Philosopher views
“DEEP” AND MYSTICAL ECOLOGISM HURTS TRUE ENVIRONMENTALISM
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Answering Bookchin
“DEEP” AND MYSTICAL ECOLOGISM HURTS TRUE ENVIRONMENTALISM1. DEEP ECOLOGY AND NEW AGE SPIRITUALITY WILL BE USED BY REACTIONARIES Murray Bookchin, Philosopher, former Professor at many Universities, Director Emeritus of the Institute for Social Ecology, WHICH WAY FOR THE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT, 1994, page 4. Despite their indifference to social issues and their emphasis on personal “salvation,” ecomystics usually premise their views on a biometaphysics, as contradictory as this may seems. Ecofeminist celebrations of the alleged intuitive powers and soulful women over “male” rationality and aggressiveness easily lend themselves to a crude sociobiogism that is more genetic than cultural. The numinous “Self’ that we must presumably develop if we are to attain “self-realization,’ to use the language of Arne Naess, Bill Devall, and George Sessions, has very earthy implications that can lead to highly reactionary conclusions.
Murray Bookchin, Philosopher, former Professor at many Universities, Director Emeritus of the Institute for Social Ecology, WHICH WAY FOR THE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT, 1994, page 29. The misanthropic strain that runs through the movement in the name of biocentrism, antihumanism, Gaian consciousness, and neo-Malthusianism threatens to make ecology, in the broad sense of the term, the best candidate we have for a “dismal science.’ The attempt of many mystical ecologists to exculpate the present society for its role in famines, epidemics, poverty, and hunger serves the world’s power elites as the most effective ideological defense for the extremes of wealth on one side and poverty on the other. It is not only the great mass of people who must make hard choices about humanity’s future in a period of growing ecological dislocation; it is the ecology movement itself that must make hard choices about its sense of direction in a time of growing mystification
Introduction Give Murray Bookchin credit: the old guy just keeps churning out writings, despite being at death's door for what seems like a decade at least. From reading his stuff, you would think he hangs on just for the sheer pleasure of confounding (and viciously dissing in print) his critics. And you know what? maybe he does. But no matter. Through his voluminous writings, intriguing analysis and excellent evidentiary support for his claims, Bookchin is one of those authors who has achieved lasting fame in debate. His work has been cited by debaters for what seems like forever. Why, then, are there so few specific on-point refutations offered when debaters argue Bookchin’s critiques of capitalism, the state, deep ecology, etc.? As one of my debaters, who makes his living arguing 'Uncle Murray' said to me one day: Don't people realize that there are tons of people who FLAT-OUT HATE Bookchin? Which is true. There is no love lost between Murray and (most of) his critics, who attack the old social ecology scholar with a virulent hatred that seems irrational and obsessive. That’s true of some more than others. You have your goofy deep-ecologist attacks on Bookchin, which criticize him for being a crotchety old man more than anything else. Bob Black has compared him to Elmer Fudd, for example. David Watson also falls into this category - and be advised, some of these sources are more reasonable and credible than others. For a pretty good comparison between Bookchin’s ideas and the thought of a (moderately) reasonable deep ecologist, check out DEFENDING THE EARTH, Bookchin’s dialogue with former Earth First!er Dave Foreman. Then you have your environmental movement scholars that admire Bookchin for his contribution to the cause, but see a few shortcomings in his philosophy that they think ought to be ironed out. A few of these people, like John Clark, are bitter toward Bookchin and his way of thinking. Others, like Michael Albert, seem to have honest questions about Bookchin’s visions that they would like to see addressed. So, when deciding how to organize the four pages of cards I’m supposed to produce for this, I figured, why not produce FOUR DIFFERENT ways of attacking Bookchin? That’s right, you get criticisms of Murray Bookchin from the perspective of Deep Ecology, Ecocommunitarianism, Participatory Economics, and Socialism/EcoMarxism as well. Not that these are the only four ways out there, but it shows you the kind of opposition he has engendered. That’s not to say the opposition is overwhelming. Murray has tons of support from ecologists, labor people and anarchists as well. And you’ll see why if you check out some of his books. Agree or disagree with him, the man has clearly put a ton of time and energy into understanding history, philosophy and the way that various important issues intersect. This makes him one of the most important radical thinkers of the 20th century. Reading Bookchin Since his