Analysis of Worldviews of Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism

The way an individual perceives natural environments can be dependent on personal experiences, which can shape how they see the world and develop their connection with nature. In relation to Peter Martin’s nature continuum (1996), I will be discussing the worldviews of deep ecology and ecofeminism, and how they contrast and compare to each other. Mckenzie (1987) defines a worldview as an interpretation of life or a reflection of the biosphere. Depending on the specific views and education of the world, there can be many meanings (Mckenzie, 1987). I will be determining how these worldviews have shaped my life and how they will continue to influence my own perceptions. I will also be explaining how my own worldviews are relevant to Peter Martin’s nature continuum.

Worldviews

Deep ecology is a worldview that explains that all life including humans, animals and plants have intrinsic worth and need to be treated as equivalent to one another. Madsen (2016) defines deep ecology as an essential focus on shifting the human relationship with the natural environment to a more nurturing approach. It is a belief that humans need to develop a deeper connection with nature and move away from using it as a place of resources (Madsen, 2016). Philosopher Arne Naess developed the term ‘deep ecology’ and made it known to the public in 1972 (Le Grange, 2017). Arne Naess and environmentalist George Sessions created the eight principles of deep ecology to guide the movement (Madsen, 2016). These principles discuss a range of ideas that are required to guard Earth’s conservation and shield all the species of the ecological world from destruction (Drengson, 2012). The first, second and third principles of this platform explain that both humans and species from all variations should be appreciated for uniqueness and should not be compromised for the pleasure of humans (Naess & Sessions, 1984). The fourth and fifth values represent the need to minimize the number of people in this world and reduce intrusion of the natural world in order to achieve a thriving life for both humans and non-humans (Naess & Sessions, 1984). The sixth and seventh principles require significantly changing the current circumstances and amending strategies that affect the monetary, scientific and political foundations (Naess & Sessions, 1984). These changes will need to show gratitude to the intrinsic worth of nature instead of creating a superior standard of living (Naess & Sessions, 1984). If adhering to the 7 steps of deep ecology listed above, individuals are responsible for adapting these required changes into daily life, which addresses the last principle (Naess & Sessions, 1984). Madsen (2016) clarifies that these principles are not strict or to be followed directly, but rather exist for people to engage in and have a clear pathway to adopt environmental concerns. In contrast, other forms of environmentalism are mainly concerned with shallow ecology, and only adopt the issues of pollution, overpopulation and conservation when it is a displeasure to the population or to a specific location’s natural world (Madsen, 2016). Madsen (2016) also expresses that deep ecologists argue that neglecting the underlying issues of the environment and following anthropocentric worldview results in the destruction of the habitat. Therefore, deep ecology is a unique and important gesture as it follows a biocentric or ecocentric movement. It requires appreciation and intensely valuing all life on earth as equal and focuses on developing a nurturing relationship with the biosphere.

The worldview of ecofeminism follows a nurturing approach to the natural world. It is a relatively new movement that was created to address the issues of environmental destruction and gender-equality. It is defined as a philosophy highlighting a connection between women and the environment from the exploitation of the male-centered population (Hamad, 2013). Vakoch and Mickey (2018) explain that ecofeminism does not follow one specific idea, it is an ever-changing diverse worldview that includes the voices of many believers from different cultural backgrounds. It is a theory created by French feminist Francois d’Eaubonne, aspiring to review and change the current male-dominated hierarchy to create a more inclusive culture (Capriccio, 2017). Ecofeminism can often be labelled as a group of nature-minded females, rather than a philosophy that aims to break down the barriers of the male-oriented system and re-design it to reflect the appreciation of all living beings (Capriccio, 2017). Capriccio (2017) discusses the need to have male and females working together equally in order to achieve a world where humans and other beings can both be appreciated. Therefore, ecofeminism is a developing philosophy that enforces equality of all aspects of humanity, and the natural world, in a hope to see an overall increase of inclusion in a healthier and more eco-friendly approach to life.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

In comparison, Chakraborty (2015) explains that both deep ecology and ecofeminism are movements that believe fostering a change in human behavior will equal a healthier natural world. They are worldviews showing an essential need for change in the treatment of nature (Chakraborty, 2015). Deep ecologists address the anthropocentric view of the biosphere as the underlying issue, whereas ecofeminists believe it is androcentrism (Chakraborty, 2015). Ecofeminists have criticized deep ecologists for not recognizing the cause of the environmental degradation as male-oriented, but deep ecologists believe that focusing on the anthropocentric view as the central problem also includes the issues of the domination of women (Chakraborty, 2015). Although these worldviews have differences within their theories, they both represent the fostering of changes from an anthropocentric approach to a biocentric way of life.

