Why, if At All, Does Green Theory Need Utopianism - Coursework Example

WHY, IF AT ALL, DOES GREEN THEORY NEED UTOPIANISM? Introduction Utopia depicts a fictional island with its own distinctive religion and customs, as conceptualized by Sir Thomas More, who wrote the book Utopia in 1516. More introduces readers to the concept of a perfect society, an idealized island community in which prevail utopian or perfect ideas, beliefs and practices; and where social harmony has been achieved. The elements that constitute Utopia are the outcome of the deep impact created by Plato’s Republic on More’s beliefs1. There were many features in the Commonwealth of Utopia that Thomas More, author and brilliant humanist, hoped to see incorporated by the English government2. According to Zhang Longxi, if at the most basic level, the idea of Utopia suggests the vision of an alternative and better society beyond reality, then it implies that there is already some degree of discontent with the present conditions. Because of this reason, the Utopian vision invariably presents itself as a social commentary, a manifestation of the deeply ingrained desire for change and transformation which is an essential nature of all humans. The desire for utopia is not only universal but also perennial, as the prospect of a better society lies always ahead3. The Green Movement is a diverse social or cultural movement based on environmental concerns, which takes political action mainly of a reformist or radical nature. In Green Theory “green” means environmentally friendly, and “greening” means environmental improvement through politicized environmentalism mostly. The Norwegian philosopher4 Arne Naess initiated the division between deep and shallow ideologies. Deep green and shallow green ideologies are two extremes, and it is unlikely that either can alone, serve environmental management effectively. A blend of both their ethics and approaches is required5. The purpose of this paper is to examine Utopianism as defined by Sir Thomas More and other famous philosophers, identify the basic elements of utopianism; evaluate Green Theory, distinguish between deep and shallow green ideologies, determine why shallow green ideology does not require utopianism or requires utopianism by piecemeal according to Longxi (2005); and why deep green ideology requires utopianism. Discussion Green theory forms the basis for environmentalists implementing a cultural attack on the ills of modern society and economics, towards progress while improving sustainable environments. There is a division between the shallow green and the light green ideologies. Deep green ecology seeks to replace the existing social, political and economic conditions with new environmentally appropriate bioethics and supportive politics. Supporters attribute many environmental problems on the anthropocentric nature of modern development, and adopt a biocentric or ecocentric outlook, acknowledging that all life whether human or non-human have intrinsic value6. On the other hand, shallow green ecology seeks to apply ecological principles to ensure better management and control of the environment for human benefit, that is, it is anthropocentric. There is less rejection of established science characteristics of most deep green ecologists. Shallow green ecology is more likely to work with existing economics and ethics; and it is more likely to be concerned with solutions than with efforts to avoid problems in the first place7. The island of Utopia was conceptualized with idealistic features such as all property being community owned, nonexistent violence or vice, and the provision of opportunities to work and live in an environment of religious tolerance for all citizens. Several social movements in history have drawn inspiration from More’s work which gives a vision of what could possibly be developed, though that may be potentially unachievable8. Utopian thinking includes critical approach to the status quo, with the desire and hope to improve the environmental conditions9. In this connection, ecocommunalism is a generic term that covers a diverse range of utopian, visionary and essentially anarchist Green theories that seek the development of human-scale, cooperative communities, that enable the whole and mutualistic development of humans, while at the same time respecting the integrity of the non-human world. According to ecocommunal theorists, progress is generally measured by the degree to which we are able to adapt human communities to ecosystems, rather than the other way around, and the extent to which the full range of human needs are fulfilled. Ecocommunal theorists do not believe that the nonhuman world is purely instrumental in value, on the other hand, they turn to nature as a source of both guidance and inspiration10. The idea of building stable communities based on the principles of nature has been an enduring theme in western social philosophy since the fall of the Roman Empire. This historical period was followed by the founding of monastic orders by Saint Benedict of Nursia, and has continued through the Utopian tradition in political thought emerging from Sir Thomas Moore’s Utopia in 1516. This has carried on up to the desire for a communal way of life expressed by the nineteenth and twentieth