sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ecosophy, Spiritual ecology

Exploring Deep as a

Christine Jauernig BIOL 510

“More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion or rethink our old one.” - Lynn White Jr., 1967

Christianity, the leading religion of modern Western , established the dichotomy between

“man” and nature, and insists the anthropocentric belief that it is God’s will that “man” exploit nature

(White 1967). Although fewer people in the United States are active followers of Christianity and practitioners of non-Christian faiths are slightly on the rise, it is the number of people who are religiously unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular”) that is increasing greatly (Pew

Research Center 2015). However, it is argued that Christianity has deeply conditioned even religiously unaffiliated people in Western society to embrace anthropocentrism, normalizing the idea that humans are the center of the universe, ultimately leading to the destruction of nature (Taylor 2010:11). In contrast, non-Western , along with Indigenous traditions, inculcate a greater respect and interconnectedness with nature. A possible solution to our current ecological crisis would be the complete assimilation of non-Western religions or Indigenous traditions in Western society; however, this is highly unlikely, as this has never occurred in history before. As White illustrates in the quotation above, perhaps a new religion in Western society is necessary to address our current ecological crisis, one that could not only be adopted by the growing population of unaffiliated people, but a religion that could persuade followers of Christianity to change their perspective on how they manipulate the Earth. As such, in this essay, I will argue that Western culture should incorporate the principles as a new environmental “religion” in order to promote an ecologically sustainable society.

What is Deep Ecology?

In the 1970’s, as a response to the ecological crisis, Arne Næss, a Norwegian philosopher, coined the term “deep ecology” as part of the modern . Næss created a set of eight principles, listed in Appendix A, that anyone can follow, regardless of age, gender, race, and religion, thereby creating a deep ecology movement. Næss wanted to engage people by participating in

“deep experience, deep questioning, and deep commitment,” ultimately leading to the true essence of deep ecology, in which a deep sense of belonging and connectedness to nature emerges. Næss felt as though the responses to the environmental movement at the time were highly anthropocentric, aimed at perpetuating human’s domination of Earth. Næss believed typical responses to the emerging ecological crisis were addressing only the symptoms rather than the causes of the crisis. Næss contrasts deep ecology to “shallow ecology” in which all efforts aimed to restore nature are done so for the sole benefit of future human generations, in effect reinforcing the contrived duality between “man” and nature. Deep ecology goes beyond “shallow ecology,” placing intrinsic value on all living things, providing a holistic view of nature.

What is Religion?

There is great debate over the true definition of religion. Religion is often classified as an organized and institutional practice with a set of beliefs, typically involving the worshipping of a supernatural controlling power that mandates codes of morality and action. Some people define religion functionally, for example, a specific set of beliefs that people ascribe to. Others assert an essential feature of religion, such as a supernatural being or deity. However, I offer a polythetic definition of religion, one that posits numerous important but individually non-essential characteristics of religions. Such characteristics include, but are not limited to a sacred text, objects, prophet(s), belief in supernatural power(s), rituals and holidays, sacraments, and moral codes, and sometimes having institutionalized organization. Therefore, this paper uses not a catchall definition of religion but instead recognizes that religion has many important yet diverse attributes.

Advantages of Deep Ecology as a Religion

Deep Ecological Thinking Resembling Religious Thinking

Deep ecological thinking likewise resembles the thinking of various non-Western religions. For example, Buddhism and deep ecology both believe in the totality and interconnectivity of all living things, including humans as part of nature. Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk, beautifully writes about the interrelatedness of the Earth, a phenomenon he calls interbeing. In his poem “Clouds in Each

Paper” (2002), provided in Appendix B, he teaches us that all living things are interrelated and goes one step deeper, suggesting that all non-living things, as well as all living things, on Earth do not exist in isolation, but rather are interconnected. Buddhist’s deeper connection between themselves and nature creates a strong commitment for working towards nature’s wellbeing, as Buddhists believe that when we abuse nature we are in turn abusing ourselves (Negi 2010).

The belief in the unity and connectedness of nature in deep ecological thinking is also evident in

Indigenous traditions. Before colonization, Indigenous People lived on “Western land” sustainably for many generations. Indigenous traditions embody the third deep ecology principle as it states, “Humans have no right to reduce…richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs in a responsible way.”

Indigenous People hold a deep respect for nature and only take what they need, using Earth’s resources wisely. The “Seventh Generation Principle” ensures that all resources used today should be enjoyed for the next seven generations, resulting in a sustainable relationship with nature.

