Page 36 [36]
OCR
34 — JUDIT FARKAS The three best-known ecophilosophical trends of the 20" century are Naess’s deep ecology, Bookchin’s social ecology and ecofeminism. Deep ecology is associated with the name of Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess (1912-2009). Naess was deeply influenced by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the principles of Buddhist teachings on self-fulfillment, and Mahatma Gandhi's (1869-1948) non-violent resistance. He justified the name deep ecology by claiming that the environmental movement started in the 1970s and the philosophical thoughts that underlay it were shallow. They were not actually aimed at the interests, survival and wellbeing of the natural environment, but instead set the human being and its welfare in the foreground. In contrast, the deep ecological position and all movements and actors that adopt it are characterized by the position of biosphere egalitarianism. This means that all things are in deep, fundamental connection with one another and with everything else. All living beings have a right to life; nature, the richness and variety of the forms of life have a value of their own; all existing beings are equal and interdependent; all forms of life in the biosphere are entitled to survival and preservation, irrespective of their utility for human beings. He emphasized that humans have no distinguished value or role in the biosphere. The above statements apply to them just as they do to all other beings. Human interests are not superior to the interests of other species, and only to survive are they allowed to take other beings’ lives, similarly to all other species. The social concept of deep ecology is against classes; it supports diversity, local autonomy, decentralization and self-government. Deep ecology is a theoretical framework which wishes to rally different worldviews, gather those of identical conceptual positions and promote their action. It has indeed linked up several worldviews, but also elicited criticism precisely for its excessively radical views on the world verging on the esoteric, which may discredit the whole environmental movement (see Hubbell — Ryan 2022: 118; Téth 2005: 199-230). As noted above, trends in 20"-century environmental philosophy often function as bases for concrete movements. This is true of deep ecology as well: it motivated the foundation of the Earth First! movement (1980), Deep Green Resistance (DGR, 2011) and some anarcho-primitivist groups. The latter reject civilisation and wish to return to a pre-modern way of living (rewilding) (Hubbell — Ryan 2011: 118; Naess 1988, 1993). The next trend of eco-radicalism, social ecology, is associated with the political philosopher, historian and social theoretician Murray Bookchin (1921-2006). Social ecology is a radical political movement whose aim is to create an ecological society. Though close to several political trends, Bookchin mainly regarded himself as an anarchist. The fundamental tenets of anarchist social theory are extremely noticeable in his philosophical work, and his views on the ideal society.‘ Bookchin largely relied on Rousseau’s image of the noble savage and on traditional societies when arguing that man is innately good and that an ecological society can be realized. His critics argue that he reasoned deductively, and that, moreover, in justifying his thoughts, he used etiological examples to verify his presuppositions. For instance, he denied the existence of hierarchy in traditional tribal societies (Kirkman 1997: 202-203).