century anarchist philosophers such as William Godwin and the Russian Prince Kropotkin. In the early 1970s, even before the Green movement had developed, Robert Nisbet defined the essence of the ecological community as “peaceful, not concerned with capture and forced adaptation, non-coercive and seeking fulfillment through example or vision rather than through revolutionary force and centralization of power”11. The most fundamental aim of such an ecological community according to western social thought, is the autonomous and free interdependencies among human beings, considered to be natural to man and his morality. Utopias have frequently conceptualized the special and vibrant spaces of gardens, just as gardens have often been utopian in their design and meaning, resulting in an exchange of symbolic meanings. In the description of Utopian cities in Part II of the book Utopia by Sir Thomas More, spacious gardens behind the houses, featured centrally in the Utopian cityscape, the cause of good citizenly rivalry with respect to the best maintained gardens, and the pride of the inhabitants, play a prominent part in the literature. Utopian gardens with nature’s bounty of fruits, herbs, flowers and vines, are ideal gardens with an illusion of perpetual spring and perfect societies, and are believed to have healing properties12. “Utopian thinking is more than More”13, it enables people to visualize how things could be different and better. In attempts to instigate communities of practice, the production of organization has been a key feature, with its impact on the organization of production in utopias. Another important feature of utopian thinking is that space and place are of fundamental importance. Gardens and utopias often go together, sometimes in complex ways. With More’s initiative, utopias become a fertile means to explore and express a vast range of competing ideas about social relationships, moral propriety, political-economic systems and similar concepts. On the other hand, since the Greek word Utopia means both “good place” as well as “no place”, it is considered to have no meaningful referent in the material world. However, Foucault (1974) recognizes the spatiality of Utopia in positive ways: “Utopias afford consolation: although they afford no real locality, there is nevertheless a fantastical untroubled region in which they are able to unfold: they open up cities with vast avenues, superbly planted gardens, countries where life is easy, even though the road to them is chimerical”14 Martin Buber’s vision of Utopia is based on the fact that each human has a great need to communicate with others and to have a sense of community. “The need to feel confirmed by one’s fellow beings, to know that one is not alone, is basic to the human condition and constitutes the fundamental impulse for community”15. Buber’s understanding of Utopia was of an ever renewed quest to determine the social structures that best encourage dialogue; and the overcoming of barriers of mutual mistrust and indifference to the existential reality of others, which is an adverse feature of contemporary life. The six principles for the attainment of utopian existence are: protection, boundaries, the beastliness of the outside and the bestliness of the inside, control, patterns and formality. “The beastliness of the outside and the bestliness of the inside”16 means that the boundary is meant to contain within it all that is considered to be best and worthy of nurture, while concurrently holding outside all that is beastly in the world of nature. Further, utopian thought advocates the maintenance of peace and harmony by controlling the self; and utopian existence is meant to follow pre-determined patterns of behaviour according to the laid down master plan. Finally, formality is a core element of utopian thought, the science of law termed as jurisprudence lays down laws which are formal, objective and understood by all. The in-built stasis and resistance to change that such structured thinking implies forms the basis of formality. The philospher Ernst Bloch justifies and celebrates utopianism, and distinguishes between abstract and concrete utopianism. This distinction is seen to be fundamental to the relationship between Utopia and Marxism or any other political orientation that is committed to social transformation. Only then can utopians create alternative worlds instead of continuing to imagine them. Bloch’s central project in his magnum opus The Principle of Hope is the rehabilitation of the concept of Utopia, to include daydreams, fairy tales, myths, travelers’ tales, alchemists’ attempts to synthesize gold, architecture, music, besides the more conventional areas of literary descriptions of ideal societies. All these elements embody dreams of a better life, reaching forward to a transformed future. “It embodies both the act of wishing and what is wished for”17 Utopianism in Relation to Environmentalism The earth is finite, limited in its sources. Growth of anything physical, including the human population with its related infrastructure, transportation and other requirements cannot continue endlessly. There are limits to the ability of planetary sources to provide the flow of materials and energy, and there are also limits to the planetary waste disposal