After taking a two week break to focus on my essays (I have way too much to do and Animal Crossing can be a massive distraction, although I'm not complaining) I've decided to post a presentation I did for my Introduction to Politics seminar.
This post details on all of the aspects of environmentalism as a political ideology. It is a summary of an original reading I did by Matthew Humphrey appropriately entitled "Green Ideology"
Introduction
In the environmentalist Jonathan Porritt’s Seeing Green, he discusses the ongoing tensions within “green political thought” that simultaneously aim to establish “a clear set of political ideas based upon an “ecophilosophy” while denying the legitimacy of environmentalism as an ideology
Humphrey states that “green ideology” is a valid ideology, much like liberalism, conservatism and socialism. He believes that ideologies should not be perceived as “rigid” and “inflexible” as Porritt suggests, because it does not showcase the idealism and innate spiritual quality within environmentalism, as this aims to revive a “planetary consciousness” which will help develop humans’ relationship with the Earth.
Humphrey asks what key characteristics constitute this complex ideology, if there are any aspects of environmentalism that could be deemed as radical, how do its different aspects convolute together, if green ideology has since its creation been replaced by a “post-ecologist age”, and overall, if environmentalism is a coherent ideology
The Key Commitments of Green Ideology
- What are the goals of environmentalism?
- What does green ideology hope to achieve? How do its components vary in its aims?
Ecological Restructuring
This concept, according to Humphrey, “refers to the idea that the relationship between humanity and nature has to be placed upon a radically different basis from that which currently exists”
It revolves around a critique of unsustainable practices found within societies worldwide that damage the environment, hence the idea of a “restricting” which would remove these practices
Ecological restructuring offers a “an account of what is wrong with the current structure of humanity’s relationship with non-human nature, and also of why this defective relationship came about and is maintained”: it aims to establish a somewhat radical shift in our relationship with the planet as an environment in which we thrive, not a mere natural environment with which we have no connection- as it is commonly perceived. It is because of this that Porritt calls for a “metaphysical reconstruction”
According to Eckersley, a “holistic” view – strengthening the connection between humanity and the Earth – can be distinguished from an “atomistic” world view – lessening this connection. Why is holism so important in green ideology?
It would appear that if we were adopting a more interpersonal relationship with the Earth, that we would be dismissing the ecological importance of preserving biodiversity; seeing as this interpersonal linkage between the planet and ourselves would appear to many as being deeply individualistic, little focused on the preservation of the Earth.
Humphrey wrote himself that “we see every element of the natural world as separable into its component parts, right down to the atomic or even sub-atomic levels”. This ultimately scientific outlook can be quite toxic, seeing as “metaphysics of separability is that we also come to see humanity as radically separate from the rest of the natural world”.
Furthermore, environmentalists like Humphrey argue that it is only by shaping “the value-orientations of contemporary western societies” – in other words, peoples’ perception of the environment -that positive ecological and environmental change can take place. This is the goal of holism. In addition, the concept of an “ethical” holism must be articulated, as the desire to preserve a continuously menaced ecosystem is essentially motivated by morality. We become an intrinsic part of the planet we occupy: we must tend to the needs of the Earth and it has done the same for us.
Ecological restructuring pushes us to “use nature as a model” concerning our relationship not only with our natural environment but with other human beings as well. Here, nature is interpreted as “the prism of the (political) reading of the science of ecology”, which embodies the significance of symbiosis and mutual cooperation. We can establish a connection between the diversity found in ecosystems and the diversity found in human life.
The main case established for nature as a source of idealization for humanity is due to the lack of hierarchy in natural environments: this absence of a social order could be interpreted by many as the absence of social constraints, such as social class. This could benefit human society greatly as a form of true egalitarianism could potentially be installed if we follow this model.
The concept of “anti-human chauvinism” defined as “our readiness to exploit human nature for what are seen as trivial human ends” has installed within many a deep-rooted pessimism and nihilistic perception of humanity as being utterly self-serving and egocentric. However, we must not ignore the innate survivalist nature of humans, seeing as “any human desire, no matter how poorly it relates to our ‘genuine’ needs, has to be satisfied, whatever the consequences of that satisfaction may be for the rest of the natural world”.
This is inherent to human nature in general, and to assume that we can easily move past those tendencies is a gross misconception. Humanity is far from perfect, and although we can certainly attempt to change our habits in a way that would further benefit the planet, it would be completely unrealistic to remove this behavior as it is constitutive of ourselves.
This idea has birthed a wide array of debates surrounding the place humanity occupies as the supposed center of our ecosystem. If we are incapable of moving away from our instinctive desires, how truly different are we from animals? Animal rights activists have suggested that if we possess the same basic characteristics as these creatures, then we should not be considered with the superiority and prestige that is often associated to humans due to our complex consciousnesses. Animals are not merely of “instrumental value” to us.
