 |
| Murray Bookchin |
By Better Worlds, Brighter Futures, April 15, 2012
Recently,
someone immersed in Murray Bookchin‘s late-period works asked my
definition of social ecology. This brought up an important issue. How is social
ecology to be defined generally, taking the entirety of the field and its
historical development into account? This implies a broad conception–one that
recognizes both Bookchin’s open, early approaches, his later narrower
variation, John
P. Clark‘s contribution, as well as antecedent and contemporary
influences that continue to be discovered.
Investigating
the Social Roots of Ecological Crisis
Social
ecology is concerned with the social roots and implications of ecological
dislocation. Broadly speaking, this interdisciplinary field begins with the
scientific fact of ecological crisis, seeking to overcome this crisis through
an understanding of its origin(s) within human society. Because this social and
scientific exploration seeks to get “to the root” of this problem through an
analysis of existing, yet mutable, social institutions, values, and
relationships, it is considered one of the three core radical ecological
philosophies (along with deep ecology and ecofeminism).
The
starting premise of social ecology, as put forward by Bookchin, is often
articulated as: the domination of humanity over nature is rooted in the
domination of human over human, and that the ecological crisis is rooted in
deep-seated social issues. Implied in this starting premise is the end
goal of social ecological investigation: the overcoming of the ecological
crisis through creation of the ecological society. This has been referred to
within the field as, variously, “post scarcity,” “libertarian municipalism,” or
“ecocommunitarianism.” Because social ecological investigation claims to find
the root of ecological dislocation in social domination, the sufficiently
ecological society has characteristics including egalitarianism,
decentralization, direct democracy, and the absence of hierarchy and
domination. For social ecology, the ecological society is at once the liberated
society.
A
Dialectical Philosophy
The
method of investigation used by social ecology is radically dialectical. Such a
method originates in the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus in the “West” and
Guatama Buddha and Lao-Tsu in the “East.” It continues historically through the
works of Aristotle, Hegel, and Marx, among others, as well as many aspects of
the Buddhist and Taoist traditions. Such a method of inquiry, concerned as it
is with concepts of negation, opposition, and relation, is seen as organic and
highly compatible with an ecological understanding. It is also worth noting
that such a radical, dialectical approach allows social ecology to overcome its
Eurocentrism, particularly by appreciating the dialectical moments of Eastern
philosophy, as John P. Clark has shown, for instance, in his treatment of Nagarjuna
[1].
Antecedents
and Influences
The
contemporary, broad, dialectical, dynamic field of social ecology retains its
Marxist and anarchist influence. It is seen as being in close agreement with
the earlier work of Murray Bookchin (his later work is discussed below) and
contemporary work of John P. Clark. It is able to engage dialectically and
comradely with other radical ecological philosophies and related fields in
order to advance while retaining its own specificity [2]. Arguably, such a
social ecology can also be rendered sufficiently ecosocialist.
Marxism
Originally
emerging from Marxism in the early work of Murray Bookchin, social ecology
began as an inversion of the common Marxist premise that social domination
originated out of the need for humanity to conquer nature [3]. This inversion,
reformulated as the domination of humanity over nature is rooted in the
domination of human over human, has led to a unique social ecological
anthropology. Additional Marxist influences on social ecology include many
aspects of the critique of capitalism, as well as a dialectical method of
inquiry. The contemporary advent of Marxist ecosocialism has uncovered further
affinity between Marxism and social ecology, such that the latter could easily
be rendered sufficiently ecoscocialist while remaining a distinct philosophy.
Marxist theorists that have relevance for contemporary social ecology include
Karl Marx, those of the Frankfurt School, Joel Kovel, John Bellamy Foster, and
Slavoj Zizek.
Anarchism
Social
ecology’s commitment to overcoming domination gives the field a high degree of
affinity with libertarian socialism, particularly anarchism. Indeed, it is
within anarchism that most of the development of social ecology has taken
place. Bookchin drew upon the work of Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin
particularly, and from the collectivist and non-Marxist anarchist-communist
traditions generally. Later, John P. Clark would demonstrate the relevance of
Elisee Reclus to social ecology. Clark himself works within the anarchist
tradition, particularly its communitarian aspects.
Social
Geography
Social
ecology can be characterized within a modified framework of modernity. In Anarchy,
Geography, Modernity: The Radical Social Thought of Elisee Reclus, John P.
Clark powerfully demonstrates the relevance of anarchist and geographer Elisee
Reclus to social ecology. Reclus developed a comprehensive and dialectical
outlook, termed social geography, that deals with many of the issues central to
social ecology. In addition, Reclus’ social geography avoids many of the common
problems attributed to “modern” thought and is seen as an antecedent to social
ecology.
Ecology
Of
course, the science of ecology and related fields are integral to informing the
social ecological analysis. Through ecology we learn of the nature and scope of
the ecological crisis. Its focus on relation lends itself to a dialectical
understanding. Conceived broadly, the field of ecology can also be viewed
holistically, giving context and integration to a range of more specialized
sciences.
Controversies
The
broad conception of social ecology, as outlined above, is what some would
define as a central characteristic, and it is uncontroversial to say that the
field’s primary theorists, Murray Bookchin and John P. Clark, have at one time
been in agreement on this issue.
