Written by Mark L. Takefman, Local Eco-Fanatic
In 1973, Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher published and delivered a lecture at the World Future Research Conference in which he spoke about the distinction between what is the “shallow” and “deep” approaches to environmentalism.
“So called corporate ‘shallow’ environmentalism, which dominates the mainstream, advocates continuous economic growth with environmental protection by means of technological innovation (such as catalytic converters) and scientific resource management (such as sustained yield forestry) and mild changes in lifestyle (such as recycling.) It avoids serious fundamental questions about our values and worldviews; it does not examine our sociocultural institutions and our personal lifestyles. The mainstream technological approach has to be clearly distinguished from the deep ecology approach, which in contrast examines the roots of our environmental/social problems. The deep approach aims to achieve a fundamental ecological transformation of our sociocultural systems, collective actions and lifestyles.” (from Alan Drengson and Yuichi Inoue’s book “The Deep Ecology Movement”)
It’s unfortunate that the terms “shallow” and “deep” have been used, as they present us with the idea of opposition based in duality, when in fact these two ideas are on the same side of the fence, so to speak, and are descriptions of a developmental maturity. When we first understand the importance of how we and the environment are inextricably interconnected, we begin to realize that we have to start making changes in our lifestyle that allow us to be more balanced and integrated with both the physical world about us but also with our own spiritual center. Doing nothing of course, separates us from our world, establishing disharmony, anxiety and a variety of other neurosis’s.
So at first we seek out what is already being done. We discover that there are many things already being done, like community recycling, and government legislation, and the Environmental Protection Agency, and the many thousands of environmental non-profit organizations and grass-roots groups. Next we begin to make some subtle changes in our lifestyles. We begin to look at what we’re buying: What’s in those products? What kinds of chemicals are going to hurt me? And how do these chemicals hurt the environment? Are they over-packaged? These are the first simple steps, one of awareness. The next ones are much more difficult. The next question steps create a stew of cognitive dissonances in us that will make us very difficult to live with. What about:
Organic
Child labour
Avoidance behaviour (our own)
Anyway and needless to say, I have taken a quieter approach with others when discussing the environment; a wait-and-listen-first approach before I lay into someone. (no not really) This listening approach has some interesting benefits. One of which is that I have observed, that for even those who have some understanding and belief of the deep approach to environmentalism, it (i.e.: their understanding and empathy) does not translate into lifestyle changes. Could it be that either core beliefs are not motivational enough to change our behaviour, or that we can habituate to our own sense of hypocrisy? You may want to argue that there are some other reasons here; go ahead.
About being Green (it’s not easy). Well it’s just that the term really applies to those focused in the mainstream shallow ecology movement and I don’t feel I fit into that. Not that I disagree with this work, it’s just that I never liked being pigeon-holed. (Have you ever spent time with pigeons?)
Mark Takefman is a Earth resident. Works for himself, mostly stays out of trouble. Knows a little about everything and a lot about nothing. Collects feathers.