first writings, Murray Bookchin’s thought has changed a lot. That’s not surprising, considering he’s seen monumental changes in society. Bookchin got his start as a young socialist, only later evolving into the kind of social anarchism that marks his thinking today. Although he wrote one of the first reasoned critiques of technology and its impact on the environment -- predating even Rachel Carson’s SILENT SPRING - he later came to consider technology a crucial part of social revolution. And though at one time he was wary of any dealings with any kind of state, he’s come to reconsider that position. This is important when you consider how to answer Bookchin’s arguments. Many of the debaters utilizing his evidence will not be familiar with the latest changes in Bookchin’s thinking, so if you are, that can work out well for you. The Institute for Social Ecology, where Bookchin is a director emeritus, has a website at www.social-ecology.org where you can access the institute’s journal, HARBINGER, at no charge. They continue to publish interviews with the director, which will keep you up-to-date. This isn’t to say that Bookchin changes his ideas like some people change their underwear: his viewpoint on capitalism has been remarkably consistent over the years; so has his criticism of state power, his derision of anti-environmental policies, and his defense of direct democracy. All of this manifests itself in a political program that Bookchin calls Libertarian Municipalism. To understand how to answer the philosophy, you’ve got to understand the philosophy. So let’s take some of Murray’s major issues in order. Bookchin's Critique Of Capitalism This is one of his most mainstream (among the left) ideas. Bookchin believes that capitalism commodified the very essence of life, reducing human beings and the environment to mere items for purchase. This, he argues, counteracts sustainability. If corporations can buy anything -- drilling the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a few short years' supply of polluting oil seems to be a current example -- then priceless treasures become just more fodder for the death-inspired growth machine. This has more of an impact than just beauty: Bookchin claims that, left unchecked, capitalism will make the earth unsuitable for complex forms of life, effectively leaving the planet for the roaches. There are two ways to answer this type of thinking. The first is to simply take a "capitalism good" approach, which I'll address in the next few paragraphs. I think the best strategy, though, is to attempt to critique Bookchin's solution step. If you can win that Libertarian Municipalism is not as effective at getting away from capitalism as something else might be, you can undercut the argument in what I think is a more effective way. But if you debate in a more conservative district, or simply (shudder) prefer the capitalism good argument, you should check out Martin Lewis' book GREEN DELUSIONS. Lewis, ironically, enough, shares some assumptions with Bookchin. Both of them agree that technological solutions will ultimately be required to solve the world's mental problems. With a world population that's growing every day, someone has to produce enough food to feed these people and enough energy to keep them warm. But that's about the only thing the two of them would agree on. Lewis would say that capitalism is the only potential way to achieve this type of technological savvy. Isn't it capitalism that brought us such bounties as nuclear power (!)? Didn't capitalism give us factory farming, where animals are swollen to such an absurd degree that they can no longer mate naturally - but have produced the largest chicken breasts you've ever seen? In all seriousness, Lewis says that the profit motive encourages people to produce new technologies, which lead to better and more successful ways to protect the environment. Now, Bookchin might respond that the profit motive has other side effects as well - such as those technologies being used to produce, well, PROFIT - instead of sustainability. Bookchin, though no longer a socialist, would also point out that several non-capitalist countries (the Soviet Union among them) have produced serious technological breakthroughs as well. At any rate, Lewis writes powerful if flawed evidence that can help you answer Bookchin's critique of capitalism. His arguments, I should point out, are incompatible with the other arguments including in the evidence section - it's a bad idea to say capitalism is good in one part of your speech and criticize it in another. Bookchin's Critique Of The State Like all anarchists, Bookchin has a critique of the state. Unlike many anarchists, his is well-thought-out and developed into a coherent and logical criticism. It isn't just some abstract entity called "the state" that Bookchin is critiquing. It's any monolithic governmental entity that exercises power controlling the citizenry. That applies especially to fascist or authoritarian regimes( the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany) but