systems to absorb the pollution and waste. Hence, limits to production and consumption are fixed by the earth’s finitude; and the human condition, according to political ecologists, is also fixed. The present social, political and economic practices are unsustainable and can lead to dystopia with adverse conditions of deprivation and oppression18. However, most environmentalists believe that the downward spiral of dystopia can be broken, and a technically and economically sustainable society can be achieved. The relevance of green utopianism emerges from this. Utopianism demands malleability to change, and environmentalism’s interpretation of the human condition denies its possibility. However, this does not mean that green utopianism is impossible. This is because, malleability of the human condition is different from malleability of human nature. Political ecologists have an utopian sense of how it is possible and what is possible to achieve within the fixed limits to production, consumption and waste disposal. Thus ecotopia is the use of realism while keeping its utopian character intact. Thus, green utopia operates with non-negotiable ecological constraints, where dystopia is potentially present. Green utopias demonstrate that practical realism can be as much a part of the utopian as the anti-utopian sensibility19. The essence of green utopianism is a harmony of human beings with the non-human world. The concept of green utopias focus on the absence of conflict between human beings, and this idea is emphasized in the case of green utopias with the pacification of relationships not only among human beings, but also between human beings and their natural environment. The intellectual basis of this pacification can take two forms, out of which one can be characterized as green utopianism. The first argument for the reconciliation of human beings with their natural non-human environments is that it is in the interests of human beings to provide precautionary treatment to and to protect the natural environment mainly because human survival depends on the life-support systems that the natural world provides. This argument is strong, especially when taking into account future generations of human beings. A pacified relationship between humans and their natural environments, take into account the interests of both sides, in the issue20. It is important to note that no transformation is demanded from human beings for this version of harmony between humans and their natural environment. A coincidence of humans as they are, with the environment is considered sufficient. This viewpoint differs from the concept of Utopia which is not based on the here and now, but on the yet to be or the future. Human beings under both capitalism and communism would be different; similarly green utopias arrive at a harmony between human beings and nature through the transformation of human beings. In the green utopia, human beings abandon their acquisitive, instrumental and use-related relationship with their natural environment, “and it is this transformation and the harmony that issues from it, that lies at the heart of green utopianism”21. A contrasting viewpoint on the feasibility of green utopianism is addressed by Pepper (2005). Deep green environmental ideologies which are both radical and reformist, are associated with Utopianism. Utopianism as a part of deep green environmentalism, creates the concept of “ecotopia”, which has evolved over the past half century. Ecotopianism’s ability to support change towards an ecological society is found to be limited by idealism and unrealistic assessments of contemporary socio-economic dynamics. Similarly, shallow green environmental ideologies which are reformist in nature, are also based on unrealistic premises, “reflecting liberal-capitalist utopian fantasies”22. Thus, it is seen that Pepper (2005) finds that change towards an ecological society is difficult and limited. This is contrary to Dobson’s (2003) perspective that transformation of human beings brings about a green utopia where there is harmony between human beings and nature. Pepper (2005) argues that the Utopia of deep green environmentalism or ecotopianism is not practically applicable, and is restricted to being a fictional form, a conceptualization which cannot be physically realized. Ecotopia’s contemporary manifestation is one of public scepticism about science, modernity and the “risk society”. In fact, it is now accepted that Utopia itself is a lost endeavour, having been replaced by a “heterotopia” in which utopias as fantasy are part of everyone’s lives, and lack the potential to fuel social change23. Environmental activist opinion based on both deep green and shallow green ideologies, as well as academic perspectives take the stand that: utopian endeavour is necessary for radical environmentalism and for related movements such as feminism, anarchism and socialism. Utopianism is important within these movements to inspire hope and to facilitate changes both conceptual and real, while experimenting within alternative concepts. To be truly transgressive, rather than lapsing into reactionary fantasy, ecotopias need to emphasize aspects that need change rather than lay down blueprints. Moreover, ecotopia or the vision seen by deep green