Peter Martin’s Nature Continuum

The deep ecology and ecofeminism movements highlight the need to change the human-nature view from anthropocentric to ecocentric as represented on Peter Martin’s nature continuum (Martin, 1996). At the objective end of the continuum nature is seen as a museum or storehouse and does not allow the relationship to develop from being used for collecting materials (Martin, 1996). Martin (1996) explains that while thinking of nature in this way is an appreciation of the environment, it still places humans as the most important beings. The philosophy of deep ecology encourages the population to adapt away from using nature as an object and to engage in a more nurturing approach (Madsen, 2016). The subjective end of the continuum shows nature as a close friend and part of self (Martin, 1996). This end of the continuum involves developing an emotional connection with the natural world and deeply understanding and questioning the character of the land (Martin, 1996). Deep ecology represents these subjective values and argues that nature and all beings must be treated as equal to ensure the current abusive attitudes are discontinued (Madsen, 2016). Ceasing these attitudes is also apparent in the theory of ecofeminism (Capriccio, 2017). This movement represents admiring nature and women as a close friend in opposition to using it as a place of resources (Capriccio, 2017). The desire to dominate nature and women is an example of seeing nature as an enemy that needs to be controlled or defeated (Capriccio, 2017). Therefore, to overcome the domination of the environment humans must engage in the subjective values of nature.

My History

My worldview has been developing through my life as I was privileged to grow up in a location rich in nature. As a child I believed nature was a playground for me, purely available for adventuring and creating memories. These memories are still with me today and are contributors to how I have become closer with the natural world. As a teenager I could see my perspectives of the environment gradually shifting from objective to subjective, and I wanted to learn the personalities of the places I would visit. I would find myself questioning the presence and location of plants or animals. A walk or bike ride through the local national park involved me admiring the beauty and allowing myself to continuously learn about the environment in which I lived so close to. As an adult I look back on those years and appreciate how it has shaped my relationship with nature as a close friend. Re-visiting the place in which I spent most of my life is continuously developing my human-nature relationship as I witness the changes of what I never imagined possible. The inclusion of housing estates and thick bush being bulldozed to bare land is a common occurrence. This anthropocentric view of nature is why I hold the worldviews of deep ecology and ecofeminism close to my heart. I believe that the natural world deserves to be treated as equal and an ecocentric view needs to be obtained by all humans. Therefore, my worldview is still evolving as I reflect on my childhood and learn more about the importance of having a biocentric view on nature in order to save all ecological species and oppose the constant destruction of our environment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, deep ecology and ecofeminism are strong philosophies, emphasizing the need to change the overall human-nature relationship. Without this revolution our natural world will continue to be exploited and the rate of degradation will continue to increase. Martin (1996) explains that developing a shift from an anthropocentric view to a biocentric perspective of nature requires admiration for all living beings. This respect will hopefully be apparent through the development of humanity’s worldviews.

References

1. Capriccio, M. (2017). What Is Ecofeminism? Retrieved from: https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/what-ecofeminism/
2. Chakraborty, R. (2015). The Deep Ecology/Ecofeminism Debate: An Enquiry into Environmental Ethics. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 32(1), 123-133. doi:10.1007/s40961-015-0005-y.
3. Drengson, A. (2012). Some Thought on the Deep Ecology Movement. Retrieved from http://www.deepecology.org/deepecology.htm
4. Hamad, R. (2013). Ecofeminism, Redress, 22(2), 30-37. https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.usc.edu.au/fullText;dn=767960465955927;res=IELHSS
5. Le Grange, L. (2018). Spinoza, Deep Ecology and Education Informed by a (Post)Human Sensibility. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(9), 878-887. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1384723.
6. Madsen, P. (2016). Deep Ecology. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/topic/deep-ecology
7. Martin, P. (1996). New Perspectives of Self, Nature and Others. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 1(3), 3-9. doi:10.1007/BF03400655.
8. Mckenzie, L. (1987). Worldview Construction and Adult Education. Adult Education Quarterly, 37(4), 230-236. doi:10.1177/0001848187037004005.
9. Naess, A., & Sessions, G. (1984). The Deep Ecology Platform. Retrieved from http://www.deepecology.org/platform.htm
10. Vakoch, D. A., & Mickey, S. (2018). Literature and Ecofeminism: Intersectional and International Voices (1st ed). Milton: Routledge.