applies as well to liberal democracies like the United States. Bookchin criticizes the republican form of government, where individuals elect representatives to vote (allegedly) based on the views of their constituents. This type of government, Bookchin reasons, is less and less likely to actually fairly represent the interests of the populace. The further removed the people are from the decision-making process -- and the places where decisions are made -- the less their views are considered, and the more undemocratic it is. It isn't just a problem with political organization, though that is certainly an issue. It's an issue of size. Bookchin admires some of the Greek city-state forms of government, where political space was created through directly democratic public meetings. This was able to happen because the political entities were smaller than they are today. The United States has 270,000,000 citizens. Think it's easy to form a consensus among them? Heck, you couldn't even fit half of them into the largest sports stadium in the land. But if the political entities are smaller -- municipalities -- then most, if not all, of the people affected by decision-making processes can get involved. This type of "municipalism" is desirable to Bookchin. Additionally, he espouses, large states are more likely to be repressive. Simply the existence of a large state apparatus makes the exercise of repressive power more likely. Repression is undesirable -- civil liberties are desirable. Thus, a political organization that promotes "libertarianism" is better than an oppressive state. Hence, Bookchin's idea of "Libertarian Municipalism." We'll go into more detail about what this entails a little bit later, but for now, let's talk about how you answer his "state bad" argument. The best way to answer the argument is to emphasize a few of the good things the state does. Might the state protect vulnerable people against assaults of the powerful? What about social welfare programs for the homeless? Financial aid programs for students? Laws that act against racist violence? These are all positive things to reasonable people. Additionally, one might point out that the alternatives to the state don't look good at this time. If you don't have a state, you don't have laws that stop corporations from polluting the environment. You don't have child labor laws. You don't have 40-hour work week laws. Basically, any alternative to the state might just exacerbate the very capitalism that Bookchin hates. No less a figure than MIT professor and noted anarchist thinker Noam Chomsky has made this argument. While Chomsky agrees that state power is in some ways fundamentally illegitimate, that power is also the only thing that constrains corporations from exploiting people and the world's environment. In some ways, Chomsky concludes, anarchists must actually defend and strengthen the federal government -- despite the fact that they would ultimately like to see that government abolished. This is perhaps the best single argument against Bookchin's critique of the state, and it can be found in Chomsky's 1997 book POWERS AND PROSPECTS. Bookchin is also far from the only anarchist to make this claim, so if you think anyone in your region will be running this argument, you owe it to yourself to check out Chomsky. Finally, consider that Bookchin himself has changed his views over the years. There are some Bookchin scholars, such as Alan Rudy and Adam Light, who interpret his most recent writings as embracing reformism as opposed to revolution. This can be an effective argument, particularly if your opponent does not know Bookchin well. You can argue that Bookchin used to consider total rejection of the state as the only way to get social transformation, but that he has reconsidered that viewpoint. A word of warning: Bookchin's long-time companion, Janet Biehl, has written that this is a poor way to determine Bookchin's current way of thinking. Still, it is an argument some have made. Bookchin's Ideas About Technology While many environmentalists are anti-technology, Bookchin isn't. Rather, he has a more subtle view of advanced science, saying that it is shaped by the social situations in which we find ourselves. One of his most famous works is called POST-SCARCITY ANARCHISM, which refers to Bookchin's theory of technology. The only truly liberatory society, according to Murray, is a "post-scarcity" one. All the liberty in the world doesn't mean much if people are dying from resource scarcity. Technology, he reasons, is a necessity for the kind of revolution we need. If, after that revolution, technology can provide the types of food and energy humans require, then we can think about getting to libertarian municipalism. One little-known fact about Bookchin's philosophy is that he says these "post-scarcity" technologies already exist -- we just have to get to a point where they can be used for the benefit of all. What Are The Problems With Libertarian Municipalism? As we've seen, there