As a social ecologist, I’ve been fascinated by the debates circling deep ecology and how it could be used to bolster what Bookchin calls, ‘third nature’. Third nature is the idea that our environments are co-created by humans and non-humans. Transcending both the views of first nature (non-human environments) and second nature (human-built environments). This process of tackling two different ecologies and analyzing them is no easy task. So, let’s start with how deep ecology was created.

In the book ‘Towards a Transpersonal Ecology’ by Warwick Fox, he analyzes two papers by the founder of Deep Ecology, Arne Naess, ‘Deepness of Questions’ (1982) and ‘Notes on the Methodology of Normative Systems’ (1977). In these papers, Naess talks about his application of normative systems to ecological philosophy and how deep ecology originated. What we have to understand is normative systems are a tool for analysis. It allows us to ask deep questions about our beliefs and personal philosophies, while also allowing us to analyze them and make changes if necessary.

Since normative systems and deep questions work together, all we need is a norm to start our analysis. Naess’ system used an exclamation point to identify norms and marked hypotheses with a period. Below, I’ll use a combination of that and Fox’s system for readability. Let’s take a look at a rather rough version of what a version of social ecology could look like with this system:

The Root of Domination over man/nature is social!

• H1: Why is man separate from nature?
  • N1: Because man is social.
• H2: Why is man considered social and nature is not?
  • N2: Nature is social. Domination is not.
• H3: How is domination defined?
  • N3: Social is power with. Domination is power over. Concentrated power leads to domination. It brings with it the concept of dualism. Us vs Them. Hierarchy vs Non-hierarchy.
  • Comment: Domination is a strange loop, our attempts to stamp it out may cause its rebirth through unethical decisions meant to stop it.
  • Comment: The goal of capitalism, imperialism, etc. is to make everything the same everywhere in order to control everything.
• H4: How do we remove the root cause of domination which is dualism?
  • N4: We need a multiplicity of being that recognizes all, the non-human, human, and our natural world, as ‘us’ to break free of dualism, thus creating 3rd nature.

This could have easily gone the other way, I could have changed how domination was defined. Let’s look at that below:

The Root of Domination over man/nature is social!

• H1: Why is man separate from nature?
  • N1: Because man is social.
• H2: Why is man considered social and nature is not?
  • N2: Nature is social. Domination is not.
• H3: How is domination defined?
  • N3: the exercise of control or influence over someone or something, or the state of being so controlled. (Dictionary Definition)
• H4: How do remove domination?
  • N4: We relinquish control of all things.
  • Comment: An apathetic stance that echoes our current predicament.

The problem with this second one should be obvious, by concluding that we relinquish all control we are giving up our agency. We are eliminating our chance, however minuscule, of slowing down or even surviving climate collapse. We have taken the foundational norm of Social Ecology and turned it on its head. But here’s the thing, this is a completely valid position to have from a normative systems standpoint. The only thing that changed was the definition of ‘domination’ from a personal definition based on internal ethics to that of society’s definition based on cultural norms and values. That’s all that’s needed to tip the scales of an ethical system. Or to put it another way, if we don’t examine the beliefs and biases we all hold on an individual level and make changes in ourselves to match the ethical system we are trying to attain, we will never reach it. Normative systems are a tool for analysis not for creating ethical systems. The genius of Naess’ system, however, lies in the fact that it allows us to realize where we stand so that we can take action towards change.

Naess used his normative system to ask deep questions about his personal philosophy to create deep ecology which was turned into a manifesto that birthed the ecological movement. However, manifestos based on personal philosophies tend to create stagnation. We lock ourselves into a set of beliefs and if we don’t rewrite it or update it from time to time we become trapped in it. An example of this would be Ayn Rand’s personal philosophy, objectivism. Rand’s objectivism made perfect sense for an individual suffocating under Stalinism where the individual lost all vestiges of identity and autonomy. Objectivism was a radical act to reclaim the self. Personal philosophies are time capsules of individual lives, their experiences, beliefs, culture, etc. To adopt another’s personal philosophy would be a disservice to oneself and a disregard for our contributions in our own time. We would, in other words, be giving up our individual identities and power to affect change in our times just to echo the static contribution of someone else’s experience.

At this point, you might be asking yourself, isn’t social ecology a philosophy created by one person? Wouldn’t social ecologists be following the personal philosophy of Bookchin? It’s an excellent question. One which I think has roots in the perspective fields of the founders. Naess was a philosopher and Bookchin’s main interests lay in anthropology and sociology. Philosophy turns inwards to the self to gain understanding. Anthropology and sociology are outward-facing sciences that study social groups, societies, and their historical origins. The main strength of Bookchin’s work is his analysis of society, of what worked and what didn’t, and the adaptability of the political structure of Libertarian Municipalism that allows it to be modified based on region or even community. Naess’s work on normative systems and deep ecology also has its strengths from giving us the tools we need to analyze our own biases and beliefs to inspiring us through echoes of our hopes and dreams for a future where all species live in an ‘ecosophic’ and hopefully ecospheric world.

---

If you would like to learn more about how to use Deep Questions and Normative systems to analyze your personal philosophy. There will be a future post to demonstrate its application and introduce a few more tools.

---

Sources:

• ‘Towards a Transpersonal Ecology’ by Warwix Fox
• ‘Deepness of Questions’ (1982) by Arne Naess
• ‘Notes on the Methodology of Normative Systems’ (1977) by Arne Naess
• Julie Hawkins, 2024, “Green Eco-Chaplains Manual: Level I”, Forest Star Academy, (2022).
• The Visionaries: Arendt, Beauvoir, Rand, Weil, and the Power of Philosophy in Dark Times by Wolfram Eilenberger, Wolfram Eilenberger
• Self-Realization Beyond the Human: Arne Næss and Norwegian Deep Ecology