The eight deep ecology principles can be viewed as synonymous with other religions in that they put forth a set of beliefs and values to be followed without exception by subscribers of that religion. These principles would be practiced among all participants within the new environmental religion, the “Deep Ecology Religion.” The deep ecology principles are inclusive and adaptive, suggesting that they can be followed by a wide diversity of people. Many different modes of action are possible when following the deep ecology principles, leading to great differentiation in participants’ behaviour in their everyday lives. Næss asserts that it is crucial to understand and support the approaches that are different from one’s own (Harding n.d.).

“Deep Ecology Religion”

The integration of the deep ecological principles into a new religion, the “Deep Ecology

Religion,” has the power to take the deep ecology movement one step further – or deeper, acting on emotionally salient belief and enhancing peoples sacred respect for nature. In Negi’s (2005) paper, titled “Religion and Biodiversity conservation: not a mere analogy,” he illustrates how religion can be a very powerful driving force for creating action, noting how many traditional religions play an important role in global conservation. Everyday people are powerfully motivated to behave certain ways due to their actions being justified by their religious beliefs (Negi 2005). As Negi states, the

“incorporation of values and belief in environmental conservation efforts is more likely to succeed than the use of purely scientific arguments or purely economic incentives.” This is not to suggest that science does not have a role in reshaping our relationship to the Earth. In fact, it is possible that a new religion based upon enhancing Earth could also work synonymously with scientific research, as many researchers are strongly suggesting that Western society needs to change how they are impacting the environment.

The in Western culture began studying the environment as “Other,” separating humans from nature. Whereas traditional non-Western religions, such as Buddhism,

Hinduism, Jainism, and Islam, view nature holistically, in particular emphasizing that humans and nature are one in the same (Negi 2005). If we could combine non-Western traditions, such as those embodied in the deep ecology principles, and Western science and technology, we could create a new religion best suited for tackling our current ecological crisis. The “Deep Ecology Religion” hence has the opportunity to not only promote (a philosophy of ecological harmony and equilibrium), but also to combine it with science, creating a new set of values to motivate people to change their relationship with the environment.

Detriments of Deep Ecology as a Religion

Deep Ecological Thinking Does Not Necessarily Resemble Religious Thinking

There are also many ways in which deep ecological thinking does not resemble religious thinking. A common characteristic of many religions is the belief in a supernatural controlling power.

Deep ecological thinking does not promote a supernatural power, as supernatural beings are commonly viewed as being responsible for what occurs on Earth. Instead, the deep ecology principles outline how humans should take ownership of their impact on the environment, therefore holding humans accountable for their own actions. Deep ecological thinking, unlike most other religions, does not have a prophet. However, it would not make sense for deep ecology to have a prophet or spiritual teacher because deep ecology does not have a supernatural higher power of which the prophets follow. By not having either of these two common characteristics, deep ecological thinking does not support the notion of a higher power, undermining the illusory preconception that “God” would come to our rescue and our salvation, fixing the current ecological crisis.

Besides the eight principles, deep ecological thinking does not have a sacred text. However, these principles are the very essence and foundation of deep ecology. Perhaps, these principles should be reconceptualized as sacred in the “Deep Ecology Religion” to bolster their importance. Deep ecological thinking also lacks a set of specific rituals. In one sense, this can be seen as beneficial because part of deep ecological thinking is respecting how individuals choose to approach the eight principles in their own way. However, an annual ritual, such as a “deep ecology day” may act as a great unifying force for the community and bring about awareness to others who do not necessarily subscribe or know about deep ecology. This annual ritual would bring people together, promoting more discourse and democratic dialog about the challenges facing our environment and society. As a result, although deep ecological thinking currently does not share many of the characteristics of religions, it conceivably could incorporate rituals along with formulating the principles of deep ecology into sacred text.

Problems with the “Deep Ecology Religion”

When creating the deep ecology movement, Næss specifically choose the word “movement” as he wanted to describe a social movement and not an ideology or religion (van Boeckel 1997). It is not that Næss is against organizing deep ecological thinking as religion, but rather that he is against institutionalizing the deep ecological principles as religious (Grim 2001:49). This is because there are, in fact, drawbacks to deep ecology as a religion. For example, it is argued that creating the “Deep

Ecology Religion” has the potential to further isolate people into religious groupings. However, this is naïve because movements, just as much as religions, create social groupings, isolation, and alienation.