According to green theorists, biocentrism and ecocentrism – both of which revolve around the preservation of biological and ecological life on Earth – are not widely associated enough with “moral considerability”, which is what inherently relates these environmentalist currents to societies at large. As a result, it appears that the “ethical dimension” of green ideology is commonly known yet it is not universally adopted by all environmental theorists. The metaphysical aspect of holism has been significantly more popularized than its ethical counterpart: it is difficult to internalize ourselves in the non-human world, hence the challenge posed in humans establishing a personal relationship with nature.
Overall, we may conclude by stating how the primary goal of ecological restructuring is to “put the relationship between humanity and non-human nature on a sustainable footing”. Sustainability is an essential component to green thought, seeing as it seeks to establish long-term solutions to fundamentally environmentalist issues that put the planet at risk of inhabitation for humans. It is nonetheless an incredibly complex, seeing as green theorists are able to set their own “green goals”, establishing a “common conceptual vocabulary” within green ideology.
Radical Democratization
This key concept is green ideology is “associated with decentralization and participatory forms of democratic organization”, meaning that democratic governance has an essential role to play in environmentalism as it is through political processes that true “green” change can take place. Many theorists have argued throughout the decades that “decentralization and participatory democracy are co-decontested in the green ideological framework”, meaning that actual ecological change established through political policies can only be achieved when less powerful, centralized institutions – regional or municipal entities belonging to smaller communities, for example – achieve more influence in decision-making processes that could potentially aim to protect the environment.
Ecological Law
Another essential concept in green ideology is the “notion of a natural or higher form of law that can justify forms of action that lie outside of the remit of conventional statute law”, meaning the creation of a universally adopted form of law that resides ultimately in moral reasoning. Ecological law, as the green theorist Barry Commoner suggested, are not sufficiently implemented due to the innately self-servient nature of humanity that does not uphold the sanctity of the environment. However, we must note that “we cannot escape the consequences of persistently violating ecological laws”, as the effects of climate change are rapidly and dangerously growing. To prevent this, we must prioritize ecological law in a way that is universally obeyed and respected in societies across the globe: it is for this reason that so many green activists follow “a higher moral law where their actions conflict with the positive law of their society”.
Non-Violence
We must concern ourselves with the means implemented within green politics that are used to achieve the ends necessary to preserve the environment. In other words, we must ask ourselves the extent to which green activists will go to pursue their goals.
The green theorist Bob Goodin argues that “green political thought is above all a substantive theory of value, and this is and should be distinctive from any theory about political processes”, meaning green thought should not be held to democratic standards because its objectives exceed the boundaries of the political. This concept could be interpreted as a justification of violence in green activism.
However, this could not be further from the truth. Seeing as “most green ideologues have seen democracy and political participation as inherent parts of the green ideal”, non-violence is deemed a much more appropriate course of action since this “constitutes one of the core commitments of green politics”.
Thick or Thin?
The four core elements of green ideology - ecological reconstruction, radical democratization, ecological law, and non-violence – have made environmentalism more accessible to the general public. However, these key concepts embodying this ideology pale in comparison to the list of concepts distinguishing other ideologies. This does raise the question as to whether or not green thought can be considered a “thick” ideology- meaning a current of thought possessing a “sufficiently ‘strong’ core to provide a framework of decontestation for the series of further concepts that will be adjacent or peripheral to the core across the range of the terrain of the political”.
It would appear that green ideology significantly lacks a wide variety of concepts – including liberty, equality, or rationality – therefore making this a “thin” ideology, meaning that it lacks key commitments within its discourse. However, Freeden has argued that green thought is greatly compatible to other ideological propositions, and therefore that the “thin nature of green ideology” can be explained through the array of ideological variations found in this current of thought, ranging from eco-Marxism to green conservatism.
In addition, Freeden has suggested that the core concepts of green ideology “do little to constrain even those political concepts that stand directly adjacent to them”, such as biodiversity or decentralization. Environmentalism does not enharbour any specific position on the political spectrum: where one is left-wing or right-wing, we are all affected by climate change.
The political aspect of green ideology is often realized through environmental organizations or parties that aim to forward the objectives of green thought. An example of this is the Green Party, which is able to deal with a wide range of issues that are not inherently ecocentric – as a political party concerns itself with social and financial policies as well. However, the Green Party’s motives constantly revolve around the desire to protect the environment: for example, many of this party’s members aim at reconstructing the economy in a way that does not damage the ecosystem- seeing as the majority of societies across the globe depend heavily on companies an transnational corporations for wealth revenue; despite the damage these cause to the environment. Dobson has stated that green ideology is in many ways a diversion of traditional unsustainable practices in favor of alternative ecological ones.
