THEORY
vicious attacks on deep ecology, which he describes disparagingly as ‘mysti-
cal eco-la-la’, for its insensitivity to social issues. He has little patience with
thedeep green belief that change will come about simply through a trans-
formation of individual world-views stimulated by better spiritual connec-
tions with nature. He also despises the misanthropic flavour of some deep
green writing, detecting support for coercive forms of population control,
immigration and aid policy, and he has engaged in vitriolic debate with the
former leading Earth First! activist Dave Foreman (Bookchin and Foreman
1991 ). Notwithstanding their mutual hostility, social ecology and ecocom-
munalism share important principles, notably their belief that the state is
intrinsically inimical to green ecological and social values (Barry1999a: 98).
Despite the growing acceptance of liberal democratic institutions amongst
greens, the anarchist critique of the bureaucratic, centralised state and com-
mitment to local political action continue to wield a strong influence over
green theory and practice.Critical question 5
Can green ideas be satisfactorily accommodated within established political
ideologies?◗ Neither left nor right but in front?
Greens like to describe themselves as ‘neither left nor right but in front’
because they want to affirm their difference from other ideologies. What do
theymean by this claim and is it accurate? Is ecologism a distinct ideology?
If so, can it accommodate the many different green discourses discussed
above, and where is ecologism located on the classic left–right ideological
spectrum? Or is it necessary to use different criteria to categorise it?
Ecologism is characterised by two core ideas: the need to reconceptualise
thehuman–nature relationship and the acceptance of the idea of limits to
growth.Atthis point, consensus breaks down. Some writers hold that ecolog-
ical imperatives require no specific political structures (Enzensberger 1974 ;
Ryle 1988 ;Goodin 1992 ). Ryle, for example, believes that ‘widely varying
forms’ of sustainable society are possible, including ‘authoritarian capital-
ist’ and ‘barrack socialism’, which would both be a far cry from the green
model outlined above (Ryle 1988 : 7). Others believe that ecological impera-
tives do imply certain political forms and exclude others. Martell ( 1994 :160),
forexample, argues that intervention and central co-ordination are needed,
thus ruling out markets, capitalism and decentralisation. By contrast,
Dobsonbelievesthat‘thereissomethingaboutecologism...thatpushes
it irrevocably towards the left of the political spectrum’ (Dobson 2000 : 73) –
aposition that acknowledges the powerful influence of the emancipatory
ideologies (Eckersley 1992 ).