Deep Ecology

David Landis Barnhill
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

To be published in the Spirit and Sustainability, Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability vol. 1
Ed. Willis Jenkins. Great Barrington MA : Berkshire , 2008.

Deep ecology is one of the most important contemporary approaches to environmental philosophy. The term was first used in print in the 1973 article “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement” by Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher. For Naess, the “shallow ecology” of resource conservation and policy reform was insufficient to deal with our deeply-seated environmental problems. What is needed for true sustainability is a fundamental change in the way we conceive of and value the natural world, a change that at least implicitly involves religious values and assumptions. As such, deep ecology is radical in its critique and idealist in emphasizing worldview rather than social structures.

The relationship between deep ecology, sustainability, and spirituality is quite complex, in part because of the various meanings and associations of the terms. There have been, for instance, at least five primary ways the term deep ecology has been used. The first is a profound inquiry into the beliefs and values concerning nonhuman nature and our ontological and ethical relationship to it. No specific views are specified in this inclusive definition; any thoroughgoing questioning into nature and the human relationship to it would be considered deep ecology. Because of the fundamental character of the questioning, spiritual ideas and values would usually be involved.

A second, similarly inclusive meaning derives from the assumption that any such deep questioning will result in one form or another of a philosophy that affirms the profound value of nature, our intimate relationship with it, and our responsibility to it. In some ways, these philosophies can be quite different, such as ecofeminism and social ecology, but whatever the specific goals and practices identified, the ideal is a far more sustainable way of living with nature.

The third meaning of deep ecology is far more pragmatic: a platform of eight principles first articulated by Naess and George Sessions in 1984. The principles include the intrinsic value of nature and the value of biodiversity; a recognition of the ongoing ruination of the planet; the need to reduce human exploitation of nature; a call for major changes in policy and a decrease in human population; an appreciation of quality of life over material standard of living; and the responsibility to embody these principles by working for personal and social change. The focus on sustainability here is obvious, but the spiritual dimension is implicit in the fact that Naess formulated the platform in part as a way for people with divergent worldviews and spiritual values related to nature to come to agreement on principles that will lead to action. Naess illustrated this with the “apron” diagram, in which a diversity of religious ideas and intuitions at the top can logically support the deep ecology platform, and the platform can logically lead to divergent lifestyles, policies, and actions.

The fourth meaning of deep ecology is probably the most common: a nature-affirming worldview (called “ecosophy” by Naess) with specific qualities: a holistic view of nature as an interrelated system; the equal intrinsic value of all of nature, often termed “biocentric egalitarianism”; a rejection of anthropocentrism, the human-centeredness that focuses value and attention on humans to the detriment of nature; an affirmation that humans are fully a part of nature with no “ontological divide” separating them; an identification of the individual with the larger natural world, with the person as a “self-in-Self” rather than an autonomous individual; and an intuitive communion with nature resulting in a spontaneous sense of care for the planet’s suffering rather than rational ethical obligations (“I am the rainforest defending itself,” said deep ecologist John Seed). Such ecosophies usually diverge from other approaches such as ecofeminism and social ecology in key points (leading, unfortunately, to sectarian squabbles).

As a fifth meaning, the term deep ecology sometimes refers to the on-the-ground movement to enact deep ecology principles and values. Here the focus is on a radically different lifestyle (sometimes in the form of primitivism) or on radical environmental activism – both based on the third and fourth meanings noted above. In this instance, the most famous example is Earth First! The goal is not only sustainability or preservation but also the return to a state before humans massively degraded the environment. Usually an earth-based spirituality informs this movement.

Interest in spiritual attitudes toward nature in other cultures has been a common characteristic of deep ecology particularly in the last two meanings of ecosophy and radical activism. Buddhism, Daoism, and Native American cultures have been a source of insight into the “new/old” view of nature – suggesting that while deep ecology is new in terms of Western thought, it draws on long held views in non-Western cultures.

Another key characteristic of deep ecology is its focus on wilderness. As anthropocentrism is the principal source of human degradation of the natural world, the ideal is often seen as pristine nature untrammeled by human manipulation. Many deep ecologists have considered personal experience of wilderness to be a spiritual encounter that leads to self-in-Self realization through the biocentric identification with nature. The protection of wilderness has also been emphasized by deep ecology, echoing the preservationism of John Muir.

In particular with its acute interest in wilderness, deep ecology is profoundly interested in sustainability. However, the term sustainability is also complex, and to make our analysis of the relationship between deep ecology and sustainability more precise, we can make several distinctions. First, some forms of sustainability are reductive and exploitive, such as a forestry practice that creates a monocrop tree farm, all other vegetation killed by herbicides until the trees are clear-cut and replanted. Other forms of sustainability are ecological, seeking to conform to nature’s processes and complexities and constraints. Deep ecology clearly supports this latter, ecological sustainability and would offer a comprehensive critique of the worldview and effects of exploitive sustainability.

Second, sustainability can be anthropocentric or biocentric. Most policies aimed at sustainability are focused on the goal of conserving resources for future human generations. Deep ecology rejects such a perspective, calling for the biocentric sustainability of the entire community of life.

