in nature is, it is claimed, mirrored in a social hierarchy. Sometimes, it is simply
the perceived fanaticism of the Green movement, and its utopian desire for a
‘clean world’, that motivates the charge of fascism. But this is just name-calling,
rather than a claim based on serious philosophical reflection.- Feminism The links between feminism and environmentalism (and ecologism)
seem more metaphorical than real. The idea of Mother Earth implies the
femininity of nature. Ideas of growth and nurturing also summon up notions of
motherhood and of the mother–child relationship. In contrast, the rationalism
which some environmentalists, and most ecologists, oppose is masculine. Of
course, it is precisely such essentialism that many feminists oppose: the
characterisation of women as nurturing and not rationalistic actually contributes
to women’s oppression. - Multiculturalism Multiculturalists value cultural diversity. Environmentalists and
ecologists value natural diversity. As a multiculturalist might seek the preservation
of a minority language, so an environmentalist seeks to preserve an endangered
species. As with conservatives and nationalists the multicultural ideal of society
is one where people have a ‘sense of place’ – where, for example, the high street
(or main street) of one town is very different from another and there are not
clone or identikit high streets. - Fundamentalism As with the charge of fascism it tends to be opponents of
environmentalism and ecologism who draw a parallel with fundamentalism. If
ecologism – rather than environmentalism – is viewed as a religion then it is not
difficult to take the next step to describing it as fundamentalist. We will pursue
the religious aspects of ecologism in our critique of ecologism.
It is clear that there are links and affinities between these various ideologies and
both environmentalism and ecologism, but we want to argue that there is a
distinctive core to ecologism which can be summed up in the distinction between
an anthropocentric ethic and an ecocentric ethic. We consider two important
theorists of ecologism: Aldo Leopold and Arne Næss.
Aldo Leopold and the ‘land ethic’
Aldo Leopold (1887–1948) is important as a precursor of ideological ecologism.
The essence of his ‘land ethic’ was that ‘land’ was an interdependent system, and
not a commodity; human beings were part of the ‘land community’ and not masters
of it; for human beings to understand themselves they must grasp the ‘whole’ of
which they are a ‘part’; and ‘a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the biotic community... it is wrong when it tends otherwise’
(Leopold, 1987: 150). What Leopold called ‘land’ was what later ecologists would
call the eco-system, biosphere, Gaia, ‘earth’ (‘Spaceship Earth’), and by ‘community’
Leopold meant an interdependent whole, the members of which were not simply
human beings, or even all sentient beings, but all the life forms.
Underlying the land ethic was a controversial philosophical claim: from
observation of the empirical world human beings can derive reasons for action. This
violates Hume’s ‘naturalistic fallacy’ argument: claims about how people should362 Part 3 Contemporary ideologies