environmentalists, should be rooted in social and economic realities, rather than being merely a form of abstraction unrelated to the processes and situations of the contemporary world24. Based on these criteria, the ability of ecotopia to bring about changes appears to be limited and its dynamics are unclear, though the reformist visions may be pragmatic and attainable. Deep green ecological beliefs and bioregional features are not in alignment with the realities of today’s world. Anti-modernism may result in future primitivism and a reduction in the scale of societies, with a re-establishment of traditional cultures. “Additionally, idealism in the negative sense is often rife in ecotopianism”25. However, idealism is a part of both shallow green as well as deep green environmentalism. The principles behind ecological modernisation and the mainstream policy issues about the environment, are based on premises which are Marxist in nature. That is, they do not adequately and accurately take into account the socioeconomic dynamics of the capital system that they are meant to reform. Hence, they fail to recognize that social-democratic attempts to realise an environmentally sound, humane, inclusive and egalitarian capitalism are ultimately headed for failure. The deep green ecological politics aims to change the world. It is completely Utopian in nature: it aims to achieve the impossible, its task is massive. Shallow green thought aims to avoid ecological disaster. The unsustainable use of resources forms the empirical base of green concerns, and is a part of both deep green as well as shallow green ideologies. Deep ecologists believe that the way to effectively confront imminent ecological disaster is to change our way of thinking, especially towards finding ways to reduce pollution, environmental degradation and socially unacceptable behaviour. Only when a critical mass of the population “has accomplished a significant shift in the way they think, can sustainable change be established”26 Conclusion This paper has highlighted Utopianism as defined by Sir Thomas More and other famous philosophers, identified the basic elements of utopianism; evaluated Green Theory, distinguished between deep and shallow green ideologies, examined green utopianism, determined the relationship between shallow green and deep green ideologies with utopianism. The difference between Utopianism and Environmentalism is that the utopian concept is accurately expressed by an expanding universe, which invents itself while occupying space that does not exist until created by time and matter. That is, utopianism is illusory in nature, and is a conceptualization, with no material spaces denoted for its representation. On the other hand, the green political project is better expressed as space manifested in the stable universe with its limits fixed and its boundaries static27. It is seen that deep green environmentalism is very similar to utopianism in its basic elements of conceptualizations and visions for improved societies, where humans coexist with the natural environment in a sustainable manner. Shallow green environmentalism is not directly related to utopianism, since it moslty advocates reforms for protecting the environment. Both types of ideologies working together, are essential for environmental sustainability and social progress. Thus, it can be concluded that Green Theory needs Utopianism, for implementing sustainable solutions for environmental conservation. Bibliography Barrow, C.J. 1999. Environmental management. London: Routledge. Daniel, J.O. & Moylan, T. 1997. Not yet: reconsidering Ernst Bloch. London: Verso. Dobson, A. 2003. Janus-faced Utopianism: the politics of ecology. In J.J. Kassiola (Ed). Explorations in environmental political theory. The United States of America: M.E. Sharpe Publishers. pp.66-80. Eckersley, R. 1992. Environmentalism and political theory. London: Routledge. Harvey, D. 2000. Spaces of hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Honderich, E. 1995. Oxford companion to philosophy. The United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Hunt, J.D. 1992. Gardens and the picturesque: studies in the history of landscape architecture. The United States of America: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Longxi, Z. 2005. The Utopian vision, east and west. In J. Rusen, M. Fehr & T. Rieger (Eds). Thinking Utopia, The United States of America: Berghahn Books. More, T. 2005. Utopia: a new translation with an introduction. The United Kingdom: Digireads.com Publishers. Naess, A. 1973. The shallow and the deep: long range ecology movement, a summary. Inquiry, 16 (1): 95-100. Naess, A. 1988. Deep ecology and ultimate premises. The Ecologist, 18 (4-5): 128-132. Naess, A. 1989. Ecology, community and lifestyles: outline of an ecosophy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Parker, M. 2002. Utopia and organization. London: Blackwell Publishing. Pepper, D. 2005. Utopianism and Environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 14 (1): 3-22. Sargent, D. 2003. Thomas More. Great Britain: Kessinger Publishing. Sargisson, L. 2000. Utopian bodies and the politics of transgression. London: Routledge. Zank, M. 2006. New perspectives on Martin Buber. Germany: Mohr Siebeck Publications. Read More