Should Environmentalists Reject the Enlightenment?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Among environmentalists today, there is a widespread opposition to the “Enlightenment project.” Deep ecologists, in particular, aspire to ground environmental ethics and politics in premodern modes of life and thought. This move fails to account for the myriad important connections between Enlightenment themes and those of contemporary ecophilosophy. Notions of a public sphere, cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, and deep time, as well as new approaches to the self and doubts about the market, persist from the Enlightenment into current environmental theory and practice. The essay warns against severing environmentalism from its Enlightenment antecedents and urges instead an ethic drawn from the revered nature writer and ecologist Aldo Leopold, who was profoundly indebted to Enlightenment ideals.
In recent years a rift has opened up between some currents of environmental philosophy and the legacy of the Enlightenment. Prominent eco-philosophers have blamed the latter for our contemporary environmental crisis. William Ophuls, for example, describes the Enlightenment as a desperate attempt to defy the ecological implications of the laws of thermodynamics by erecting a political order based on untrammeled growth rather than selflimiting virtue. One of the reviewers of Ophuls's book regards this indictment as “old news”; he criticizes Ophuls, in fact, for clinging to the Enlightenment paradigm in seeking to derive environmental ethics from natural laws. It would be fair to say that many, if not most, green intellectuals have come to define their enterprise as a counter-Enlightenment.
- Research Article
- Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2001
1. Ophuls, William, Requiem for Modern Politics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 7–11.Google Scholar
3. See, for example, Merchant, Carolyn, The Death of Nature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980);Google ScholarGriffin, Susan, Woman and Nature (New York: Harper & Row, 1978)Google Scholar and The Eros of Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1995);Google ScholarFerry, Luc, he Nouvel Ordre Ecologique (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1992);Google ScholarDrengsen, Alan, “Shifting Paradigms,” Environmental Ethics 2 (1980): 221–40;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSessions, George, “Ecocentrism and the Anthropocentric Detour,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st' Century, ed. Sessions, George (Boston: Shambala, 1995), pp. 156–83;Google ScholarRifkin, Jeremy, Entropy (New York: Bantam, 1980);Google ScholarMcLaughlin, Andrew, “Images and Ethics of Nature”, Environmental Ethics 7 (1985): 293–320;CrossRefGoogle ScholarManes, Christopher, Green Rage (Boston: Little, Brown, 1990);Google ScholarLeiss, William, The Domination of Nature (New York: George Braziller, 1972);Google ScholarBerman, Morris, The Disenchantment of the World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981);Google ScholarO'Briant, Walter, “Man, Nature, and the History of Philosophy,” in Philosophy and the Environmental Crisis, ed. Blackstone, William (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1974);Google ScholarSlusser, Dorothy and Slusser, Gerald, Technology: The God that Failed (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971);Google ScholarShepard, Paul, “Ecology and Man: A Viewpoint,” in Sessions, Deep Ecology, pp. 131–40;Google ScholarChapelle, Doris La, Earth Wisdom (Los Angeles: Guild of Tutors Free Press, 1978);Google ScholarShiva, Vandana and Mies, Maria, Ecofeminism (London: Zed Books, 1993);Google ScholarCapra, Fritjof, The Turning Point (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982);Google ScholarColeman, Daniel, Ecopolitics (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1993;Google ScholarEhrenfeld, David, The Arrogance of Humanism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978);Google ScholarTurner, Jack, The Abstract Wild (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1996);Google ScholarFerkiss, Victor, Nature, Technology, and Society (New York: New York University Press, 1993);Google Scholar and Catton, William, Overshoot (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980).Google Scholar
Scholars who have discussed the anti-Enlightenment tendencies of radical environmentalism include Luke, Timothy, Eco-critique (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997);Google ScholarWyck, Peter van, Primitives in the Wilderness (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997);Google ScholarLewis, Martin, Green Delusions (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992);Google ScholarWolfe, Alan, “Up from Humanism,” American Prospect 4 (1991): 112–27;Google ScholarEasterbrook, Gregg, A Moment on the Earth (New York: Viking, 1995);Google ScholarMurphy, Raymond, Rationality and Nature (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994);Google ScholarDuedny, Daniel, “In Search of Gaian Politics,” in Ecological Resistance Movements, ed. Taylor, Bron (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), pp. 282–99;Google ScholarBiehl, Janet, Rethinking Ecofeminism (Boston: South End Press, 1991);Google ScholarBookchin, Murray, Remaking Society (Boston: South End Press, 1990);Google ScholarZimmerman, Michael, “The Threat of Eco- Fascism,” Social Theory and Practice 21 (1995): 207–38;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Bramwell, Anna, Ecology in the Twentieth Century: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
4. See Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (New York: Crown, 1991).Google Scholar The cofounder of Earth First!, Foreman describes how he was converted from manistream to radical environmentalism by precisely such experiences.
