What is Social Ecology?

Social ecology is defined as the science of the relationships between human populations and communities and their environments. Social ecology advocates an empowered and re-constructive view of environmental and social issues, and envisions a moral economy that moves beyond scarcity and hierarchy toward a world that re-harmonizes human communities with the natural world while celebrating diversity, and creativity. 1  

An associated concept, deep ecology, is an ecological philosophy which perceives humans as an integral part of the environment, and stresses the inter-dependent value of non-human and human life as well as the importance of the ecosystem and natural processes.

Social Ecology

Some social ecologists claim that the environmental crisis currently facing us is a result of the hierarchical organization of power and the authoritarian mentality rooted in the structures of our corporatist and consumer society.2  For many, many years, social hierarchy and class have been used to legitimize our domination of the environment and to justify imperialistic movements; they have also provided the foundation for the consumer system, the basis of our North American economy.  Some social ecologists believe that the root causes of environmental problems are such factors as trade-for-profit, industrial expansion, and the equating of corporate self-interest with ‘progress.’  Ecological problems cannot be understood, much less resolved, without resolving a number of these social issues first. 

The ecological damage done by our society is more than matched by the harm it inflicts on humanity.  Social ecology emphasizes that the destiny of human life goes hand-in-hand with the destiny of the non-human world.   Social ecologists believe that things such as racism, sexism, and third world exploitation are a product of the same mechanisms which compel us to exploit our natural resources (e.g., degradation of the rainforest).  Ecology shows us that nature can provide us with ethical guiding principles.  A flourishing ecosystem maximizes diversity and interaction, and minimizes hierarchy and domination. The good of the whole is achieved through the rich individuality and complex interrelationships of the parts.  Social ecology calls for a holistic 'ecological sensibility.'

Social ecologists believe that most environmentalists focus on the symptoms of our problems rather than the causes, that is, they focus on technology, management strategies, or population growth.  By itself, reducing population size will not help because the media that have fostered mindless consumption would be quickly mobilized to prompt an increase in the purchase of goods, irrespective of the need for them.  Unless we change society, 'soft' technologies will not make any difference either.  Simple technology can still wreak environmental damage if the ideology that uses it is unchanged.   Today's environmentalism is more "environmental engineering" which is more concerned about tinkering with existing institutions and values than changing them.  Environmentalism is used primarily to win large constituencies, not to educate them. 

Social ecology is highly critical of the notion of green consumerism or green investment ("green capitalism").  As we have seen, our economic sector is only too eager to find new areas of commercial aggrandizement and to add ecological verbiage to its advertising and customer relations.   Most truly 'green' entrepreneurs find it difficult to survive because ecologically-sound practices place them at a competitive disadvantage compared with rivals who can produce at lower costs.

Social ecology aims to replace our mentality of domination with an ethics of complementarity.1 Such ethics reflects our true role which is to learn to accommodate a fuller, richer world for allbeings.  This ethics of complementarity has a spiritual dimension that is sometimes described by social ecologists as the "respiritization of the natural world."1   The result should be a society based on ecological principles:  an organic unity in diversity, free of hierarchy, and based on mutual respect for the interrelationship of all aspects of life.  If we change human society then our relationship with the rest of nature will become transformed.

Humans, Nature and Society

Social ecology tells us that humans, far from being unnatural, are an expression of a deep natural process, and that human consciousness is a result of nature striving for increasing complexity and awareness.  In other words, humans are nature that has become self-aware. We are part of biological evolution, our 'First Nature.'1  Also, social ecology believes that humans  have a ‘Second Nature,’ a unique social awareness.1  Our Second Nature, e.g., the development of technology, science, social institutions, towns and cities, all depended on human abilities that evolved from our First Nature.   Social ecologists attempt to integrate first (biotic) nature with second (human) nature; in other words, human society and non-human nature are connected in one evolutionary flow.  Humans build cities and towns to create a comfortable place to live, just as any other species does. The problem, of course, is that the environmental changes we produce are far greater that those produced by other species. Our Second Nature has become a critical problem for ourselves and non-human life.

We can overcome our over-riding ideology of the domination of nature only by fostering a society without hierarchical structures or economic classes.  Industrial growth is not the result of a change in a cultural outlook alone, or of the impact of scientific rationality. Rather, the desire for growth stems from the primary principle of the market itself, the demand to grow or die.  Social ecology proposes to replace the existing hierarchical and class system with an egalitarian society based on mutual aid, caring and communitarian values.3 People in this new society would appreciate that the interests of the collective are inseparable from those of each individual.  The process of eliminating all domination must begin not only in the factory but also in the family, the economy, the psyche, and the material and spiritual conditions of life.  Oppressive hierarchies and inequality are at the root of the problem, and only a true community can solve the environmental crisis.

Deep Ecology

Deep ecology is a more recently developed branch of ecological philosophy that considers humans as an integral part of the environment. The philosophy emphasizes the interdependent value of human and non-human life as well as the importance of the ecosystem and natural processes.

Deep ecology's core principle is the claim that our living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish as does humanity.  Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning the "why" and "how."  It is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere.  Also, it aims to avoid environmentalism which it views as only anthropocentric, i.e., concerned with the conservation of natural resources only for exploitation by and for human purposes.  

Deep ecology seeks a more holistic view of the world in which we reside by seeking to live by the understanding that separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function holistically.  Proponents of deep ecology believe that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. The ethics of deep ecology hold that a whole system is superior to any of its parts. They offer a number of points to elucidate their claims:The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

  1. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
  2. 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.
  3. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. 
  6. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

Conclusion

It is not the intention of this essay to promote one philosophy over another but simply to illustrate what some of the current innovative thinking is and how it relates to sustaining the well-being of our natural and human capital.  The discussion surrounding the different philosophies will hopefully result in positive, constructive ideas for the Cowichan Valley and other parts of British Columbia.

Daniel Lousier, PhD

 

1 Bookchin, M, G. Purchase, B. Morris, R. Aitchtey, R.Hart and C. Wilbert.  1993.   Deep Ecology and Anarchism.  Freedom Press, London.

2 Bookchin, M.  1982.  The Ecolo gy of Freedom:  The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy.  Cheshire, Palo Alto, CA.

3 Clark, J.  1990.  Renewing the Earth: The Promise of Social Ecology.  Green Print

4 Bookchin, M.  1980.  Towards an Ecological Society.  Black Rose Books, Montreal, PQ, Canada.