social ecology: almost there

Social Ecology provides an organic view of social theory such that it claims that the present ecological problems are rooted in deep-seated social problems. This particular theory emphasizes the inter-dependence with humans and nature. Moreover, it stresses the importance of examining the degree of connectedness you currently have with yourself, individuals, your community and nature.

Bookchin makes a strong case for the concept of social ecology by examining the relationships between human populations and their environments. This idea accentuates the notion that you can enhance yourself, society, the environment, and ultimately the world. Moreover, Bookchin describes the complexity of relationships between people and with nature, along with the importance of examining the social structures that coincide with these dynamics. Our ecological problems cannot be realized, much less managed or solved, without facing the social issues from that activate or perpetuate them. Social ecology positions the roots of the ecological crisis in a theory of domination between people. Thus, the domination of nature is seen as a product of domination within society. Therefore, if we change the relationships between humans, then our relationship with the rest of nature can change.

However, my reservations with Bookchin’s arguments lie in following two concepts. One is the concept of domination; couldn’t a socially egalitarian society, free of social domination, exploit the Earth and nature too? What would Bookchin reply to this? He doesn’t seem to address this point which makes his claim less substantial.

Another criticism of mine lies in his evaluation of Deep Ecology. His main critiques stems from his dismissal of Deep Ecology’s ecobabble. I fully believe that Deep Ecology relies too much on the idea of ‘Self’ and “Earth wisdom” and ignores the social nature of humanity and the social origins of our present ecological crisis. However, wouldn’t it be fairly easy for critics to easily assume social ecology is guilty of the same type of jargon? How can he provide an argument against this?

But, more importantly, I believe that Bookchin has cautiously detailed a rational and inter-disciplinary philosophy which he strongly upholds and defends. Thus, social ecology presents a more reliable and sound argument than deep ecology. Social Ecology’s best argument lies in the forward-looking nature and notion of responsibility inherent; thus emphasizing re-individualization that can transform humans into active agents in remaking society.