are a lot of different schools of thought that criticize Bookchin. Let's take some of these criticisms in order, beginning with the most vehement critics of Bookchin and proceeding through the others in descending order. Deep ecologists oppose Bookchin's notions of technology. Many of them primitivists, such as Bob Black, John Zerzan and David Watson, these people don't see ANY role for technology in the ideal society. There is some variance in the opinion about exactly how much technology Bookchin is in favor of. To the deep ecologists, however, even allowing for the possibility of high-tech fixes opens the door for a technological snowball. Some of Bookchin's remarks favoring biotechnology have been used to indicate that he endorses more tech rather than less. To people like Black, Watson and the like, technology can never be used in a manner positive for humans or the environment. While Bookchin would say that the social system of capitalism is responsible for many of the ills of technology -- the profit motive causing technology to be used as a labor replacement, for example -- the deep ecologists argue that it will always alienate humans from their natural roles in society and pollute the ecosystem. If you make your living fishing, for example, and someone produces a machine that can catch fish quicker and more efficiently than you can, that does two things. First, you can no longer do what you've always done, diminishing what might be your natural role in things. Second, it allows quicker and more effective resource extraction, which contributes to (in this case) overfishing and environmental devastation. This occurs, they say, independent of social factors like the economic system. Bob Black also plays the "more anarchist than thou" card, accusing Bookchin of defending statism himself. To Black, even defending the kind of city-state politics that Bookchin does is pretty non-anarchist. Even the directly democratic public meetings that Bookchin insists will empower the populace are, to Black, just another statist solution. John Clark, a professor of philosophy at Loyola University, says that he was inspired by Bookchin’s thought at first. But he broke from Bookchin to develop his own form of social ecology, one that he calls ‘ecocommunitarianism.’ According to Clark, Bookchin’s thought doesn’t approach a true ethics, but merely constitutes top-down moralizing. This is counter to the goals that Bookchin himself claims to espouse. Alan Rudy and Andrew Light offer a more complimentary critique, agreeing that Bookchin has made a significant contribution to ecology and social theory. But to the two of them -- socialists -- Bookchin ignores the pivotal role of labor in society. Their viewpoint, which might be considered an attempt to advance ‘ecosocialism’ as an alternative to Bookchin’s social anarchism, claims that to commit this fallacy can do nothing but alienate the vast majority of people in society - working people. Michael Albert, one of the editors of Z Magazine, published a thoughtful criticism of Libertarian Municipalism on the Z website, inviting other activists (and Bookchin and Biehl) to respond with their thoughts. You can access this forum at www.zmag.org, which will help you see the divergent strains of argument. Albert's criticisms are fair-minded, and intended more to assist Bookchin's critique than destroy it. Still, he raises points that debaters can exploit. What means for dispute resolution exists in Libertarian Municipalism? A public meeting? Well, why would have an entire public meeting to, say, resolve a dispute between neighbors? Wouldn't that be a lot of meetings that would involve a lot of people? Would such meetings be attended? Wouldn't they just bore people? There are other issues, issues of justice. Let's say these small municipalities that Bookchin envisions have something (or develop something) that is of interest beyond the borders of the municipality. Let’s say there’s a municipality that surrounds the Grand Canyon, or the University of Oregon. Do the people who happen to live in the area around these treasures have more of a right to decide what happens to them than the rest of us? Think before you answer: this may mean accepting a nuclear waste dump in the Grand Canyon Conclusion The best strategy to beat Murray Bookchin contains two steps: first, read as much of the man’s (recent) work as you can in order to enhance your understanding of his philosophy. Second, pick the school of thought you feel most comfortable defending of the four I’ve listed. Then, familiarize yourself with their criticisms of Bookchin. Personally, I think Clark’s viewpoint provides the deepest and truest criticism of Bookchin - I think deep ecologists misanalyze his work, I think the ecosocialist tradition isn’t yet well-developed, and I think Albert’s ideas are more meant to be thought-provoking than anything. But of course, you should argue what you’re most comfortable arguing. Good luck, and good hunting. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|