228 Communities and Social Capital
remain for more than a brief moment, rational direction of its own history in rela-
tion to its natural context is essential for hu(man)ity. For this reason critical real-
ism, based on a purely social critical theory, will not provide a solution. A deep
materialist analysis would want to give more agency to the ecological whole and
emphasize the radical uncertainty of human existence.
Hu(man)ity’s immanence will always mean that any knowledge about the nat-
ural world is always partial. Even if a knowledge of all the components of the
natural world was assembled this would never reveal the dynamics of the whole.
The interconnectedness of all existence means that the ultimate consequences of
any particular act can never be known. Immanent realism demands first of all a
profound awareness of the ecological whole. There are many ways in which imma-
nence could be ‘realized’. It may be possible to achieve this through a scientific
understanding, but it could also be achieved through the ‘spiritual’ awareness that
many people feel when confronted by natural forces. Equally, the physiological
experience of embodiment, embracing the realities of life, love and death, could be
another channel of awareness. In this sense there is a material basis for the claim
that an ethic based on women’s lives and experience is likely to be more relevant to
ecological sustainability. Spiritual ecofeminists are also perfectly logical in saying
that it is possible to think through the body or experience holism as a spiritual
force. It may be that ecological holism can only be experienced as a ‘revelation’,
which could be described as wisdom. However, I would argue against seeing spirit
as a metaphysical or supernatural concept, but rather as a particular property of
human consciousness (Mellor, 1997b, p187).
Awareness of the radical uncertainty of human immanence should be the start-
ing point of all other knowledge. This requires recognition of the essentially dialec-
tical nature of the relation between hu(man)ity and the dynamic ecological whole.
It would also recognize the independent agency of the interconnected whole. This
does not deny human agency, but human agency would always need to show eco-
logical reflexivity and humility. Such an approach does not take moral or political
agency or even scientific knowledge from hu(man)ity, in fact it makes them all
more vital. The loss of the positivist scientific assumptions that the machinery of
nature will be revealed cannot be replaced by an equivalent assumption of a revela-
tion of the holistic ‘meaning’ of nature. If the dynamic whole is unknowable by
traditional scientific methods, why should it be any more ‘knowable’ through an
ecological metaphysics?
Ecofeminism and the Politics of Deep Materialism
As I have implied earlier, I see no reason why hu(man)ity should be in harmony
with a holistic nature. What is special about hu(man)ity is that it can grasp the
tenacious nature of its existence. However, a transcendent dominant elite medi-
ated by sex/gender and other relations of exploitation are unlikely to be motivated