5. Shiva, Vandana, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development (London: Zed Books, 1989), p. 223.Google Scholar
12. Gay, Peter, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation, vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), pp. 146, 189.Google Scholar
14. Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. Burger, Thomas (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1994), pp. 27, 29.Google Scholar
16. Kant, Immanuel, “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?”, trans. Schmidt, James, in What Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions, ed. Schmidt, James (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), p. 58.Google Scholar
18. Peuchet, Jacques, “On Law Enforcement and Local Government”; Encyclopedia methodique: Jurisprudence, vol. 9–10 (Paris: 1789–1791), trans. Todd, Jane Marie, p.41.Google Scholar
19. See Taylor, Bob Pepperman, Our Limits Transgressed: Environmental Political Thought in America (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1992), pp. 15–23.Google Scholar
21. See Dryzek, John, Rational Ecology (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987),Google Scholar“Green Reason,” Environmental Ethics 12 (1990): 195–210,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Ecology and Discursive Democracy,” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism3 (1992): 18–42,Google Scholar which build upon Habermas′ theory of communicative interaction. See also Torgerson, Douglas, The Promise of Green Politics: Environmentalism and the Public Sphere (Durham: Duke University Press, 1999)Google Scholar, for a similar argument derived from the work of Hannah Arendt.
22. Jaenicke, Martin, Philip Kunig, and Michael Stitzel, Unweltpolitik (Bonn: Dietz Verlag, 1999), p. 130;Google Scholar our translation. For a practical application, see also Cronin, John and Kennedy, Robert F. Jr, The Riverkeepers (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), especially pp. 211–15 and 171–74.Google Scholar
23. Mendelssohn, Moses, “On the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” in Schmidt, What Is Enlightenment, p. 54.Google Scholar
27. Worster, , Rivers of Empire, p. 333.Google Scholar See also McKibben, Bill, The End of Nature (New York: Doubleday, 1989);Google ScholarSchumacher, E. F., Small Is Beautiful (New York: Harper & Row, 1973);Google ScholarBerry, Wendell, The Unsettling of America (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1977);Google ScholarBerry, Thomas, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1988);Google ScholarSale, Kirkpatrick, Dwellers in the Land (Philadelphia: New Society, 1991);Google ScholarKemmis, Daniel, Community and the Politics of Place (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990);Google ScholarElgin, Duane, Voluntary Simplicity (New York: William Morrow, 1981);Google ScholarDevall, Bill, Simple in Means, Rich in Ends (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1988);Google Scholar and Trainer, E. F., Abandon Affluence! (London: Zed Books, 1985).Google Scholar
28. Ophuls, , Requiem, p. 159.Google Scholar Ecologists sometimes refer to such “climax” communities as “stage III ecosystems.”
29. For a critique of the effort to “make intimate and local the scale of human experience,” see Sennett, Richard, The Fall of Public Man (New York: Vintage, 1978), pp. 295–96,Google Scholar and also Lewis, , Green Delusions, pp. 91–93.Google Scholar Cronin and Kennedy point out that “the worst crimes against nature [are] caused not by global cataclysms but by local decisions” (Riverkeepers, p. 55Google Scholar)
30. Ibid., p. 19. Other arguments that posit a sort of “fall” from environmental grace are found in Shepard, Paul, Nature and Madness (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1982);Google ScholarGray, Elizabeth Dodson, Green Paradise Lost (Wellesley: Roundtable Press, 1981);Google ScholarUdall, Stewart, The Quiet Crisis (New York: Avon, 1963),Google Scholar chapter 1; Berry, Thomas, The Great Work (New York: Bell Tower, 1999),Google Scholar especially chapter 16; Bookchin, , Remaking Society;Google ScholarAbram, , Spell of the Sensuous;Google ScholarSnyder, , Practice of the Wild;Google ScholarManes, , Green Rage;Google ScholarForeman, Dave, Confessions of an Ecowarrior (New York: Harmony Books, 1991);Google ScholarGlendinning, Chellis, “Recovery from Western Civilization,” in Sessions, Deep Ecology, pp. 37–40;Google Scholar and articles by Griffin, Susan, King, Ynestra, Starhawk, , Spretnak, Charlene, and Ruether, Rosemary Radford in Healing the Wounds, ed. Plant, Judith (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1989)Google Scholar
33. Heidegger, , The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. Lovitt, William (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), pp. 3–35.Google Scholar Heidegger′s resonance with environmental thought has been emphasized by, among others, Zimmerman, Michael, “Toward a Heideggerean Ethos for Radical Environmentalism,” Environmental Ethics 5 (1983): 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Some thinkers have argued that the Judaeo-Christian heritage is ultimately responsible for the West′s environmental exploitation. See White, Lynn Jr, “The Historical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis,” Machina ex Dei: Essays in the Dynamism of Western Culture (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1968), pp. 75–94.Google Scholar A far more sophisticated version of this argument is offered by Gauchet, Maurice, The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google Scholar For an intelligent rebuttal of White′s view, see Fortin, Ernest, “The Bible Made Me Do It: Christianity, Science, and the Environment,” Review of Politics 57 (1995): 127–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. See, for example, Taylor, Kenneth, “Why Supernatural Eels Matter,” in Lessons of the Rain Forest, ed. Head, Suzanne and Heinzman, Robert (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1990), pp. 184–95,Google Scholar and Hardin, Garrett, Filters Against Folly (New York: Penguin, 1985), pp. 85–86.Google Scholar
39. See Coulanges, Numa Denis Fustel de, The Ancient City (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1956), pp. 15–38, 216–17.Google Scholar
40. For an account emphasizing the enlightened religiosity of Greece, see in Snell, Bruno, The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953).Google Scholar Snell differentiates between pre- Homeric man′s “terror in the face of the unknown” and the “free admiration” of natural “beauty and grandeur” that accompanied the invention of the Olympian gods (p. 42).
