Published
February 18, 2021
Keywords
- deep ecology,
- social ecology,
- Buddhist economics,
- Murray Bookchin
Copyright Notice
Authors who submit and have articles published in The Trumpeter license The Trumpeter to publish and redistribute the work under the CC (Creative Commons) BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. We comply fully with the open access requirements of UKRI, Wellcome, and NIHR. Where required by their funder, authors retain the right to distribute their author accepted manuscript (AAM), such as via an institutional and/or subject repository (e.g. EuropePMC), under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence for release no later than the date of first online publication.
Copies of this journal or articles in this journal may be reprinted free of charge and without further permission, provided the author and original source are acknowledged. However redistribution for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder. Except for the conditions stated above, the authors reserve all rights over the work contained herein. If you have any questions, please contact The Trumpeter's editor-in-chief.
Abstract
Deep ecology is a call to ground the relationship of our politics, economics, and lifeways in the ecologies that sustain them. It is the cultivation of ecosophy, wisdom grounded in, and taking responsibility for, what it is to be sustained by a place. The renowned “anarchist” social ecologist Murray Bookchin shared deep ecology's sense that our political economy should be reconciled with our ecology, even though he polemicized against deep ecology’s account of that relationship. Although Bookchin has much to offer deep ecology, I argue that we cannot afford to think the two approaches as an exclusive disjunction. This paper first recontextualizes the importance of a deep ecological approach and then evaluates Bookchin's polemic. Although Bookchin overstates his case against deep ecology, features of his own position strengthen its insights. The paper concludes by arguing for a hybrid model, rooted in the cultivation of wisdom, called deep social ecology.