Domination and Utopianism in Bookchin’s “What is Social Ecology?”
In his essay “What is Social Ecology,” Murray Bookchin argues that ecological issues are inseparable from social issues, namely hierarchy, domination, and the market economy. He names his philosophy “social ecology” in order to differentiate it from more spiritual or apolitical forms of ecology, especially the Deep Ecology movement. For Bookchin, the domination of nature has its origins in humans’ exploitation of one another. Beginning with ancient gerontocracies, certain natural traits in people have been given significance which allowed them to have power over others. This, however, did not become true domination until the development of patricenticity, in which male figures became the head of households and then the heads of tribes and larger social units. With this, traits that were seen as masculine, such as dominance and aggression, became valued over traits that were seen as feminine, such as those associated with care and nurture. This led to a drive to dominate nature that was expressed in ancient tales such as the Homer’s Odyssey and The Epic of Gilgamesh and practiced in the expansion of agriculture and the procurement of natural resources. The drive to dominate in human affairs comes first and leads to the domination of nature, the same logic and attitudes inform both forms of domination. The domination of nature, according to Bookchin, was limited in societies that weren’t centered around markets. However, the advent of of industrialism thrust markets into the center of human affairs and brought forth a “grow or die” mentality in which more and more development, consumption, and expansion ought to be carried out in order for the economic system to be maintained, meaning that more resources ought to be procured and more pollution generated. Thus, the ecological crisis is a result of an ethic that is initially concerned with human society.
He argues that humanity is not separate from nature but rather a part of it. There are for Bookchin two kinds of nature: first (biotic) nature and second (human) nature. Nature, as a whole, is for Bookchin not a constant state, such as a beautiful vista, but rather an evolutionary process that is constantly moving. Human society, not just the human organism, is a result of this dynamic evolutionary project. Human reason and social organization are not meant to be freak mutations that are alien to the rest of nature. Instead, they are meant to take part in nature and push its evolution forward in unique ways that other species cannot. If the human drive to dominance is overcome, then humans can take on the ecological role that they are meant to. Bookchin briefly lays out the basic political structure that would make this possible: a world-order without nation states in which municipalities, connected to one another by institutions limited in power so as to prevent them from exploiting one another, are the center of political life. These municipalities would be organically incorporated into their local environments and would promote a true form of citizenship in which the divide between personal and communal interests, as well as the divide between human and ecological interests, would be broken down.
Bookchin’s chief strength is that he gives very compelling reasons for humans to be concerned with ecology beyond mere self-preservation. A major conflict that often arises in Environmental Ethics is that between what is called “Anthropocentrism,” an absolute centering of human interests, and “biocentrism,” in which the needs of the environment are privileged over those of humans, who are seen as possessing equal value to nonhumans. Anthropocentrism is built on the assumption that humans are above and separate from nature while biocentrism is built on the assumption that humans are no different from the rest of nature. In Bookchin’s view, humans are both different from the rest of nature and still an integral part of it. Therefore both biocentrism and anthropocentrism are both insufficient in his view. This is very compelling because it allows humanity to still see something special about itself and to see value in society and technological development while also instilling a sense of responsibility towards the natural world by doing away with any notions of humanity’s complete separation from it.
Bookchin’s chief weakness, though it could also be viewed as merely a limit to his thought that he himself very well may have admitted to, is that his political thought comes off as very utopian. He does not spell out much in terms of how the current political and economic order may be overcome, he instead posits a new way of conceiving of ourselves, each other, and the world and expects the change to follow from that. In addition, he doesn’t do enough to address the potential problems that could plausibly arise under his political system. For example, issues like racism, isolation, and inter-municipal exploitation could easily arise under such a system and his “confederation of ecocommunities” solution seems like an ideal that glosses over the problem rather than providing practical solutions for it today. For example, the United Nations exists, in part, to prevent brutal exploitation of weak nations by powerful nations. Obviously, such exploitation still happens with disastrous effects. I fail to see how a confederate body aggregating between municipalities can do any better or how such a confederate body would refrain from gaining power for itself and becoming a state. However, this utopianism is only an issue if one reads this as a practical text meant to inform direct political action. If one reads this as a more removed text meant to provoke new ways of thought and only promote action in a more indirect way, then it is quite effective and compelling.
Questions to consider: How could fair and equitable relations between municipalities be ensured? Should Bookchin’s text be read as a practical political text (akin to the writings of Marx) or as something more idealistic and contemplative?
Word count: 907
Work Cited
Bookchin, Murray. “What is Social Ecology?” Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Edited by Michael E. Zimmerman, Pearson, 2005, pp 462–478.
