Green PoliticsGreen movementCritique of modern society, ideologies, arrogance of humanism
Green ethicThreatsAgendaDifferent approaches, strategies, tactics
Green politicsMovement, ideology emerges from
environmental crisis of late 20th centuryNew ideological form
No fully-formed structureNo settled orthodoxyNo name all adherents agree on
Green movement/environmental movement = Green politics
Critique of modern societyUnreflective use of human technological power
to “master” nature for human endsEspecially economic growth
Other modern ideologiesJustify or acquiesce in degradation, destruction
of natural environmentTwofold assault on “arrogance” of modern
technological societyCritique of assumptions, shortcomings of
modern ideologiesArticulation, justification of Green ideology,
ethic
Critique of other ideologiesAll modern ideologies – right and left, liberal
and conservative, Marxist and non-Marxist – share humanist assumption
Anthropocentrism or humanismHuman beings are natural, rightful masters of
natureNature is resource base for humansNature has no value apart from this
Arrogance gives us poisoned, polluted planet whose species are now in grave peril from man-made ills
Arrogance of humanismAssumption we are superior to nature and her
species, and separable or apart from them is falseWe, like all species, are deeply dependent upon
each other and upon conditions that nurture, nourish us
We are not discrete, disconnected creatures; we rely on other species, and they on us
Ecology = study, recognition, and appreciation of myriad connections and interconnections, intricate web of life
Web has been torn, disrupted by humans in rush to “master” nature and acquire wealth, worldly goods
Green/environmental ethicAll things are connectedAll actions produce consequencesIntimate interconnectednessAll life is deserving of respect and
preservation (if not sacred)Our fate is connected with fate of other
creaturesLife can be created, sustained only under
certain conditionsSuch conditions need to be maintained,
preserved, including clean air, water, habitat
Threats to necessary conditionsNuclear war, Omnicide = destruction of
everythingEcocide = destruction of ecosystems that
sustain life on earthEach defines central part of Green agenda
Work for PeaceDuty to be pacifists, work for peaceDoes not mean avoiding all conflictSome conflicts inevitable, especially between
those destroying environment and those dedicated to protecting it
Should not refrain from participating in confrontations, should take part in peaceful, life-respecting ways
Stop ecocideDuty to slow, stop and/or reverse destructive
processesIndividual actions (not buying or using products
wrapped in non-biodegradable plastic or Styrofoam, and recycling cans, bottles, and newspapers) to more public collective actions (boycotting bottlers and stores)
Not necessary for everyone to boycott, protestOnly need enough to make dent in producers’
profitProducers, distributors will look for alternatives
Green divisionsCenter upon means, strategies and tactics,
rather than endsEnd is preservation of planet, its natural
environment and ecosystems, and species it nourishes, including human species
Interest group politics/radical actionSome form, support coalitions of
environmental interest groupsSend lobbyists to Washington, state capitals
to press for pro-environmental legislationOther say earth and inhabitants are not
special interest but universal one with pressing needs
Not time for “politics as usual,” but for more urgent actions
Environmental actionSome (e.g., Greenpeace) favor dramatic, direct-
action (confronting whalers, polluters, developers face-to-face, head-on) aimed at raising public consciousness
More conservative groups (e.g., Sierra Club) favor low-key approach aimed at educating, informing
Others (e.g., Nature Conservancy) favor low-profile strategy of buying private land for nature preserves, wilderness areas
All agree public, political action important
Religious greensSome favor religious rituals aimed at raising
consciousness, heightening awareness of peril
Earth is common mother, goddess Gaia, from whom we all draw nurture, sustenance
Can overcome anthropocentric pride, humanistic arrogance, come to think in earth-centered, not human-centered, terms
Some “deep ecologists” speak in religious terms
Earth First!Other “deep ecologists,” e.g., Earth First!
speak in Malthusian termsEarth can get along very well without
humans, who tend to plunder, despoil planetIf human beings cannot live with other
species, walk lightly upon earth, demise is not to be regretted but welcomed
Social ecologistsSuspicious of religious language and militant
anti-humanism Humanism has been arrogant, but need not be in
futureHumans have capacity to reflect upon and learn
from mistakesHuman beings are responsible for messWe owe it to ourselves, other species, to our
children and their grandchildren, to take responsibility for cleaning up, reversing mess we have made
Key termstime horizonstragedy of the commonsgreenhouse effectacid rainecotagesocial ecologydeep ecology
Discussion questions1. What are the major differences between the Light Greens
and the Dark Greens within the environmental movement? Which of these two has the better position, and why?
2. How can Greens claim to be promoting freedom and democracy when they want to limit what people can do to the natural environment? Does it make sense to say that Greens are promoting either freedom or democracy? Why or why not?
3. Greens often see themselves as part of a counter-ideology that must try to correct the mistaken beliefs and assumptions of other ideologies. Are they right to think of themselves in this way? That is, are the Greens right to blame current environmental problems on liberalism, socialism, and other ideologies? Why or why not?