For example, the recent Black Lives Matter movement was criticized by White Supremacists who felt isolated and undermined. As a result, they retaliated with the White Lives Matter movement. Another potential drawback is that people who are already affiliated with another religion may feel as though they can’t be apart of two religions at once. If so, due to “Deep Ecology Religion” being a newer religion, it is likely people would choose to stay with their current religious faith. Accordingly, it could be argued that deep ecology is best understood as a movement since one can most definitely be apart of multiple movements, whereas most religious demand absolute compliance. That being said, ever since the globalization of religion, many people are starting to partake in religious pluralism meaning that they view the beliefs in two or more religious worldviews as equally valid and acceptable.

Another downfall of the “Deep Ecology Religion” is the rise of à-la-carte religion in modern

Western society. Many western millennials are picking and choosing the aspects of their religion in which they would like to follow, without fully embracing their religion as a whole. This could be very harmful to the “Deep Ecology Religion,” as all eight deep ecology principles should be embraced together. In choosing not to participate in the last principle, the previous principles are undermined.

This is due to the eighth deep ecology principle stating, “Those who accept the foregoing points have an obligation to participate in implementing the necessary changes and to do so peacefully and democratically.” The eighth principle emphasizes the need for action in implementing all seven of the previous principles, in which deep ecological thinking truly emerges. À-la-carte religion is thus a challenge in our society that the “Deep Ecology Religion” would have to overcome if it is going to be successful.

“Deep Ecology Religion” in Western Culture The current industrialized nature of Western culture results in massively unsustainable use of the world’s resources. It is argued, for instance by White (1967), that this is in part due to Western societies adoption of Christianity’s highly anthropocentric view of the Earth. Although the deep ecology principles are still slightly anthropocentric, the extent to which anthropocentrism exists in comparison to Western culture is minimal. The emergence of deep ecological thinking as a religion provides both benefits and drawbacks, as presented in this essay. The “Deep Ecology Religion” is also promising for the rising number of Westerners who are unaffiliated with religion. This is because the

“Deep Ecology Religion” has the opportunity to reach more people and motivate stronger actions.

Næss’ fear of exclusion is possible, however, division in peoples environmental beliefs will exist regardless. For this , the deep ecology movement is likely to be more effective as a religion and could prove especially useful in creating a more ecologically sustainable society.

The “Deep Ecology Religion” would not be acting alone. Several new religions and spiritual beliefs have emerged as a response to the ecological crisis, stemming from the environmental movement. In researching this paper, I came across numerous titles, some of which include: dark green religion, nature religion, religious , social ecology, and (Taylor

2010). Many of the values that deep ecology embodies are concurrent with these other groups. Hence, all of these responses to the ecological crisis are working together for the same goal. These fundamental beliefs have been core values of many non-Western religions, along with many

Indigenous traditions, for centuries. By looking at these , we learn that these values and beliefs hold promising results for a more ecologically sustainable society. The current proliferation of biocentric ethics (Taylor 2010), stating that all life has value, while emphasizing the interrelatedness of all living things, particularly in Western culture, is necessary to conquer our current ecological crisis.

Since, as White suggests in the quotation at the beginning of this paper, we are unlikely to solve our environmental crisis without a new religion, deep ecological thinking ought to be reconceptualized as a religion. Supplemental Material

Appendix A. The eight deep ecology principles formulated by the Deep Ecology class at Schumacher College, May 1995 (Harding n.d.).

Appendix B. Poem: Clouds in Each Paper (Thich 2002).

Literature Cited

Grim, J. A. 2001. Indigenous Traditions and Deep Ecology. p. 35-57. In Deep Ecology and World Regions: New Essays on Sacred Ground edited by David Landis Branhill and Roger S. Gottlieb. State University of New York Press. Albany, USA.

Harding, S. n.d. What is Deep Ecology? Schumacher College. Retrieved from: https://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/learning-resources/what-is-deep-ecology

Negi, C. 2005. Religion and Biodiversity conversation: not a mere analogy. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management. 1(2):85-96

Pew Research Center. 2015. America’s Changing Religious Landscape. Retrieved from: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Taylor, B. 2010. Introducing Religion and Dark Green Religion. p. 1-12. In Dark Green Religion. University of California Press, California, USA.

Thich, N. H. 2002. Clouds In Each Paper. Awakin.org. Retrieved from: http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=222 van Boeckel, J. 1997. The Call of the Mountain: Arne Næss and the Deep Ecology Movement. ReRun Producties.

White, L Jr. 1967. The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis. Science. 155(3767):1203-1207