A Brief Analysis of the Ethical Problems Suggested by the Ideology of Deep Ecocriticism

Hutchings presents a well-rounded perspective of the conflicting ideologies comprising ecocriticism while also allowing for someone new to the field like myself to situate himself and his own ideology about the environment within the critical discourse. Of particular interest to me in the article is Hutchings' discussion of those particular ecocritics involved in the “Deep Ecology”strand of ecocriticism, who hold a “radically egalitarian or ‘biocentric’ discourse that ‘accords nature ethical status at least equal to that of humans’” (Hutchings 10). I have some reservations about such individuals as often concomitant with beliefs such as theirs is a morality that is based on the blank slate theory of human nature, where as humans, we are born neither essentially male or female for instance, nor are we  necessarily wired with a propensity for destructive behavior like observers outside the discourse might find to be manifestly true, as all of these instead owe to the various imperfections and ideologies of the autonomous culture said to be governing the individual. 

Steven Pinker, in his magisterial book, The Blank Slate, critiques this pernicious belief about human nature among many currently in political life and academia for its poor basis in what has been shown to be demonstrably true about objective reality. The embrace of the Blank Slate theory is due in part to a fear of the imperfectibility of human nature, that is, that there may be within us morally and intellectually corrupting influences beyond the reach of social engineering and the good intentions of the individual. If one disbelieves in an inherent selfishness, for instance, like the kind brought about by evolutionary forces related to survival, then for some, this denial will lead them to the belief that “whatever happens in nature [must be] good,” a belief identified by Pinker as the "naturalistic fallacy." Pinker states that at first hearing of the fallacy, many might think first of Social Darwinism, and for good cause, as the social theory was informed by a particularly poor understanding of the relationship between morality and the notion of the survival of the fittest. However, as he points out, the naturalistic fallacy is revived in some strands of the environmental movement as it exists today, which often “appeal to the goodness of nature to promote conservation of natural environments, despite their ubiquitous gore” (Pinker 422). Pinker illustrates this appeal by citing what he calls the “makeover” given such carnivorous animals as wolves, bears, and sharks, into being the “euthanists of the old and the lame, and thus worthy of preservation or reintroduction” (422).

Deep Ecologists, taking the naturalistic fallacy as moral doctrine, problematically call for a “quasi-mystical surrender of critical self-reflexivity,” according to Hutchings, (Hutchings 183) a program that John S. Dryzek has rightly pointed out as representing “surely the essence of totalitarianism” (qtd. in Hutchings, 183). The biggest moral problem with having this particular kind of reverence for nature is that non-human life is not so much lifted up to man’s importance as it is the case that man’s importance is demoted to that of non-human life, a valuation of the human being entirely at odds with a great deal of religious belief and natural philosophy (Hutchings 180). Both religion and and natural philosophy tend to see nature as not intrinsically valuable “but merely as a means to an all-too-human end; existing simply as a commodity or ‘material resource’” (180). Personally, I see little problem with such a belief, and as I mentioned in class last week, to use a thought experiment, if there were no human beings on earth to enjoy its resources, the planet would be for me literally devoid of value. Politically, those who espouse Deep Ecologist convictions are on the political left, and this being the case, tend to be highly critical of institutionalized religions and the idea of their being anything but moral equality among cultures throughout the world. Ironically, Deep Ecologists apparently see themselves immune from this sort of criticism aimed at their own beliefs, as according to Hutchings they would look to impose on others who happen to hold differing ideologies about the environment their own totalitarian perspective without flinching. And would do so in the name of some etherial notion of nature that is wholly at odds with science, a project that would ultimately make human beings essentially a form of eco-zombie. Why this is an attractive idea is unfortunately never explained in the article, leaving those like myself wondering whether Deep Ecologists ever happen to place themselves in a position to have their world view challenged and checked by intellectuals such as Pinker outside their particular niche in the larger ecocriticism discourse.