A third distinction concerns the range of focus. Sustainability can be limited to environmental issues, dealing only with the preserving the nonhuman natural world. On the other hand, it can be ecosocial, involving social and economic dimensions as well as environmental. This “triple bottom line” approach (environmental, social, and economic) is increasingly common, particularly in sustainable development policies, in part because it includes attention to human well-being.

Some deep ecologists might object to this ecosocial perspective, worried about a slippage into anthropocentrism. However, the ecosocial notion of sustainability can justifiably be used to critique deep ecology. As ecofeminists and social ecologists have argued, at least some versions of deep ecology reveal a multifaceted neglect of human society, crippling its ability to bring about true sustainability. One criticism censures deep ecology’s emphasis on worldview as the source of the problem (anthropocentrism) and the ideal (an ecosophy). In this view, environmental problems involve the social dimension in various and essential ways. Some critics would argue, for instance, that political and economic structures, such as industrial capitalism and the nation-state, are principal agents of environmental pillage. Another cause of ecological devastation, some have claimed, is social ideologies, such as associating women with nature and devaluing both, or upholding an authoritarian social hierarchy that enables the exploitation of both people and nature.

As such, critics contend, simply developing an ecocentric worldview and preserving wilderness ignores gross social injustice and will not halt the pillage of the planet. We need political and economic analysis, and we need a change in social ideology and social structures. Such a critique of deep ecology conforms to the ecosocial approach to sustainability mentioned above, which includes social and economic dimensions as well as the environmental.

Other criticisms of deep ecology are more philosophical or psychological. While deep ecology affirms that there is no ontological divide between humans and the rest of nature, it has tended to emphasize human degradation of the environment so much that humans can seem to be inevitably destructive, with no proper place in nature. Thus the emphasis on wilderness preservation. Sustainability, however, calls for the sustainable use of the natural world and implies our interactive relationship with it. Deep ecology has praised hunter-gatherer cultures as a model for a sustainable society, but critics reject that ideal as inadequate for a world of over six billion people.

In addition, deep ecology’s ideal of self-realization, of the loss of the individual ego and identification with nature, has been criticized by ecofeminists as a masculine ambition of psychological aggrandizement of the world. Similarly, some have argued that such a holistic ideal denies the reality and value of individuals, their relationships, and the community of different selves. Both of these limitations, it could be argued, are contrary to true sustainability.

At this point it is useful to apply another distinction, between conventional and critical deep ecology. Conventional deep ecology refers to the views and values that do not respond to the valid criticisms that have been made. It holds to the original principles without significant open-minded engagement with other views. Critical deep ecology, on the other hand, refers to a philosophy that adheres to the basic perspective of the philosophy while learning from the substantial criticisms that have been made. There is, for instance, critical Marxism and critical utopianism, perspectives that remain within these traditions while at the same time reappraising certain aspects in light of new ideas or divergent views. Critical deep ecology joins self-criticism with the insights of social ecology, ecofeminism, and Christian stewardship.

The distinction between conventional and critical is certainly not absolute but rather marks a continuum upon which we could locate different versions of deep ecology. The main point is that deep ecology need not be limited to the form that is so often criticized. By learning from other approaches, deep ecology can become even more significant to the notion of sustainability. A number of thinkers have shown how the basic perspective of deep ecology can be enriched by association with other views. Gary Snyder, for instance, is often heralded as a key deep ecology thinker. But he has always been intensely interested in social issues and has combined his radical environmental philosophy with anarchism, and he has criticized preservationists for attempting to freeze specific areas as pristine, in effect treating them like a commodity. Roger S. Gottlieb has argued for the possibility of a reconciliation of spiritual deep ecology and leftist politics. Social ecologist John Clark has called for a dialectical engagement between deep ecology and social ecology, claiming that deep ecologists can support a social ecological perspective. In addition, it is also possible to show that deep ecology’s holism can be articulated as relational rather than monistic, and thus in harmony with ecofeminism’s insights about relationality.

A critical deep ecology makes the approach more sustainable in two senses. First, the inculcation of social concerns makes it resonant with the ecosocial version of sustainability, and second such a change can help make deep ecology remain a vibrant and enduring approach to environmental philosophy.

Further Reading

• Barnhill, David Landis. “Relational Holism: Huayan Buddhism and Deep Ecology.” In Deep Ecology and World Religions. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. 77-106.
• Barnhill, David Landis, and Roger S. Gottlieb, eds. Deep Ecology and World Religion: New Essays on Sacred Ground. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
• Clark, John. “How Wide is Deep Ecology?” Inquiry 39 (June 1996): 189-201.
• Devall, Bill, and George Sessions. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1985.
• Drengson, Alan, and Yuichi Inoue, eds. The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 1995.
• Fox, Warwick. Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for Environmentalism. Boston: Shambhala, 1990.
• Gottlieb, Roger. "Spiritual Deep Ecology and the Left." Capitalism, Nature, and Society 6.3 (1995):1-20, 41-45.
• Katz, Eric, Andrew Light, and David Rothenberg, eds. Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 2000.
• Naess, Arne. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Trans. and ed. by David Rothenberg. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
• Sessions, George, ed. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Boston: Shambhala, 1995.
• Snyder, Gary. The Practice of the Wild. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990.
• -----. A Place in Space: Ethics, Aesthetics, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint Press, 1995.
• Zimmerman, Michael E. Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Back Home