The Green Party does embody classic ideological propositions in its discourse- however it seeks to always prioritize the environment above all else. For example, the party “affirms the importance of individual freedom and self-expression”, however “individual freedom should not be exercised where that freedom depends on the exploitation or harm to any person or group in society, or to the environment”.
This means that Green Party members believe that freedom is essential to society, but not to the extent where the environment is compromised by these individuals’ personal freedoms (loitering, unsustainable travel, etc). Liberalism here can be interpreted as a form of environmental exploitation.
As a result, it would appear that green ideology would have much more substance than we would initially expect, seeing as green thought encompasses a multitude of ideological concepts that go beyond key ideas in environmentalism.
Green Ideology: Problems and Tensions
We have established previously that green ideology can contain political dimensions that involve environmentalist currents. For this ideology to truly and effectively prosper, it must adapt itself to western societies who have not embraced sustainable practices. The following are the challenges threatening the legitimacy and applicability of green ideology:
- Skeptical Environmentalism
There is a phenomenon of skepticism that has spread across the globe regarding climate change. Many green theorists have attempted to find solutions to this prominent lack of belief in an issue that concerns us so much. Lomborg has created the idea of an “environmental litany” in his literary work: this refers to “a tale of a human-made fall from a state of balance, a potentially catastrophic interference with the cycles and harmonies of the natural world”, where the litany in question is constituted of socio-environmental issues ranging from air pollution to overpopulation.
Lomborg believes that there is a lack of “genuinely scientific analysis of the environmental problems facing the world” which would make actual evidence of environmental decay more accessible – and therefore more obvious to the general population at large. Lomborg aims for more “rational” environmentalist policies that rely less on ideals and more so on practicality.
- The Death of Environmentalism
Two environmentalists, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger published a series of literary pieces, one of them being “The Death of Environmentalism”, which suggested that the popularity of such a political current had reached its climax in the 1960s and 1970s- and that today green ideology is outdated: societies must move towards “post environmental” politics, seeing as environmentalism as a whole has already been spread globally and its influences have been internalized by political institutions and organizations.
Both of these theorists have delved into the relevance of Abraham Maslow’s theory of “hierarchy of needs”, which states that the reason why it is so difficult for people to adopt environmental practices has largely to do with how western societies rely on unsustainable methods of wealth accumulation (resource extraction).
Any efforts from individuals to stray away from this will give them a sense of “material insecurity”, as a sudden change of societally-installed habits threatens individuals’ ideal of stability. Similarly to Lomborg, Nordhaus and Schellenberger vouch for the research and development of “clean technology” that promotes sustainability, all the while allowing for certain societal structures to remain.
- Post-Ecologism
Ingolfur Blühdorn has suggested in his work that we currently live in a post-ecological world: he states that despite the inherently stable nature of the political clause of environmentalism, there are unavoidable contradictions in this concept that we must address. Blühdorn believes that environmentalism relies far too greatly on impossibly achieved utopias, where humans have strayed so far from their survivalist instincts for the sake of the environment that they have removed the parts of themselves that make them the most human. This ideal of a “social transformation” motivated by the desire to protect the Earth was referred to by Blühdorn as “unconvincing”.
He believes that “the belief that we face ecological crises was never based in a straightforward way on empirical facts about the natural world and our relationship to it”, and therefore that it made it difficult for humans to be actively involved in combatting the climate crisis. There was a failure on the part of many political institutions who were not able to cement ecologism as a permanent solution to climate change: essentially, this “has failed to turn this crisis discourse into transformative political action” and as a result, it no longer suffices to bring awareness to this issue as we have done so for the past decades. We have unhealthily normalized the climate emergency, which is why Blühdorn believes we are now in a post-ecological society: one that effectively combats climate change through policies and action, not one that merely addresses the existence of such an issue.
Conclusion
Green ideology has been significantly popularized over the course of the past decades; its four core elements having been the epicenter of attention for green theorists. Whether or this is a “thin” or “thick” ideology is ultimately subjective to the theorist, as one may argue that environmentalism does not incorporate enough ideological propositions universal to other currents of thought, while others may argue the opposite (as seen with the example of the Green Party).
Green ideology has often been referred to as a “newcomer” in the great family of political currents, ranging from conservatism to liberalism. The main objective within green thought is simple: environmentalists aim to preserve our natural environment through the adoption of “appropriate human response”, one that prioritizes the relationship between humanity and the Earth, rather than simply aim to “save” the planet. This way, it is easier for people to understand, conceptualize and relate to the pressing issue of climate emergency. This will hopefully demarginalize green ideology within western societies, as this has not been taken seriously enough by political officials and citizens alike.