I haven’t really followed deep ecology but to my understaning there is a lot of room for criticism. At least for the past? Idk how things are today on this topic. Anyways, the following article written in 1989, meaning a few years after the one posted. It is a harsh criticism on this movement but a well founded one imo.
Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement by Murray Bookchin
Let us face these differences bluntly: deep ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of “original sin” that accurses a vague species called humanity—as though people of color were equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor with the rich, and the exploited with their exploiters.
Well if Bookchin says smth, I listen. Having said that I still do think the vagueness of deep ecology has value, particularly in the existing political atmosphere.
I feel as if the critique kind of takes us off course from an important discussion, unless there’s a better alternate. (Which there just might)
Perhaps I’m being too defensive but I feel the finger wagging is unnecessary when it comes to the topic by Bookchin. But I’m not very well read regarding the history of this topic.
Gonna go do some research now
