Green political thoughtis itself shaped by ecological concerns (Eckersley 1992 :145). Core green
principles such as decentralisation, participatory democracy and social jus-
tice are central features of the anarchist tradition, and many greens have
inherited the anarchist distrust of the state. Anarchists have also helped
shape the praxis of green politics by advocating grassroots democracy, extra-
parliamentary activities and direct action.
Twomain schools of ecoanarchism can be distinguished (Eckersley 1992 ;
Pepper 1993 ): ‘social ecology’, which is primarily the product of Murray
Bookchin’s ( 1980 , 1982, 1989)extensive writings, and ecocommunalism,
which is a general category incorporating a range of more ecocentric posi-
tions, including the bioregionalism of Sale ( 1980 , 1991). Ecocommunalism
focuses on the relationship between society and nature and, in recommend-
ing greater integration of human communities with their immediate natu-
ralenvironment (for example, living within the carrying capacity of their
bioregion), is closely linked with deep ecology and the ecocentric ideas dis-
cussed in Chapter2.Bycontrast, social ecology attributes ecological degrada-
tion primarily to social causes. The discussion below focuses on Bookchin’s
explicit linkage of social hierarchy and environmental problems because it
has made a notable theoretical contribution to the emancipatory message
of ecologism.
The core message of social ecology is that the human domination of
nature stems from ‘the very real domination of human by human’ (Bookchin
1989 : 44). Echoing the thinking of the nineteenth-century anarchist Peter
Kropotkin, Bookchin has a benign view of nature based on the belief that it
is interdependent and egalitarian – ‘ecology recognises no hierarchy on the
level of the ecosystem. There are no ‘‘kings of beasts” and no ‘‘lowly ants”’
(Bookchin 1980 : 59). Bookchin argues that humans are naturally co-operative
and will flourish best in a decentralised, non-hierarchical anarchic society,
such as early pre-literate societies, which, he claims, were organic and at
one with nature, seeking neither to dominate nor be dominated by it. Subse-
quently, as social hierarchies developed based on age, gender, religion, class
and race, so humans acquired the apparatus and aptitude for domination
of other humans and, by extension, non-human nature. Today, domination
and hierarchy characterise society and shape a range of related dualisms:
intellectual over physical work, work over pleasure and mental control over
thesensuous body. Social ecology seeks the replacement of domination and
hierarchy with equality and freedom. In short, if social hierarchy can be
removed, then environmental degradation will also disappear.
Bookchin’s thesis is vulnerable to the empirical criticism that there have
been many societies characterised by social hierarchy, which have also lived
in harmony with nature, such as feudalism. Conversely, a non-hierarchical
egalitarian society, such as Marx’s post-capitalist utopia, might still exploit
nature (Eckersley 1992 :151). Nevertheless, Bookchin contributes an impor-
tant social element to ecocentric thinking, which is intended to rectify the
mystical flavour of deep ecology. Indeed, Bookchin has engaged in a series of