19
Ecocentrism views Nature as having intrinsic value, life itself is the centre of ethical
concern (Kopnina 2013) and living and non-living beings are seen as part of an
interdependent holistic ecosystem.
While we have exemplified cases from polar ends of political environmental ideologies, there is, in reality, a spectrum of ideologies (Corbett 2006) which reflect
various hues of anthropocentrism/ecocentrism (see Fig. 1). For a given type of society, however, to prosper politically in environmental terms presupposes certain constructs. These are:
• An underpinning philosophical view of the environment
• A particular perspective of citizenship
• Key players
Our position is that these aspects are incorporated in an understanding of the
political dimensions of Environmental Citizenship.
2.2 Philosophical Views of the Environment
Post-enlightenment practice has been infused with a view of the epistemological
predominance of scientific rationalism and the distinction between the sentient
Mind and Nature. In terms of environmental philosophy, the distinction between
Mind and Nature has been prevalent both in right-wing libertarianism and in
Marxism. Nor are ecocentric views necessarily configured within one particular
ideology, for example, the way in which eco-fascists co-opt deep ecology ideas
(http://environment-ecology.com/deep-ecology/278-ecofascism-deep-ecologyand-right-wing-co-optation.html).
Dobson (2007) distinguishes between two political ideologies connected with
the environment both of which have important philosophical roots. Environmentalism
constitutes ameliorative changes which can be incorporated within present values of
predominantly capitalist production and consumption. It therefore comes within the
compass of broadly anthropocentric perspectives. Ecologism, on the other hand,
presupposes that a sustainable future means ‘radical changes in our relationship
with the non-human natural world, and in our mode of social and political life’,
(p. 3) i.e. one which problematises any ontological distinction between Mind
and Nature.
Dobson justifies his distinction in ways which reflect the importance of philosophy to ideology and hence to political action. Consider, for example, Tillerson’s
solution to climate change quoted above. In terms of ecologism, this problem of
climate change lies in a distortion of the fundamental interrelations between human
and biotic and non-biotic communities. It is not a matter of adjusting certain technological or social relationships but is situated in a fundamental truth: that the disjunction of human beings from the stewardship and workings of Nature is the cause
of the problem. Dobson, in fact, claims that environmentalism is not an ideology
while ecologism is because the latter is based on a fundamental truth about the
2 Political Dimensions of Environmental Citizenship
Ecocentrism views Nature as having intrinsic value, life itself is the centre of ethical
concern (Kopnina 2013) and living and non-living beings are seen as part of an
interdependent holistic ecosystem.
While we have exemplified cases from polar ends of political environmental ideologies, there is, in reality, a spectrum of ideologies (Corbett 2006) which reflect
various hues of anthropocentrism/ecocentrism (see Fig. 1). For a given type of society, however, to prosper politically in environmental terms presupposes certain constructs. These are:
• An underpinning philosophical view of the environment
• A particular perspective of citizenship
• Key players
Our position is that these aspects are incorporated in an understanding of the
political dimensions of Environmental Citizenship.
2.2 Philosophical Views of the Environment
Post-enlightenment practice has been infused with a view of the epistemological
predominance of scientific rationalism and the distinction between the sentient
Mind and Nature. In terms of environmental philosophy, the distinction between
Mind and Nature has been prevalent both in right-wing libertarianism and in
Marxism. Nor are ecocentric views necessarily configured within one particular
ideology, for example, the way in which eco-fascists co-opt deep ecology ideas
(http://environment-ecology.com/deep-ecology/278-ecofascism-deep-ecologyand-right-wing-co-optation.html).
Dobson (2007) distinguishes between two political ideologies connected with
the environment both of which have important philosophical roots. Environmentalism
constitutes ameliorative changes which can be incorporated within present values of
predominantly capitalist production and consumption. It therefore comes within the
compass of broadly anthropocentric perspectives. Ecologism, on the other hand,
presupposes that a sustainable future means ‘radical changes in our relationship
with the non-human natural world, and in our mode of social and political life’,
(p. 3) i.e. one which problematises any ontological distinction between Mind
and Nature.
Dobson justifies his distinction in ways which reflect the importance of philosophy to ideology and hence to political action. Consider, for example, Tillerson’s
solution to climate change quoted above. In terms of ecologism, this problem of
climate change lies in a distortion of the fundamental interrelations between human
and biotic and non-biotic communities. It is not a matter of adjusting certain technological or social relationships but is situated in a fundamental truth: that the disjunction of human beings from the stewardship and workings of Nature is the cause
of the problem. Dobson, in fact, claims that environmentalism is not an ideology
while ecologism is because the latter is based on a fundamental truth about the
2 Political Dimensions of Environmental Citizenship