ecological Self." Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 19.3 (2003): 31-45. Humanities International Complete.
Booth, Annie. "Ways Of Knowing: Acceptable Understandings Within Bioregionalism, Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism, And Native American Cultures." Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 16.1 (2000): 1-14.
Vira, Bhaskar. "Taking Natural Limits Seriously: Implications For Development Studies And The Environment." Development & Change 46.4 (2015): 762-776.
Burns, Heather L. "Going Deep: Reflections On Teaching Deep Ecology In Costa Rica." Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal 8.2 (2015): 1-14.
Fox, W. (1990). Toward a transpersonal ecology: Developing new foundations for environmentalism. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Misiaszek, Greg William. "Ecopedagogy And Citizenship In The Age Of Globalisation: Connections Between Environmental And Global Citizenship Education To Save The Planet." European Journal of Education 50.3 (2015): 280-292.
Sessions, George. "Deep Ecology, New Conservation, And The Anthropocene Worldview." Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 30.2 (2014): 106-114.
Further reading[edit]
Abram, David 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World. Pantheon Books.
Conesa-Sevilla, J. 2006. The Intrinsic Value of the Whole: Cognitive and utilitarian evaluative processes as they pertain to ecocentric, deep ecological, and ecopsychological "valuing." The Trumpeter, 22(2): 26-42.
Curry, Patrick. 2011. Ecological Ethics: An Introduction. Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-5125-5.
Glasser, Harold (ed.) 2005. The Selected Works of Arne Næss, Volumes 1-10. Springer, ISBN 1-4020-3727-9. (review)
Griffin, Susan. Woman and Nature. Harper Collins 1978.
Keulartz, Jozef 1998. Struggle for nature : a critique of radical ecology, London [etc.] : Routledge.
Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment, Chapter 12, “The Need for a Different World View”, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044.
Kull, Kalevi 2011. Foundations for ecosemiotic deep ecology. In: Peil, Tiina (ed.), The Space of Culture – the Place of Nature in Estonia and Beyond. (Approaches to Culture Theory 1.) Tartu: Tartu University Press, 69–75.
Linkola, Pentti 2011. Can Life Prevail? UK: Arktos Media, 2nd Revised ed. ISBN 1907166637
Merchant, Carolyn 1990. The Death of Nature, HarperOne. ISBN 0-06-250595-5, ISBN 978-0-06-250595-8.
Sylvan, Richard 1985a. "A Critique of Deep Ecology, Part I." Radical Philosophy40: 2–12.
Sylvan, Richard 1985b. "A Critique of Deep Ecology, Part II." Radical Philosophy41: 1–22.
Tobias, Michael (ed.) 1988 (1984). Deep Ecology. Avant Books. ISBN 0-932238-13-0.
Turner, Jack 1996. The Abstract Wild. Tucson, Univ of Arizona Press.
de Steiguer, J.E. 2006. The Origins of Modern Environmental Thought. University of Arizona Press 246 pp.