41. See Berndt, Ronald, Aboriginal Sites, Rights, and Resource Development (Perth: University of Western Australia Press, 1981)Google Scholar and Bell, Diane, “Sacred Sites: The Politics of Protection,” in Abiorigines, Land, and Land Rights, ed. Peterson, Nicholas and Langton, Marcia (Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal studies, 1983), p. 288.Google Scholar
43. Oelschlager, Max, The Idea of Wilderness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), p. 115.Google Scholar
45. Fox, , Transpersonal Ecology, p. 220.Google Scholar See also Mathews, Freya, “Conservation and Self-Realization: A Deep Ecological Perspective,” Environmental Ethics 10 (1989): 347–55;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDevall, , Simple in Means;Google Scholar and Naess, Arne, “Self-Realization,” in Deep Ecology, pp. 225–39.Google Scholar Naess regards self-realization as the “only ultimate norm” of his own, highly influential brand of deep ecology; see Naess, , “The Deep Ecological Movement,” in Sessions, Deep Ecology, p. 80.Google Scholar
46. Diderot, Denis, “A Very Small Ruin,” in Diderot′s Thoughts on Art and Style, ed. Tollemache, Beartix (London: Remington & Co. Limited, 1893), pp. 80–81Google Scholar
48. See Rolston, Holmes, Philosophy Gone Wild (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1986),Google ScholarEnvironmental Ethics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988),Google Scholar and “Values in Nature,” Environmental Ethics 3 (1981): 113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Virtually all “deep ecologists” follow Rolston in subscribing to the notion of nature's intrinsic value, although as Andrew McLaughlin points out, it should not be considered a litmus test of ecological consciousness; see McLaughlin, , “The Heart of Deep Ecology,” in Sessions, Deep Ecology, p. 87.Google Scholar For a critique of the intrinsic value argument, see Callicott, J. Baird, “Rolston on Intrinsic Value: A Deconstruction,” in Environmental Ethics 14 (1992): 129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Man Who Invented Natural History” New York Review of Books 45:16 (22 10 1998), pp. 83–90.Google Scholar
54. For an account that emphasizes the pre-modern antecedents of Enlightenment-era views of nature, see Alfred, North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: MacMillan, 1927), especially chapter 1Google Scholar.
55. Leibniz, G. W., Monadology, ed. Reschler, Nicholas (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991), p. 198Google Scholar.
57. Abrams, M. H., The Mirror and the Lamp (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953), pp. 204–207Google Scholar.
58. Hume, David, An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957), p. 95Google Scholar.
59. DiZerega, Gus, “Empathy, Sociability, Nature, and the Relational Self: Deep Ecology and Liberal Modernity,” Social Theory and Practice 21: (1995): 252–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Early Liberal Theory,” Review of Politics 58 (1996): 699–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar.In the latter article DiZerega distinguishes between “individualistic liberals” like Hobbes and Locke, who hold a “Promethean” view of man's relation to nature, and “evolutionary liberals” such as Hume and Smith, who conceive of both human and natural systems as spontaneously selforganizing. Among contemporary environmentalists, other admirers of the Scottish Enlightenment include John Rodman and J. Baird Callicott. For dissenting views see Worster, Donald, in Wealth of Nature, especially pp. 214, 219Google Scholar, and Fieser, James, “Callicott and the Metaphysical Basis of Ecological Morality,” in Environmental Ethics 15 (1993): 171–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60. See, for example, Voltaire, , “Thirteenth Letter: On Locke,” in Candide and Other Writings, ed. Block, Haskell M. (New York: Modern Library, 1956), pp. 340–46Google Scholar, and d'Alembert, Jean Le Rond, Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedia of Diderot, trans. Schwab, Richard (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), Part IIGoogle Scholar.
63. See Stuke, Horst, “Aufklarung,” in Geschichtliche Grund-begrijfe: Historisches Lexikonzurpolitisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, ed. Brunner, Otto et al. (Stuttgart, 1975), pp. 265, 274Google Scholar.
65. See Krieger, Leonard, The German Idea of Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957)Google Scholar.
67. SeeBiehl, , Rethinking Feminism, who argues that “liberatory” movements such as environmentalism simply would be inconceivable “had it not been for the heritage of the Enlightenment” (p. 135)Google Scholar.
68. For an argument asserting the compatibility of scientific investigations and environmental consciousness, see Wilson, Edward O., Biophilia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), especially pp. 10 and 13Google Scholar.
69. Murphy, , Rationality and Nature, p. 88Google Scholar. Murphy observes that it is possible for the “rational criticisms of the process of rationalization” to be “integrated into the process of rationalization itself,” leading “not to its abandonment, but to its reformulation” (p. 44).