Communalism
Clark
contends that Bookchin took a “programmatic turn” in the late 1980s,
significantly narrowing the conception and approach of social ecology. Damian
White has also noted a narrowing in Bookchin’s later work, characterizing it as
a closing down of the field’s “intellectual space.”
Eschewing what could be considered a broad synthesis of Marxist and anarchist
thought, Bookchin’s late-period work significantly distanced itself from both
traditions, preferring instead to place social ecology under what he termed
“Communalism.” This period also saw the replacement of a broad conception of
praxis, as detailed in Bookchin’s earlier works, for the solitary, programmatic
strategy of libertarian municipalism. Communalism also included Bookchin’s
“dialectical naturalism,” which is discussed below. For these reasons Communalism,
while advanced as the new trajectory of social ecology from the first
contemporary theorist of the field, may more appropriately be characterized as
a particular offshoot of the broader philosophy.
Dialectical
Naturalism
The
other controversial issue when defining a broad social ecology is that of
“dialectical naturalism.” In “Domesticating the Dialectic: A Critique of
Bookchin’s Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics,” John P. Clark poses a heavy challenge
to the adequacy of a dialectical naturalist approach within social ecology.
Clark compellingly argues that dialectical naturalism is a form of immanent
teleology, a fact that Janet Biehl, in a response to Clark, seems to confirm
[4]. For dialectical naturalism to be a valid method of inquiry, these
significant challenges must be overcome. Currently, dialectical naturalism can
be seen as another instance of the narrowing of social ecology in the later
work of Murray Bookchin. Like Communalism, this dialectical approach may best
be considered a specific variation to a more radical and orthodox dialectical
method.
Transcendent
or Subordinate?
An
open issue regarding the classification of social ecology is whether the field
falls directly within a larger tradition or forms a new, theoretical
transcendence of several radical traditions. While originating with Murray
Bookchin out of Marxism, further development of social ecology was placed
within anarchism, particularly toward the “social” end of the
individualist-social anarchist spectrum. This gave social ecology a close
affinity to the collectivist and non-Marxist anarchist-communist traditions.
John P. Clark continues in this vein, developing social ecology within an
“ecocommunitarianism.”
Bookchin’s
would later abandon anarchism altogether and place his thought, consisting
primarily of social ecology, libertarian municipalism, and dialectical
naturalism, within what he termed “Communalism.”
Is
social ecology best conceived as being within the anarchist or Communalist
ideologies? With such a rich history of antecedent traditions and influences,
as well as its aim of a holistic, organic understanding of humanity, the
natural world, and the relation between the two, it would seem that social
ecology stands on its own, without need for placing it within any other existing
framework. Indeed, the scope of its analysis suggests that anarchism, Marxism,
Communalism, or any other ideology cannot adequately contain it. In addition,
social ecology is inherently dialectical, making the attempt to pair it with an
approach such as “dialectical naturalism” unnecessary. Just as non-dialectical
Marxism had to differentiate itself as “analytical Marxism,” so too is the
dialectical orientation of social ecology inherent. Lastly, the need to
associate social ecology with one particular praxis, such as libertarian
municipalism, is too narrowing for such a broad, compelling, and radically
dialectical philosophy. Indeed, social ecological investigation will no doubt
lead to a variety of praxes as any number of factors might dictate.
Therefore,
it is argued that social ecology stands on its own as a transcendent,
dialectical, ecophilosophy oriented in a modernist framework and on the radical
left of the political spectrum, but not subordinate to any particular ideology.
Broad
Agreement
Despite
the differing views of more narrow conceptions of social ecology, all corners
of the field are united in many aspects. It is uncontroversial to say that all
of social ecology recognizes the ongoing ecological crisis, roots this crisis
in social conditions, seeks changes within society to overcome this crisis, and
unites the ecological society with the liberated society. Further, social
ecology is inherently anti-capitalist, claims a dialectical method of
investigation (though the particular approach is disputed), is rooted
(minimally) in the Marxist and anarchist traditions, and falls within the
framework of modernity.
In
conclusion, social ecology encompasses a depth in the investigation of the
legacies of domination and liberation within human social evolution and their
biological antecedents. Contemporarily, the field embodies a breadth that
includes anti-authoritarian Marxist ecosocialism, as well as the explicit social
ecology first articulated by Murray Bookchin and elaborated by John P. Clark.
Therefore,
social ecology can be viewed as a transcendent, interdisciplinary field of
radical ecology based primarily in the modern, dialectical philosophical
tradition and the cutting edge of contemporary social and ecological science.
Its aim is the reharmonization of the relationship between humanity and nature
and the creation of the liberated, ecological society.
Notes:
1. See
Clark’s, “On Being None with Nature: Nagarjuna and the Ecology of Emptiness.”
2. For an
excellent example, see John P. Clark’s “A Dialogue with Arne Naess on Social
Ecology and Deep Ecology (1988-1997).”
3.
Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 154.
4. See Janet
Biehl’s “Reply to John Clark’s ‘Domesticating the Dialectic,’” in Capitalism,
Nature, Socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment