STUDIA
ECOLOGIAE
ET BIOETHICAE
2020, 18, 5: 67-85
ISSN 1733-1218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.2020.18.5.06
The bases and methodology of deep ecology*
Podstawy i metodologia tzw. ekologii głębokiej
Mieczysław Bombik
Institute of Ecology and Bioethics, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6459-5344 • miet15@wp.pl
Abstract: The article includes the semantic analysis of basic terms and language phrases and synthetic depiction of following
problems: the reformist organization of environmental protection, the sources of deep ecology, the basic theses of deep ecology,
the political suggestions for solutions of environmental protection crisis, the organizational structures of deep ecology.
Keywords: deep ecology, methodology, social paradigm, ecological metaphysics, ecological policy
Streszczenie: Artykuł zawiera systematyczną analizę podstawowych terminów i zwrotów językowych oraz omówienie następują-
cych zagadnień: reformistyczna organizacja ochrony środowiska, źródła ekologii głębokiej i jej podstawowe twierdzenia, wskaza-
nia polityczne dla rozwiązania kryzysu ochrony środowiska, struktury organizacyjne ekologii głębokiej.
Słowa kluczowe: ekologia głęboka, metodologia, paradygmat społeczny, metafizyka ekologiczna, polityka ekologiczna
Introduction
The presented characteristics of the ecologi-
cal movement, which aims to be holistic phi-
losophy of the field of biology which deals
with the study of mutual relations between
a man, other living organisms and their en-
vironment, called deep ecology, is based on
a study of a leading representative of this
field, Bill Devall: Die tiefenoecologische Be-
wegung, which appeared in Dieter Birnbach-
er’s larger volume entitled: Oekophilosophie
(Devall 1997). The study points to the diver-
sity of sources, from which this ecological
movement derives and benefits, with the
fundamental principle which connects and
unites all proponents of the movement, be-
ing granting the autonomic value to non-hu-
man beings, as well as to natural objects,
classified as the so-called inanimate nature
(Birnbacher 1997, 11). The term ‘’methodol-
ogy’,’ used in the title of this article announc-
es that norms, postulates and guidelines,
formulated by the representatives of deep
ecology, will be properly noted and accen-
tuated, so that - in short - a man’s attitude
towards nature corresponded to the princi-
ples and a programme adopted and dissem-
inated by the philosophy of the movement.
Taking into account the rich literature which
Devall refers to in his reflections, as well as
translation of the statements of the quoted
authors into Polish, is meant to bring closer
to the Polish reader those foreign publica-
tions, which are very committed to dealing
with the environmental issue.
*This article was originally published in Polish as
Bombik, Mieczysław. 2005. “Podstawy i metoda tzw.
ekologii głębokiej.” Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae
3: 381-406. The translation of the article into En-
glish was financed by the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education of the Republic of Poland as part
of the activities promoting science - Decision No.
676/P-DUN/2019 of 2 April 2019. Translation made
by GROY Translations.
Mieczysław Bombik
68
1. Name and initial characteristics
There are, as Devall (1997, 17) writes, two
large movements within the environmental
protection movement of the second half of
the 20th century. The first one, is the so-
called reformist movement, that aims at
preventing, among other things, high pol-
lution of air and water, improper use of land
in highly industrialised countries, trying to
save, at least some of the remaining unde-
veloped areas, by including them in areas
covered by nature protection laws. The sec-
ond movement, contrary to the first one,
is of a distinctly revolutionary character,
manifested by its search for: new metaphys-
ics, a new theory of cognition, new cosmol-
ogy, and new environmental ethics for the
system: a man - the Earth.
The name “deep ecology”, first used by
Arne Naess (Birnbacher 1997, 10), a Nor-
wegian analytical philosopher, was intend-
ed to indicate, that it is about fundamental-
ly revolutionizing the anthropocentrically
oriented Western ethics and politics. Some
authors propose other names for this
movement, for example: “eco-philosophy”
(Oekophilosophie), “fundamental ecology”
(Fundamental-Oekologie), or “new philos-
ophy of nature” (Neue Naturphilosophie).
Devall advocates the term “deep ecology”
(Tiefenoekologie), because it is relative-
ly short, although, as he states, the terms
“radical ecology” (Radikaloekologie) or
even “revolutionary ecology” (Revolution-
aere Oekologie) would be more accurate
in relation to the content and a message
of the movement. However, he believes
that the last two names are too heavily
loaded with emotional associations, so
that, for example, the word “revolution”
itself would make other, unwelcome ref-
erences to environmental issues (Devall
1997, 17-18).
One of the important features of deep
ecology, which must already be pointed
out in the preliminary specification, is the
postulate that the anthropocentric ethics of
nature should be replaced with egalitarian
ethics, which ensures equal moral status of
all living beings, all living natural commu-
nities and species, and will change human
consciousness to such an extent, that a man
will not embrace his connection with the
natural environment in a personality as-
pect. A modern man, by identifying himself
with all-encompassing him and constantly
affecting him nature, according to the ad-
vocates of the movement, will free himself
from the constraints and various kinds of
pressure he experiences while living in an
industrial society and strive to build a ho-
listically integrated Self, from which the
motivations for ecologically correct lifestyle
and a new attitude of humility towards na-
ture (voluntary simplicity) will then sponta-
neously emerge. So it is about newly orient-
ed thinking, action and feeling.
This movement, unlike many other his-
torical and contemporary environmental
movements1, no longer wants to be a the-
ory but proposes an ecologically condi-
tioned way of living according to which
a thinker, a poet, a social activist, a crafts-
man, a merchant, a worker, a housewife...
will be working, in their specific area, for
the ecological renewal. A respectful ad-
miration for nature is not only to be a ver-
bally expressed declaration, but also to
be confirmed by action and expressed in
the right way of living. Similarly to what it
was like during the time of romantic phi-
losophy of nature, philosophy itself should
become part of the desired, holistic pro-
cess, not just the rational implementation
of the individual Self. The depth, that deep
ecology refers to, is not only the spiritual
depth of unity with nature, but above all,
it is radicality of attempts to implement
non-anthropological ecological ethics into
the everyday way of thinking, feeling and
acting of a man. Ultimately, this depth can
only “manifest itself in its mystical inex-
pressibility”2.
1 Historical can include, for example: 1) spino-
sism, 2) buddhism, 3) some versions of mysticism,
4) various varieties of nature theology, 5) panpsy-
chism, 6) pantheism, 7) ethical naturalism realism,
8) ethical objectivity; to contemporaries: 1) reform-
ist movement of environmental protection, 2) bio-
centric ecological ethics, 3) evolutionary ethics.
2 Those terms connected, among other things,
with the English term “deep ecology” postulate, as it
seems, to translate the term as “deep ecology” rath-
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
69
From the point of view of the methodol-
ogy of the language, which the represen-
tatives of the movement use, it should be
noted, that some literary categories are
also permissible in this language, while
discursive justifications of the problem
are often replaced with expressive - poetic
ones. In the place of the old philosophical
justifications, there are phrases such as:
development of life or holistic life, which
are meant to indicate unclear and vague
ideals (concepts) of new harmony between
a man and nature, such as: ecological jus-
tice, organic totality or ecological respon-
sibility, without trying to more accurate-
ly establish the characteristic content of
those concepts.
This kind of connection between the
depth and mysticism, and the language
used by the representatives of deep ecol-
ogy, has however provoked - not surpris-
ingly - a harsh response from the critics
who, among other things, claim, that the
movement has no theory at all, while R.
Sylvan considers it to be simply a “con-
ceptual swamp” (begrifflicher Sumpf ) that
threatens to sink in everything that makes
ecological ethics attractive.3
Devall based his reflections and analyses,
as he writes (Devall 1997, 18), on the stud-
ies of A. Naess (1973b, 95) and J. Rodman
(1977) and on the work of philosophers
dealing with, in the last 30 years, - of the 20th
century, the development of deep ecology.
Only a few of those works have appeared
in easily available journals or in multi-copy
book editions. Devall examines this mate-
rial in terms of answering four questions
that he believes are relevant to the compre-
hensive characteristics of deep ecology: 1)
sources of deep ecology; 2) differences be-
tween the premises of deep ecology and the
premises of a socially acceptable paradigm;
3) differences between deep ecology and
the environmental reform movement; and
4) the future of deep ecology.
er than “a depth of ecology”, without suggesting, in
case of the second translation, any intuitive analogy
between ecological “depth” and psychology of depth.
3 For more data on general specification of deep
ecology, see (Birnbacher 1997, 7-15).
2. Widely accepted paradigm
The term paradigm made a remarkable ca-
reer in the field of natural science method-
ology in the second half of the 20th centu-
ry. The main architect of this concept was,
as we know, T. S. Kuhn. The critics, how-
ever, have pointed out that the concept
is remarkably polysemous. For example,
Ms Masterman has counted 21 different
meanings that are related to this technical
term (Masterman 1970). Therefore, us-
ing this term, we need to clarify it. This is
done by Devall, who is no doubt closer to
the definition of the paradigm as a model
of natural order proposed by S. Toulmin
(1961) Devall states that, he wants to un-
derstand paradigm as a short description
of certain way of looking at (a certain per-
spective) the world; as a unity of: values,
beliefs, habits and norms of a certain group
of people - for example, people of the same
state, the same religion, or the same social
layer. The prevailing social paradigm is the
thought (spiritual) image of a social reali-
ty that defines the expectations of a given
group.
Using the paradigm as a tool to describe
the social reality, that is close to him, De-
vall believes, that the paradigm present in
North America certainly contains follow-
ing beliefs: the belief that economic growth,
understood as the gross calculated value of
the social product, is a measure of prog-
ress; the belief, that the prime objective of
the government - following a protection
of the state - should be to create the best
conditions for the growth of the produc-
tion of goods and to optimally meet the
material needs of citizens; the belief that
technology is capable of solving human
problems. According to this paradigm,
nature is only a resource store that needs
to be opened to meet the ever-increasing
needs of a numerically expanding popu-
lation. Science and technology cooperate
to achieve this goal. Technology develops
techniques for directing, or controlling,
natural processes, such as weather condi-
tions. Changes become a targets for them-
selves. The new one, is considered as more
valuable than the old one, presently living
Mieczysław Bombik
70
generation, better than past generations.
The aim of life is to satisfy individual needs
and to increase living standard, manifest-
ed by possession of, for example: a house,
a car, products enabling pleasant leisure
activities, etc. (Pirages and Ehrlich 1974).
Regardless of the sources of the origin of
this paradigm and the conditions it was
formed under, it is, states Devall, still ex-
isting, officially praised (e.g. by advertise-
ment) and an important factor in shaping
the vision of the world of most residents of
North America.4
The issue of the genesis of the prevailing
paradigm is a moot point. Dewall identifies
three groups of authors trying to solve the
issue in different ways (Devall 1997, 20).
Some believe that the roots of the prevailing
paradigm lie in Judeo-Christianity (White
1967). Others place its cradle in the ideolo-
gy and structures of capitalism, considering
capitalism responsible for excessive air and
water pollution, for increasing centralisa-
tion of political and economic power, for
ignoring future generations, and for irre-
sponsible use of natural resources of nature
(Weisberg 1971). Others point to its source
in Locke’s well-known view, who believed,
that owned property, in order to serve well
its owner and a society, should be continu-
ally “improved” (Ferkiss 1974).
After reminding the role and functions
that, according to Kuhn, the paradigm
plays in contemporary science and how
it influences the attitude of scientific re-
searchers, who practice “normal science”
(Kuhn’s term) within this field, Devall
stresses (1997, 20-21) the causes and situ-
ations, an emergence of which may lead to
a change in the existing paradigm in gen-
eral. This can occur when a certain group
of people (a research team), comparing
empirical predictions of a universally ac-
ceptable theory, claims that the observed
facts are inconsistent with expectations.
Similarly, a change in the social paradigm
can occur, Devall states, when, for exam-
ple, some charismatic social leader, some
social movement, or some small commu-
4 About the history of leading social paradigm see
(Ferkiss 1974; Lasch 1979).
nities discover new solutions that can an-
nounce a change in the current commonly
prevailing paradigm.
3. Environmental protection reform
movement
Deep ecology is contrasted with other,
past and present ecological movements,
which Dewall gives a common name: En-
vironmental protection reform movement.
A common characteristic of those move-
ments is that they seek social change aimed
at achieving a “higher (better) standard of
living”, without questioning the premises,
from which the formulation of the existing
social paradigm is derived. Each of those
movements identifies a specific problem
that is dealt with by various, cooperating
volunteer organisations, actively working
towards social change.
There are at least eight such environ-
mental movements in the 20th century,
mostly in America, that are, according to
Devall, worth mentioning5:
1. The movement of creation of urban
parks, creation of nature reserves and
national parks (Nash 1973; Sax 1976);
2. The movement of reducing the risk
of health loss and general safety, as
a protection against the phenomenon
of widespread use of technology at the
time of industrial revolution (Com-
moner 1971). For example. The Union
of Concerned Scientists informed the
public about the risk to public health
and safety caused by generating nucle-
ar electricity by nuclear power plants.
3. The movement for the development of
awareness of proper use of land in agri-
culture and the associated movements
of the late 19th century of beautifica-
tion of cities, of division of land into
defined zones according to planned
use of the land, and the modern-day,
powerful and strong debatable - po-
lemical movement of division of sea
coasts (National Resources Defense
Council 1977; McHarg 1971);
5 The literature presented following Devall can
facilitate an access to detailed information on the
characteristics of mentioned ecological movements.
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
71
4. The movement for the secondary use
of natural resources of land represent-
ed by Gifford Pinchot Zozofl and U.S.
Forest Service (Rodman 1977b, 2; Hays
1959; Pinchot 1947).
5. The movement of the 1960s and 1970s
called: back to the Earth (Zurueck-
zum-Land), with its ideology of organ-
ic farming;
6. The emergence of groups of a high
rate of population growth, e.g. groups:
zero human population growth (Eh-
rlich 1968; Report 1972);
7. The movement: freedom of people and
animals, committed to the need to
change the attitude of people towards
animals (Regan and Singer 1976; Sing-
er 1975);
8. The movement: boundaries of growth
(Grenzen des Wachstums), which pos-
tulates the need to control population
growth in order to become a “a soci-
ety of stable numbers” (Meadows and
Meadows 1974; Mesarovic and Pestel
1974; Meadows and Denis 1977; Cole
1973; Daly 1973).
4. Sources of deep ecology
The whole issue of deep ecology grows out
of, as it is strongly emphasised by Dewall
(1997, 23), a certain vision of a man who
can exist neither above, nor beyond nature,
but is part of nature. This vision should be
the source of the whole, one might say,
methodology of thinking and lifestyle of
a modern man: a man should care for na-
ture, protect it, relate to it with due respect
and dignity, enjoy being a co-inhabitant of
the “House called the Earth” (Haushalts
Erde), allow to live “all that is alive” (Leb-
endiges leben) and agree that the whole
nature that exists outside him can develop
according to evolutionarily established reg-
ularities.
The program of the reformist movement
of environmental protection, in compar-
ison with the program of deep ecology,
turns out to be pragmatic and short-sight-
ed. It is aimed at achieving only certain
goals, for example, a ban on building nu-
clear power plants or maintaining clean
water in rivers. Deep ecology, from the
very beginning of its existence, has sought
to identify and discuss, alternative ap-
proaches to the existing patterns of the
modern West way of thinking. Hence, it
assesses some solutions of the reformist
movement as inaccurate or even useless,
and aims, above all, to change the value
system and to change social organizations.
A historian Lynn White, in his influen-
tial article from 1967: The Historical Roots
of Our Ecologic Crisis, argued, that at the
root of the prevailing social paradigm lies
the image of a man opposed to nature;
the image of a man and nature remain-
ing at war with each other. Other authors,
of various intellectual orientations, have
also criticized the existing paradigm and
the one-sided scientific perspective of the
Western world (White 1967), based on it.
One of the main sources of the emer-
gence and development of deep ecology
was the influence of the spiritual traditions
of the East, which Alan Watts and Daisetz
Suzuki (Watts 1975; Watts 1970; Watts
1955; Watts 1977; Suzuki 1961) began in
the 1950s. Eastern traditions brought an
entirely different picture of the relation-
ship between a man and nature. At the
same time the so-called Beat-Poeten - such
as Alan Ginsberg- look for a new way of
solving psychological and spiritual prob-
lems using the Eastern philosophy. Those
are problems related, for example, to all
kinds of rape, mental illness, human alien-
ation from others, from the environment,
from nature. From a later perspective,
however, it must be concluded, that those
Beat-Poeten were a group that understood
the Eastern philosophy, ecology, and phil-
osophical traditions of the West in a rela-
tively naive way. The exception was Gary
Snyder, who is considered one of the most
influential eco - philosopher of the 1970s.
In the late 1960s and later in the 1970s,
an increasing number of philosophers,
scientists and theorists of society under-
took comparative analyses of the Eastern
and the Western philosophical traditions
in relation to science, technology, the re-
lationship between a man and nature. For
Mieczysław Bombik
72
example: Carpa’s Fritjoff points out the ap-
parent parallels between certain Eastern
philosophical directions and the physical
theories of the 20th century (Capra 1975);
Joseph Needham made the Western read-
ers aware of the incredibly high scientific,
technical and civilizational levels that had
been reached centuries ago by the East,
and presented alternative science and al-
ternative systems of value of the East. In
addition, he proposed to use the achieve-
ment of the Eastern philosophers in the
West, as the spiritual and ethical core of
contemporary science (Needham 1954;
Needham 1976, 1); the work of Huston
Smith contributed to a revitalisation of
research concerning the relationship be-
tween the degradation of the environment
and the value system of the Western social
paradigm. Smith and other authors sought
a new spiritual and religious pattern in the
various philosophical systems of the East
(Smith 1976; Smith 1972, 62-81).
Some philosophers of the social sciences
have merely settled for publication of ac-
curate critics of the Western society, not
offering any new metaphysics for their
views, and have not made any reference in
their analyses to the Eastern philosophy.
This is the position of Jaques Ellul, for ex-
ample, who has taken up the issue of tech-
nology and a technical society (Ellul 1964),
Paul Goodman, has initiated a discussion
with a question: is an existence of a hu-
mane technique possible (Goodman 1973,
225), Herbert Marcuse, with his analysis
of a one-dimensional man as a prototype
of the modern burgher (Marcuse 1964).
Also the work of Theodore Roszak highly
influenced those philosophers, who, see-
ing the shortcomings, flaws, imperfections
and errors of social behaviour nowadays,
thoroughly criticised the premises leading
to the formula of the prevailing social par-
adigm (Roszak 1969; 1972; 1975; 1978).
The second thought direction that has
contributed to deep ecology emerged in the
1960s and 1970s, was an attempt to look in
a different way (a new assessment) at the
native inhabitants of the Americas and oth-
er prehistoric people. It was not, however,
a reference to the romantic image of Indi-
ans as so-called noble savages, but an at-
tempt to evaluate objectively and critically,
through the comparative analysis, the tradi-
tional beliefs, philosophy, and social orga-
nizational forms of American Indians. This
analysis was to answer, for example, the
following questions: How different tribes
coped in different time periods with the
changes in their natural environment (e.g.
long-term drought), or with technical prog-
ress? What were the character features of
American prehistoric people? Are modern
people, who belong to the Western cultur-
al circles, able to get to know those special
character features and understand them in
a phenomenological way? According to the
experimental research, related to this issue,
carried out by Carlos Castaneda, it is very
difficult for modern people to get an accu-
rate understanding of this matter, as it as-
sumes a fundamental change in the vision
of the relation a man - nature. Moreover,
Robert Ornstein believes, that the research
of Castaneda lead to the conclusion, that
the Western educated intellectual is virtu-
ally unprepared to understand those, often
very esoteric traditions (Ornstein 1976,
105). For numerous experimental and re-
search works of C. Castaneda, see in.: (Cas-
taneda 1974a; Castaneda 1971; Castaneda
and Carlos 1974b).
The following text from the work Touch
the Earth, published in London in 1971 (in
German).: Wie der Hauch eines Bueffels,
Hamburg 1979, by T. McLuhan, and this is
a statement by Luther Standing Bear, a na-
tive Indian from the Oglala Sioux tribe,
which, according to Devall, contrasts par-
ticularly well with the view of nature of the
original inhabitants of the Americas and
the one of a civilized man, based on the
modern social paradigm: “When we hear
the word wild, we do not think of a wide
open prairie, of beautiful mountains, roll-
ing hills or streams that had sought their
way and absorbed each other. The na-
ture was wild only according to the view
of a white man and only according to his
view, this country was inhabited by wild
animals and wild men. For us, nature
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
73
was homely. The land was fertile and we
were surrounded with the blessings of the
Great Mystery. It was only when the hairy
man from the East appeared and, in a fit
of brutal rage, began to hurt us and our
loved families, we learned what the word
wild meant. When the first animals rushed
to escape, it became clear to us: the Wild
West had begun” (Devall 1997, 26).
The third source of deep ecology are the
religious and philosophical minorities of the
Western tradition. G. Sessions claims, that
in the history of the Western civilization,
it is possible, in some respects, as if with
a thin thread, to combine: the Presocratic
philosophers, Theophrastus, Francis of As-
sisi, Giordano Bruno and other neo-Platon-
ic mystics, reaching as far as Spinoza, and
then: oreau, John Muir, Santayana, Robin-
son Jeffers, Aldo Leopold, Loren Eiseley,
Gary Snyder, Paul Shepard, Arne Naess to
Edward Abey, nicknamed “The Desert Rat”.
Those minority traditions could, in Ses-
sions’ view, despite the presence of many el-
ements differentiating them, provide a solid
basis for the creation of a timeless, mutually
inter-fluent whole with a real balance merg-
ing three, often artificially separated from
each other, component parts: God - nature
- a man (Sessions 1977, 481).
G. Sessions, A. Naess and S. Hampshire
point out Spinoza as a philosopher who
has accomplished, unparalleled in histo-
ry, unification of consistent metaphysics
concerning a man and nature with mod-
ern European science (Hampshire 1977;
Hampshire 1956; Naess 1977, 45). Spino-
za’s ethics implies egalitarianism towards
all living beings. The value of science, ac-
cording to Spinoza, comes from the fact,
that it enables contemplative vision of the
pantheistic and sacred universe, and spir-
itual development and organization. Spi-
noza dissociates himself from other 17th
century philosophers - such as Bacon,
Descartes, Leibniz - who, at the time, were
constructing the foundations of techno-
logical, industrial, and social paradigm in-
tended to be the fulfilment of the Christian
commandment according to which a man
should rule over the whole nature.
As the 20th century “evangelist” of Spino-
za was considered a poet and a philosopher
Robinson Jeffers, who spent a majority of
his life on the coast of California near Big
Sur and gave Spinoza’s philosophy a dis-
tinct ecological interpretation (Sessions
1977, 481; Coffin 1971; Hotchkiss 1975).
European philosophies, who are most often
referred to by the advocates of deep ecol-
ogy, are A. N. Whitehead and M. Heideg-
ger. A growing number of philosophers and
thinkers, especially in America, interested
in ecological consciousness and modern
philosophy, consider M. Heidegger’s cri-
tique of the Western philosophy and the
Western societies (Whitehead 1925; Griffin
1972, 95; Heidegger 1954; Steiner 1978; Vy-
cinias 1961; LaChapelle 1978; Zimmerman
1977, 74; Sheehan 1981).
The fourth source of ideas and problems
of deep ecology is ecology as a scientific
discipline. For some, this is the science of
“managing a household”, taking into ac-
count all specific conditions needed for
such a project. For others, ecology is a spe-
cific perspective, a specific point of view.
This second understanding is especially im-
portant, because ecology as science can be
quickly appropriated by technological “pas-
sionates” who want to “improve”, “human-
ize”, and “govern” everything that is alive.
Two ecologists, W. Murdoch and J. Con-
nell (Murdoch and Connell 1973), warned
against this kind of “ecology” in the early
1970s. They write: “Even when, we do not
claim that ecologists are kind of engineers
of environmental protection, comparable
to physicists, giving engineers scientific
guidelines how to act, one can ask: does this
understanding [...] provide technical envi-
ronmental managers sound operating prin-
ciples? Surely, not. [...] We argue, that ecol-
ogy as such is unlikely to give what many
expect of it; it is unable to develop asystem
of rules that would be able to protect the en-
vironment” (Devall 1997, 28-29).
A similar view is shared by D. Worster
in the epilogue of his historical presen-
tation of ecological thinking in the West
(Worster 1977). However, in deep ecology,
ecologists play an important role, they can,
Mieczysław Bombik
74
among other things, conduct subversive
activities. According to P. Shepard, who
deals with human ecology, “the ideologi-
cal status of ecology is a kind of opposition
movement” because its initiators, such as
A. Leopold, challenged the most important
assumptions of the prevailing social para-
digm (Shepard 1969, 1; Evernden 1978, 16-
20). Worster, in the above-mentioned his-
tory of ecology, states clearly: “Although
every science deals primarily with what
is, the cultivators of it come across, what
it should be. The persistent environmental
crisis shows that moral visions and uto-
pias of a man become nothing more than
empty formulas, as soon as they stray too
far away from the natural processes of na-
ture. This is an important lesson, which,
the study of the effects of human activity
on the environment, has taught us. The
ecological ethics of the interrelationship
between a man and nature could be the re-
sult of the dialectical relationship between
scholars and ethicists” (Devall 1997, 29).
The last source of the inspiration for the
broadly understood deep ecology are, ac-
cording to Devall, artists who have tried
to connect the thought included in their
works to a specific place (Huth 1961, 60;
Shepard 1977, 22). Some of them, defying
certain trends of the mid - 20th century
- e.g. pop artists, artists associated with
minimal or conceptual art - demonstrate
a notable clarity and objectivity in nature
perception. Such spiritual-mystical ob-
jectivity is reflected in, for example, pho-
tographs of A. Adams (Adams 1961, 49).
For those people of art, a man, through his
artistic creation, confirms a spiritual kin-
ship with eternity and God. Those include
also M. Graver, who incorporated the con-
cepts of the Eastern philosophy (together
with Zen-Buddhism) into his work, and L.
Cray, with his images of heaven, showing
the richness of light of nature revealing it-
self to us (Graves 1974).
5. Basic theses of deep ecology
Many authors, who have challenged the
foundations of the prevailing contempo-
rary social paradigm, attempt to develop
new: metaphysics, theory of cognition,
and ethics, which are meant to be suitable
for - as one might say - appropriate eco-
logical consciousness. Some of them are
involved in the reformatory movement for
environmental renewal, although they are
aware, that a reform in the form of some
modifications in this area is not sufficient,
that a new paradigm and a new vision of
a proper economy and another good society
is needed, as an alternative to the existing
one (Sibley 1977, 251).
Aldo Leopold postulated, for example,
that new visions should not begin with ar-
rangements concerning the nature of a man
or his needs, but, we should try to think like
a mountain, that is, to understand how in-
animate nature would think in terms of envi-
ronment protection. This way of addressing
the problem is an important component of
the phenomenology of ecological conscious-
ness. The native principle of deep ecology is
the thesis on the unity of nature, not dualism:
a man - nature, adopted by Western philos-
ophy. A philosopher Henryk Skolimowski
writes: “We are currently in a phase of an ag-
itated process, in which, we must challenge
the boundaries of the analytic and empirical
understanding of the world and develop new
conceptual and philosophical approaches,
enabling us to solve numerous new social,
ethical, ecological, theoretical and ontolog-
ical problems. Everyone feels the need to
build a new and basic philosophic scaffold-
ing. It would be lamentable, if professional
philosophers were the last group of people
to notice it” (Devall 1997, 31).
Numerous authors and representatives
of deep ecology, including: W. Ophuls, E. F.
Schumacher, G. Sessions, Roszak, P. Shep-
ard, and G. Snyder or A. Naess, expressed
a demand for the formulation of a new so-
cial paradigm or new environmental ethics.
Referring to A. Leopold’s saying: think like
a mountain, R. Nash writes (Nash 1977,
2): “Do rocks have rights? When the time
comes, that this question is no longer going
to be funny to many of us, it will be a sign,
that we are at the threshold for a change
of the value system, that will enable us to
work out the resources needed to tackle
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
75
the worsening ecological crises. One would
hope it’s not too late” (Devall 1997, 31-32).
Any attempt to artificially create an eco-
logical ethics, or a new ontological attitude
of a man in nature, on various theoreti-
cal grounds is, according to Devall, likely
doomed to failure. However, he believes,
that if we stand on the ground of funda-
mental issue of the intellectual main-
stream called deep ecology, it can, at least,
provide material for further clarifying and
organizing discussions. Among the fifteen
thematic groups, which capture the ba-
sic tenets of deep ecology, there are clear
principles: metaphysical - religious, psy-
chological - espitomological, ethical, socio
-economic - political. Devall also points
out, that the issue of deep ecology covers
most of the theses of the reformist envi-
ronmental protection movement, includ-
ing them in the fundamental critique of
the prevailing social paradigm.
If we present the basic theses of deep
ecology in a postulative form and addi-
tionally consider the question of justifica-
tion of those postulates, we will determine,
more closely, what is called the methodol-
ogy of deep ecology in the title of this study.
1. A prerequisite for the construction of
the new eco-philosophy should be new,
cosmic - ecological metaphysics that
would emphasise the “I - You” identity
between a man and the rest of nature.
For deep ecology, the totality and integ-
rity of a man and the planet Earth, togeth-
er with the basic statement of biological
equality of birth - as A. Naess calls it, is
something originally essential. A man is
an integral part of nature, standing neither
above nor beside it. A man is a humble
inhabitant of the biosphere, not the con-
queror or the leader of it. According to St.
Francis of Assisi, a democracy of all God’s
creatures should rule the world, or, as Spi-
noza argues, a man is a transitional and
independent way of existence (modus) of
the whole: God - nature. A man flows to-
gether with the system of nature, rather
than is able to direct the whole nature that
exists outside of him, which he only slight-
ly touches. He does not bring nature to
perfection and it is not his job to improve
it (Needleman 1975, 76-77 and 100-102).
2. An objective attitude towards nature is
desirable.
This requirement can be found, for ex-
ample, in Spinoza’s and in F. Jeffer’s works,
the 20th-century student of Spinoza Jeffers
defines his philosophical position as inhu-
manism, to indicate that, this philosophy
sharply, even shockingly, contrasts with
the subjective anthropocentrism prevalent
in the twentieth-century Western philoso-
phy, art and culture.
3. A new psychology is needed, that would
integrate metaphysics with the spiritu-
al area of post-industrial society.
The fundamental change of a paradigm
is always a result of a psychological change
in a way of perception. The new paradigm
demands moving away from the dualism:
subject - object and a man - nature dual-
ism in favour of a consciousness involving
all the interrelations of the areas and do-
mains of the planet Earth. Psychotherapy
adjusting a society to my person (to my
Self ) is to be replaced with a new ideal of
psychotherapy, understood as a spiritual
development. New metaphysics and new
psychology lead, with logical consequence,
to a state called egalitarianism, in relation
to all living things, leading to liberation, in
the sense of the psychological and emo-
tional autonomy of individual and spiritual
development, Homo sapiens, to the right to
develop, other than a man, living species,
according to their purpose determined by
evolution (Sessions 1977, footnote 41).
4. Environmental protection should have
an objective basis, but objective sci-
ence, in terms of the new paradigm,
differs from the currently widespread,
narrow, analytical approach of the
“scientific method”.
Science, built on the wisdom of ances-
tors, should be objective and should par-
ticipate in contemporary science, without
taking on its duality: subject – object. The
main value of science is seen in its ancient
context, i.e. in a contemplative view of the
cosmos and a better understanding of our
Self and the whole Creation.
Mieczysław Bombik
76
5. Knowledge should arise from a stabili-
ty of natural processes that occur with-
out human intervention.
The massive destruction of ecosystems
caused by a man is unethical and harmful
to a man. Settlements of people should be
planned taking into account all environmen-
tal conditions and not separately from them.
6. The well-being and quality of human
life should not be measured only by the
quality of produced product.
Technology should take back its former
place - as a practical tool making everyday
life easier, and not becoming a target itself.
7. The optimal use of the Earth should
be determined, as human biosphere,
including optimal use of individual is-
lands, valleys and continents.
Drastic regulation of the birth rate of
homo sapiens is desirable, using humane
birth control programs (Schumacher 1973;
Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren 1977).
8. Dealing with the symptoms of the conflict
between a man and nature, for example
air or water pollution, can obscure ma-
jor environmental problems and thus
make them more difficult to solve.
The economy must be subordinated to
ecological and ethical criteria. It should
play a minor role in the new paradigm, not
without reason, as a small branch of ecolo-
gy (Ophuls 1977).
9. New philosophical anthropology should
be used to acquire and use the knowl-
edge of hunting and foraging, in order to
build, based on this knowledge, the rules
of life necessary for healthy and environ-
mentally properly functioning society.
Reaching a phase called an industrial
society should not be the goal of develop-
ment of all societies. Hence, consideration
of the re-settlement of the country by so-
cial groups, whose primary and standard
activities will be hunting, foraging, creat-
ing and cultivating gardens in a post-in-
dustrial society (Shepard 1973; Berg 1978)
should be taken seriously.
10. Diversity is a highly desirable value
not only in culture, but also in relation
to health and stability of ecosystems
(Dasmann 1978; Myers 1979).
The ideal of deep ecology, therefore, is
not some global trans-globalism, which
seeks to unify, at all costs, all forms and
manifestations of social life, according to
indicated, common patterns.
11. There should be a rapid switch to
“soft electricity supply” and “adequate
technology” and lifestyle that allow
for a significant reduction of energy
demand “per head” in highly industri-
alised countries. At the same time, the
supply of energy to remote regions, so-
called ‘’the third world”, should reach
an appropriate level.
Representatives of deep ecology ad-
vocate for creation of a stable state, or
a protective and caring society, as soon as
possible, based both on the principles of
ethically proper integration of a man with
nature, as well as acceptance of ecological
reality. A further goal should be to inte-
grate a highly developed, often sophisti-
cated, safe, and not ecologically objection-
able, well-adapted technology into a highly
reduced and varied, organically and pro-
ductively efficient agriculture, in which
again, as it was in the past, such activities
as hunting and foraging will not play a mi-
nor role (Dasmann 1973).
12. The aim of education should be to
stimulate the spiritual and personal
development of members of a society,
to prepare them, not only to perform
the type of work which would suit the
oligarchically organised and a con-
sumer-oriented industrial society.
The postulate shows concern for the
comprehensive spiritual and mental devel-
opment of an individual human being, and
warns, at the same time, against the produc-
tion of human - robots, one-sidedly special-
ized and devoid of general human values.
13. It is proposed to increase the amount
of free time in order to be able to engage
in art, sport, music, dance - so that fun
will, once again, become a source of
happy life and cultural achievements
(Huizinga 1956; Collier 1969).
There is a clear recognition of the value
of free time, properly used and managed,
which can serve as a complementary func-
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
77
tion of bringing up and educating a man,
and at the same time, it can be an area of
testing and fulfilling his/her personality.
14. Local autonomous and decentralized
management systems should be inde-
pendent of the central political power
and of the oligarchically organized bu-
reaucracy.
Even if bureaucratic organizational forms
function better, other organizational forms
are much more effective, in the light of the
basic principles of deep ecology, especially
for smaller communities (Pirages 1977).
15. Until a stable economy and funda-
mental social structures is developed,
significant areas of the Earth’s bio-
sphere should be isolated, and exclud-
ed from further access to industry and
dense population; those areas should
be protected by specially appointed
security units Some refer to it as the
world wildlife police (“Welt-Wild-
nis-Polizei”) (Iltis 1972, 167).
6. Political proposals to solve the
environmental crisis.
The main theorists of the environmental
movement, as well as deep ecology, believe,
claims Devall, that the environmental crisis
is not a transient phenomenon, and even
that it will worsen. Environmental activists
within the reformatory movement argue, of
course still, that all problems can be solved
within the current social paradigm. They
postulate, for example, to redraw the rele-
vant laws and establish the extent of the re-
sponsibility of private owners, to establish
more laws to discipline those who pollute
the environment, to expand the scope of
motivations that encourage getting out of
this misery (Hardin and Baden, 1977; Pass-
more 1974), which is the visible degrada-
tion of the environment. Some are trying to
extend the positive laws (established) to the
natural environment, to the extent that, the
common law will guarantee every human
being the right (with the possibility of a ju-
dicial challenge) to a habitable environment
(Sax 1971).
Other representatives of the reformist
direction argue, that small, gradual chang-
es in legislation and social institutions are
all that can be achieved in the present sit-
uation, in order to advance political tra-
ditions favourable to accept the point of
view, that the natural environment should
have a certain qualitatively defined level
(Bond 1977, 31). The demands made to
seek alternative sources of production, e.g.
electricity produced by traditional means,
in relation to obtaining it from nuclear
power plants and political and economic
programmes built on them, do not nec-
essarily have to refer to the need for the
construction of new metaphysics or theo-
ries of cognition, or change of religion In
addition, neither reformists nor the repre-
sentatives of deep ecology, call for any kind
of revolutionary change of existing so-
cial-political institutions or to bring down
the governments (Odum 1973, 516; Nash
1977; Leiss 1976).
Environmental advocates, such as Bond,
argue, that power-hungry visionaries
achieve very little: “a discussion that stops
at the theoretical level is unrealistic, risky,
and uninteresting, as a way to create effec-
tive environmental ethics” (Devall 1997,
37). Nevertheless, the reformists consid-
er themselves as realists and pragmatists,
and postulate: “the extension, diversifica-
tion, and perfection of existing socio-po-
litical traditions or positions, which - even
if they are not yet leading - are not, how-
ever, outside of the scope of our overall
experience” (Devall 1997, 37), and which
best serve protecting of the environment
(Cahn 1978).
More radical members of the reformist
movement of the early 1980s, point out,
the need for deeper social changes to ef-
fectively protect the environment. The
1979 Greenpeace Chronicle’s main arti-
cle (Greenpeace 1979) reads: “Human-
istic systems of value must be replaced
with over humanistic systems, which will
make life of all plants and animals subject
to legal, moral and ethical attention, and
in the longer term -whether one likes it
or not - coercive measures will have to be
applied to those, who act to the detriment
of the environment” (Devall 1997, 38).
Mieczysław Bombik
78
The tactics of the environmental protest
movements can be described as peaceful,
but since the 1990s, direct protest actions
have been relatively common, for exam-
ple, against whale hunting (Greenpeace),
or against the existence or construction of
nuclear power plants (various anti-nuclear
groups) (Barkan 1979, 19).
Deep ecology theorists believe, as argued
by Devall, that everything the environmen-
tal movement was able to propose was tak-
en over by deep ecology. However, it is not
enough just to amend the laws concerning
air and water pollution, to issue regula-
tions to ensure safety of the construction
and operation of nuclear power plants, or
to designate relatively small areas for na-
ture protection. This type of remedial pro-
cedure regarding the existing phenomena,
turns out to be not very effective or simply
ineffective. At best, it is only a matter of
time-limited action, by use of which the
process of pollution and contamination of
the environment is attempted to be con-
trolled, that had originated “by consent”
from the existing paradigm.
Although, deep ecology calls for funda-
mental changes of attitudes and relating to
the environment, it does not have a clear-
ly formulated political - economic agen-
da, and many of its theorists even believe,
that such a program would be ineffective
and pointless at the present time. Thus,
the representatives of this movement, are
limited to criticising the prevailing social
paradigm and to developing alternative,
very general visions of a man as a part of
nature, without specifying how to imple-
ment those visions. This is also the nature
of Gary Snyders’ book: Four Changes, writ-
ten in the 1970s, and to this day, Devall be-
lieves, is the most intelligent political pub-
lication of deep ecology (Snyder 1970, 323).
In the late 1970s, T. Roszak and R. Das-
mann attempt to accurately describe,
what specific changes of social life are to
be about. Both of them prefer existence
of small communities. Roszak proposes to
revive old households, while the search for
one’s own personality should be combined
with the development of ecological aware-
ness. Dasmann developed plans of resettle-
ment of the areas devastated by the plun-
dering economy of past generations. His
ideal is a society that is a decentralised, an-
ticipatory and caring community. P. Berg
and R. Dasmann, for example, answer the
question of how this kind of creative social
disintegration can be constructed, in rela-
tion to post-industrial society. Inspired by
the way of life of the native inhabitants of
America, who had inhabited north-east-
ern California many thousands of years
before the invasion of a white man, and
were able to come to some comfort of life
and produce a relatively rich and varied
food, those authors create ideas of future
primitive people and living in one place.
They developed a theory of recolonization,
according to which humans “lead an active
life and develop social forms of behaviour,
in order to enrich life in every place, renew
systems that serve life and in a given re-
gion, to follow socially and ecologically ap-
propriate patterns” (Devall 1997, 39).
Other representatives of deep ecology
believe, that one should join the reformist
movement, which takes on the ecological
opposition, seeking to confront, to show
specific actions, or to directly dramatise
the ecological crisis. J. Rodman (1978, 54)
understands environmental protest as:
“a defence of the integrity of the natural,
multidimensional Self in the multidimen-
sional world. The aim of the protest does
not depend on success or failure in some
linear connection of events, but it lies in
the multidimensional depth of an action
relating to a particular area, although the
guiding principles of this action are also
important in many other areas. This way,
the ecological protest contains something
of a ritual, through which one’s Self is ex-
pressed in conformity with the order of ex-
istent things” (Devall 1997, 40).
Taking into account the above formulat-
ed postulates, proposals and positions, it
can be concluded, that the new paradigm
of deep ecology is of a revolutionary type
in its metaphysics, theory of cognition, and
cosmology, but its representatives do not
seek to force (with the help of the army, or
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
79
weapon...) to change governments, nor do
they seek holistic political agendas, which
they would want to use to create a new or-
der of the world.
The contemporary deep ecology move-
ment is rather - as R. Nisbet accurately
put it - a movement of return and renewal
(Rueckzugs - und Erneuerungsbewegung),
that has continued to appear in the West-
ern society since the fall of the Roman
Empire (Nisbet 1974, 319), and which can
be characterized as follows: “It would cer-
tainly be wrong to describe this kind of
society as a politically revolutionary soci-
ety. [...] There is no doubt, however, that
this community is characterised by a kind
of radicalness, but the revolution is not an
essential feature of it. The most important
goal of revolutionary action is to over-
turn, overthrow the existing social order
and to seize power directly, with the help
of forceful solutions, that are aligned with
revolutionary strength and revolutionary
concept, while the goals and ideas [of eco-
logical community] have a peaceful char-
acter - apart from a few exceptions. They
have nothing to do with violent seizure of
power or rejection; they are carried out
without coercion, by example and vision
rather than by revolutionary rape and the
centralization of power. The voluntary es-
tablishment of autonomous and mutual-
ly free relations between people, who are
presumed to be corresponding to nature
and morality of a man, and not imposing
them by the government, army or police is
the basic goal of the social ideal in West-
ern social thinking, which I call ecological”
(Devall 1997, 41).
Deval emphasized, that there is no deep
ecological political party, there are no po-
litically revolutionary cadres. Those kinds
of structures are for the representatives of
deep ecology, a wrong way, are unaccept-
able. Direct confrontations with the re-
formist defenders of the environment or
with representatives of existing social or
political order, are also undesirable. Keep-
ing people ready for ideological defence is
not of much use. Deep ecology does not
want to be one more ideology in the world
filled in with ideologies. It wants to look
for ways leading to revealing and shaping
ecological awareness. From this aware-
ness, an ecological protest, will naturally
flow. J. Rodman took over H. Marcuse’s
concept of reception capacity (Faehigkeit
zur Rezeptivitaet) to speak, with its help,
of the search for ecological awareness and
ways of liberating nature (Rodman 1977a,
83). However, he points out: “The mere
reception capacity does not yet lead to ac-
tion. The possibility to act is conditioned
by the knowledge that on the other side of
the perceived diversity, we can see an in-
dividual soul (psyche) of the community
and of the whole cosmos as a metaphor
for the other (something else), and that the
old saying “to live according to nature” can
be well illustrated today with the maxim of
oreaus: Make your life a grain of sand in
the machinery modes which would lead it
to stop” (Devall 1997, 42).
The representatives of deep ecology see
their contribution to the development of
ecological awareness in the fact that they
want to be an example of proper behaviour
and to teach this way. This enlightening
action is a process, by which, one’s own
ecological awareness, as well as that of
others, will be preserved and will be fur-
ther developed. Some people, such as G.
Snyder, want to perform functions that are
not particularly valued in society. A. Watts
in his book: Psychotherapy East and West
comments on this attitude: When a teach-
er wants to change the ways of percep-
tion of his student, his view of the world,
the basis of his personality (Ego), the best
method is not a confrontation, attack or
admonishing. Direct confrontation usual-
ly results in attitudes of hostility, fear, clo-
sure, rejection. As an example of a model
behaviour in this case, he shows Watts Or-
pheus, a priest, who was the voice (tube) of
the gods and who was able to tame people
and animals by seductive charm of playing
his harp. His method is not that of preach-
ers or politicians, but that of artists, in its
most fundamental sense (Watts 1977, 182).
In the system of civilization values, in the
daily struggle for survival, the artist does
Mieczysław Bombik
80
not play any role. Rather, you see someone
who merely beautifies life, who amuses us,
while we do our work. As a wandering mu-
sician, clown or poet, he is welcome every-
where, because nobody takes him seriously.
This is exactly the role that, in deep ecol-
ogy, played a poet and a philosopher G.
Snyder. He leads an exemplary life, in ac-
cordance with the concept of re-settlement,
on one of the hills near Grass Valley in Cal-
ifornia. He travels all the time, recites his
poems and talks to people he meets. He
wrote about the return of a man - coyote,
a crook, a man - animal of American Indi-
ans, who constantly reappears in the his-
tory, passed on by means of oral tradition
of many Indian tribes. These allegories and
stories often have different endings, but
they always have a certain message - not
explicit, not intrusive, but deep (Snyder
1997. Critical remarks regarding the work
of Snyder: Steuding 1976).
In one of his essays, Snyder writes: “The
coyote man was interesting to me and to
some of my colleagues, because he gave
us some information about a particular
place, where he had appeared and became
almost a patron of that place. The other
side of him had to come out of something
stuck within us. A kind of fascination em-
anates from this impostor. His picture is
well-known. In some cultures he is hidden
or changed, in other, he is partially, but
substantially modified. For me personally,
I think, it was psychologically interesting,
to see that there is no strong and clear du-
alism between good and evil in this figure,
that his way of acting is kind and com-
passionate, he helps people and radiates
a certain dignity. But sometimes he acts
like the most stupid fool. The most com-
mon picture of him is, that the coyote man
constantly wanders and tries to do the best
he can, as much as he can. [...] So if the
figure of the coyote man entered modern
American lyricism, it is not only because
of his relationship with the place. It is also
created by a world-famous resource of
myths, stories and motives. This is what
lyricism has been doing for a long time: it
reached back to historically native images,
refreshed them, carefully modified them
and combined them with a specific time
and place” (Devall 1997, 43-44).
7. Organisational structures
of deep ecology
While the environmental reformist move-
ment is satisfied, says Evall, with the cooper-
ation with administrative units and institu-
tions forming - legal regulations and active
participation in existing environmental pro-
tection organizations, such as: Sierra Club
or National Audubon Society, the represen-
tatives of deep ecology do not trust this kind
of big organizations. They remember well,
how much time and resources were spent
by environmentalists during the reform of
the 1970s to take care of the organisation’s
Image, while political leaders saw in them
only the future electorate, which could lead
to a balance of group interests.
As an electorate, the reformist environ-
mentalists took a big step forward in the
early seventies with regard to changes
concerning, for example standards: desig-
nation of areas to be protected, determi-
nation of air and water quality standards,
reduction of the danger of nuclear power
plant sites, etc. They have negotiated with
the leaders of trade unions or with oil com-
panies in order to reach a compromise le-
gal formulations. In America, a number of
new organisations - such as the Environ-
mental Protection Agency - were set up,
whose main task was to monitor compli-
ance with the environmental law.
However, the forces of action and deci-
sion-making of environmentalists and the
forces of industrial oligarchical organiza-
tional structures were not, and are not,
equal. In his extensive analysis of how the
Environmental Protection Agency works,
J. Quarles writes (1976, 320): “As long as
our government is left alone, it will never
care about public interests. In terms of en-
vironmental protection, there is a natural
inequality. A private industry driven by the
prospect of profit is exploiting and polluting
our natural resources; it is using its natural
advantage to exert political pressure, in or-
der to overrule the environmental protec-
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
81
tion laws. Manipulation related to indus-
trial production explains, at least partially,
why it is only when very serious environ-
mental pollution occurs there is something
done to stop it” (Devall 1997, 45).
Although, the environmental reform
movements have not been involved in
a bruising fight for their ideals, as it has
been the case of other movements, and
although, there is a continuous process
of forming coalitions between individual
reformist groups, which extends to the es-
tablishment of rights in the area of public
interest - for example, the rights govern-
ing the maintenance of cleanliness of wa-
ter and air, the rights relating to the use of
land in Alaska - it is not possible for them
to keep pace with the larger industrial con-
cerns or to compete with them (e.g. with
the oil industry). In some of those groups,
as well as in certain governmental bodies
dealing with environmental protection,
there is a tendency to establish profession-
al teams of experts (Devall 1970).
However, the representatives of deep ecol-
ogy warn against this kind of professional-
ization of environmental protection, which,
in their opinion, may be an obstacle to the
fundamental transformation of society. R.
Dasmann calls such experts 0-8-15 - envi-
ronmental defenders, he writes: “The tradi-
tional environmental defender focuses his
/ her attention on certain types of animals
and areas that he / she is interested in or as-
sociated with. [...] He / she probably respect
the existing state and administrative man-
agement and seeks a favourable acceptance
of a certain community. He / she is only re-
luctant to ask difficult questions because he
/ she fells dependent on wealthy people and
government. He / she will certainly not ques-
tion the whole system - the political, social
and economic base of the country. As a work
colleague or a colleague from a club of those
who devastate nature the most, he / she
comes well out of it; after all, he / she does
not demand too much and, of course, is able
to see the economic necessity and require-
ments of the real world (Devall 1997, 46-47).
Due to the lack of trust in hierarchi-
cal-bureaucratic or charismatic-fascist or-
ganizations and models (e.g. People’s Tem-
ple), the representatives of deep ecology
connect with the loosely organized social
groups. Those organisations are able to ex-
pand to such an extent, that they are able to
communicate with each other, and adopt
various forms. For example, Tutorenkolleg,
referring to the spirit of medieval universi-
ties, offers modern courses of teaching (ex-
periential experience) of new philosophy of
nature (Carey 1977, 56). Others promote
their views and ideas at various types of
conferences or in magazines such as: In-
quiry, Environmental Ethics or Eco-philos-
ophy Newsletter. Among the first collection
of books growing out of the trend of deep
ecology one should include The Arrogance
of Humanism (1979) by David Ehrenfeld
and Gaia (1979) by John Lovelock.
Some social science theorists are trying
to construct a new paradigm that should
be followed by a social-scientific environ-
mental theorist, but the still vivid positiv-
ist orientation of social science in Ameri-
ca does not facilitate an understanding of
the need to awaken ecological awareness
among sociologists and philosophers of
society.6 There are also those, who consid-
er the reformist environmental movement
to be “just one of the next movements”,
that are active in the politics of group in-
terests of liberal states, as Th. Lowi calls
modern American politics (Lowi 1969).
However, deep ecology does not want to,
by no means, be only one more group of
interests that represents another ideology.
Generally, it can be said, that the task of
deep ecology is to seek liberation and re-
construction in current science. Deep ecol-
ogy has something of utopia, because it
does not seek to conquer, control, or govern
nature existing outside of a man, it does not
seeks ways of a self-fulfilment.7 In his the-
ory of post-industrial society, a sociologist
6 On the criticism of positivist science see: (Niel-
sen 1979, 27; Naess. 1997, 64). On creating the envi-
ronmental paradigm in sociology see: (Dunlap 1979,
57-85).
7 It is about a self-fulfilment, according to Spinoza’s
point of view, as opposed to a self-sufficiency as a so-
cial objective. (Wienpahl 1979; Naess. 1973a, 53-57).
Mieczysław Bombik
82
D. Bell, describes this utopia as a certain
vision of those prophets and intellectuals,
who are at the forefront on their way to
a new era: “This is how new utopias de-
velop, out of necessity, in a post-industri-
al society, determined both by technology
and a spirit. [...] Utopia of humanity is the
constant search for harmonious and per-
fect mutual relations. In their wisdom, the
Ancients, considered this aspiration to be
unrealistic, but, a surely useful ideal [...] it
could be an ideal measure of evaluation of
people and reality.[...] Nowadays, attempts
are being made to make this ideal a reality.
This way, the ideal was devalued and the
idea of utopia became unclear. Perhaps, it
would not be a nonsense to go back to the
classic concepts”(Devall 1997, 49).
To complete his study, B. Devall strong-
ly emphasizes, that deep ecology triggers
ecological awareness. The mentioned and
quoted authors make radical criticisms of
contemporary society and the fundamental
values accepted by it. At least some of them
propose deep, alternative changes of utopi-
an nature. The development and deepening
of ecological consciousness is a progressive
process, therefore, all kinds of actions should
be accompanied by this consciousness,
which is the primary goal of the movement,
opposed to ecological forms of protest. From
a contemporary perspective, it must be said,
that it is not often easy to articulate this envi-
ronmental consciousness clearly and explicit-
ly. Besides, it is not only about the theoretic
and intellectual description of it, but above
all, about its pragmatic dimension marked
in the conviction: awareness is knowledge.
According to the theorists of deep ecology, an
ecological protest is a natural consequence of
developing ecological awareness.
Bibliography
Adams, Ansel. 1961. “The Artist and the Ideals
of Wilderness.” In Wilderness, America’s Liv-
ing Heritage, edited by David Brower, 49-59.
San Francisco: Sierra Club.
Barkan, Steven E. 1979. “Strategic, Tactical
and Organizational Dilemmas of the Protest
Movement Against Nuclear Power.” Social
Problems 27: 19-37.
Berg, Peter. 1978. Reinhabiting a Separate
Country. San Francisco: Planet Drum Foun-
dation.
Birnbacher, Dieter. 1997. „Vorbemerkung des
Herausgebers.” In Oekophilosophie, Hrsg.
Dieter Birnbacher, 7-15. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Bond, Richard. 1977. “Salvationists, Utilitari-
ans and Environmental Justice.” Alternatives
6(3): 31-44.
Cahn, Robert. 1978. Footprints on the Planet.
New York: Universe Books.
Capra, Fritjof. 1975. The Tao of Physics. Berke-
ley: Shambhala Publications.
Carey, Graham, and Peter Abbs. 1977. “Pro-
posal for a New Ecological College.” Ecologist
7: 56-60.
Castaneda, Carlos. 1971. A Separate Reality.
New York: Cliffs Notes.
Castaneda, Carlos. 1974a. The Teachings of
Don Juan. New York: Cliffs Notes.
Castaneda, Carlos. 1974b. Tales of Power. New
York: Cliffs Notes.
Coffin, Arthur B. 1971. Robinson Jeffers: Poet
of Inhumanism. Madison: University of Wis-
consin Press.
Cole, Hugh S. D. 1973. Models of Doom: A Cri-
tique of the Limits to Growth. New York: Uni-
verse Books.
Collier, John. 1969. “The Fullness of Life
Through Leisure.” In The Subversive Science.
Essays Toward an Ecology of Man, edited by
Paul Shephard, and Daniel McKinley, 416-
436. Boston: Bostons Houghton Mifflin.
Commoner, Barry. 1971. The Closing Circle.
New York: Bantam Books.
Daly, Herman. 1973. Toward a Steady State
Economy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Dasmann, Raymond. 1973. Ecological Princi-
ples for Economic Development. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Dasmann, Raymond. 1978. A Different Kind of
Country. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Devall, Bill. 1997. „Die tiefenoekologische Be-
wegung.“ In Oekophilosophie, Hrsg. Birnba-
cher, 17-59. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Devall, William. 1970. The Governing of a Vol-
untary Organization: Oligarchy and Democ-
racy in the Sierra Club. Eugene: University of
Oregon Press.
Dunlap Riley E., and William R. Catton Jr. 1979.
“Environmental Sociology: a Framework for
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
83
Analysis.” In Progress in Resource Manage-
ment and Environmental Planning, edited
by Timothy O’Riordan, and R. Kerry Turner,
57-85. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ehrlich, Paul R. 1968. The Population Bomb.
New York: Ballantine Books.
Ehrlich, Paul R., Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P.
Holdren. 1977. Ecoscience. San Francisco: W.
H. Freeman.
Ellul, Jacques. 1964. The Technological Society.
New York: Vintage Books.
Evernden, Neil. 1978. “Beyond Ecology.” North
American Review 263(4): 16-20.
Ferkiss, Victor C. 1974. The Future of Techno-
logical Civilization. New York.
Goodman, Paul. 1973. “Can Technology Be
Humane?” In Western Man and Environ-
mental Ethics, edited by Ian Barbour, 220-
231. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Graves, Morris. 1974. The Drawings of Morris
Graves. New York: New York Graphic Society.
Greenpeace. 1979. “Editorial.” Greenpeace
Chronicles 3.
Griffin, David. 1972. “Whitehead’s Contribu-
tion to the Theology of Nature.” The Bucknell
Review 20: 95.
Hampshire, Stuart. 1956. Spinoza. Harmond-
sworth: Faber.
Hampshire, Stuart. 1977. Two theories of Mo-
rality. Oxford: British Academy.
Hardin, Garrett, and John Baden. 1977. Man-
aging the Commons. San Francisco: Freeman.
Hays, Samuel P. 1959. Conservation and the
Gospel of Efficiency. Cambridge (Mass.):
Harvard University Press.
Heidegger, Martin. 1954. „Die Frage nach der
Technik.“ In Vortraege und Aufsaetze, Hrsg.
Martin Heidegger, 13-44. Pfullingen: Neske.
Hotchkiss, Bill. 1975. Jeffers: The Siviastic Vi-
sion. Auham: Blue Oak Press.
Huizinga, Johan. 1956. Homo Ludens, Vom Ur-
sprung der Kultur im Spiel. Reinbek: Rowohlt
Taschenbuch Verlag.
Huth, Hans. 1961. “Wilderness of Art.” In Wilder-
ness, America’s Living Heritage, edited by Da-
vid Brower, 55-69. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
Iltis, Hugh H. 1972. “Wilderness, can Man do
without it?” In Recycle this Book: Ecology, So-
ciety and Man, edited by J. David Allan, and
Arthur J. Hanson, 160-172. San Francisco:
Wadsworth Pub.
LaChapelle, Dolores. 1978. Earth Wisdom. Los
Angeles: Guild of Tutors Press.
Lasch, Christopher. 1979. The Culture of Nar-
cissism: American Life in an Age of Diminish-
ing Expectations. New York: W. W. Norton.
Leiss, William. 1976. The Limits to Satisfaction.
An Essay on the Problem of Needs and Com-
modities. Toronto-Buffalo: University of To-
ronto Press.
Lovins, Amory B., and John H. Price. 1975.
Non-nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethi-
cal Energy Strategy. Cambridge (Mass): Ball-
inger Publishing Company.
Lowi, Theodore. 1969. The End of Liberalism.
New York: W. W. Norton.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-dimensional
Man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Masterman, Margaret. 1970. “The Nature of
a Paradigm.” In Criticism and the Growth of
Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos, and Alan
Musgrave, 63-64. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McHarg, Ian L. 1971. Design with Nature. New
York: Garden City.
Meadows, Denis L. 1977. Alternatives to
Growth. Cambridge (Mass.): Ballinger.
Meadows, Donatella H., and Denis L. Mead-
ows. 1974. The Limits to Growth. New York:
Potomac Associates.
Mesarovic, Mihajlo D., and Eduard Pestel.
1974. Mankind at the Turning Point: Second
Report of the Club of Rome. London: Dutton.
Murdoch, William, and Joseph Connell. 1973.
“All About Ecology.” In Western Man and
Environmental Ethics, edited by Ian Barbour,
156-170. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Myers, Norman. 1979. The sinking Ark: A new
look at the Problems of Disappearing Species.
New York: Pergamon.
Naess, Arne. 1973a. “The Place of Joy in a World
of Fact.” North American Review 258(2): 53-57.
Naess, Arne. 1973b. “The Shallow and the
Deep. Long-range Ecology Movement.” In-
quiry 16(1-4): 95-100.
Naess, Arne. 1977. “Spinoza and Ecology.”
Philosophia 7(1): 45-54.
Naess, Arne. 1997. “Notes on the Methodology
of Normatives Systems.” Methodology & Sci-
ence 10: 64-79.
Nash, Hugh. 1977. Progress as if Survival Mat-
tered. San Francisco: Friends of the Earth.
Mieczysław Bombik
84
Nash, Roderick F. 1973. Wilderness and the
American Mind. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Nash, Roderick F. 1977. “Do Rocks Have
Rights?” Center Magazine 10: 2-12.
National Resources Defense Council. 1977.
Land Use Controls in the United States:
A Handbook of Legal Rights of Citizens.
Washington: Dial Press.
Needham, Joseph. 1954. Science and Civiliza-
tion in China. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Needham, Joseph. 1976. “History and Human
Values: A Chinese Perspective for World Sci-
ence and Technology.” Centennial Review 20:
1-35.
Needleman, Jacob. 1975. A Sense of the Cos-
mos. New York: Garden City.
Nielsen, Kai. 1979. “Reflections on Habermas.”
National Forum 69: 27-31.
Nisbet, Robert. 1974. The Social Philosophers:
Community and Conflict in Western Thought.
London: Heinemann Educ.
Odum, Eugene. 1973. Fundamentals of Ecolo-
gy. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.
Ophuls, William. 1977. Ecology and the Politics
of Scarcity. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Ornstein, Robert. 1976. The Mind Field. New
York: Grossman Publishers.
Passmore, John. 1974. Man’s Responsibility for
Nature. London: Duckworth.
Pinchot, Gifford. 1947. Breaking New Ground.
New York: Harcourt.
Pirages, Dennis C., and Paul R. Ehrlich. 1974.
Ark II: Social Response to Environmental Im-
peratives. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Pirages, Dennis. 1977. The Sustainable Society.
New York: Praeger.
Quarles, John. 1976. Cleaning up America.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer. 1976. Ani-
mal Rights and Human Obligation. Engle-
wood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Report. 1972. Population and the American
Future: Report of the Commission on Popula-
tion Growth and the American Future. 1972.
Washington: U.S. Government.
Ridgeway, James. 1970. The Politics of Ecology.
New York: Dutton.
Roddewig, Richard. 1978. Green Bans. The
Birth of Australian Environmental Politics.
Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.
Rodman, John. 1977a. “The Liberation of Na-
ture?” Inquiry 20: 83-131.
Rodman, John. 1977b. Four Forms of Ecological
Consciousness: Beyond Economics, Resource
Conservation. Claremont: Pitzer College.
Rodman, John. 1978. “Theory and Practice in
the Environmental Movement: Notes To-
wards an Ecology of Experience.” In The
Search for Absolute Values in a Changing
World: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, No-
vember 25-27, 1977, San Francisco, 48-59.
New York: International Cultural Founda-
tion Press.
Roszak, Theodore. 1969. The Making of
a Counter-culture. New York: Garden City.
Roszak, Theodore. 1972. Where the Wasteland
Ends: Politics and Transcendence in Postin-
dustrial Society. New York: Garden City.
Roszak, Theodore. 1975. Unfinished Animal:
The Aquarian Frontier and the Evolution of
Consciousness. New York: Garden City.
Roszak, Theodore. 1978. Person / Planet. New
York: Garden City.
Sax, Joseph L. 1971. Defending the Environ-
ment: A Strategy for Citizen Action. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sax, Joseph L. 1976. “America‘s National Parks:
Their Principles, Purposes and Their Pros-
pects.” Natural History 85: 57-87.
Schumacher, Ernst F. 1973. Small is Beautiful.
Economics as if People Mattered. New York:
Blond & Briggs.
Sessions, George. 1977. “Spinoza and Jeffers on
Man in Nature.” Inquiry 20(1-4): 481-528.
Sheehan, Thomas. 1981. Heidegger: The Man
and the Thinker. Chicago: Precedent.
Shepard, Paul. 1969. “Introduction: Man and
Ecology.” In The Subversive Science. Essays
Toward an Ecology of Man, edited by Paul
Shephard, and Daniel McKinley. Boston:
Bostons Houghton Mifflin.
Shepard, Paul. 1973. The Tender Carnivore and
the Sacred Game. New York: Scribner.
Shepard, Paul. 1977. “A Sense of Place.” North
American Review 262: 22.
Sibley, Mulford Q. 1977. Nature and Civiliza-
tion: Some Implications for Politics. Itasca: F.
E. Peacock Publishers.
Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers.
The bases and methodology of deep ecology
85
Smith, Harper. 1976. Forgotten Truth. The Pri-
mordial Tradition. New York: Harper & Row.
Smith, Houston. 1972. “Tao Now: An Ecologi-
cal Testament.” In Earth Might be Fair, edit-
ed by Ian Barbour, 62-81. Englewood-Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Snyder, Gary. 1970. “Four Changes.” In The En-
vironmental Handbook, edited by Garret de
Bell, 320-332. New York: Ballantine Books.
Snyder, Gary. 1997. The Old Ways. San Francis-
co: City Lights Publishers.
Steiner, George. 1978. Martin Heidegger.
Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks.
Steuding, Bob. 1976. Gary Snyder. Boston:
Twayne Publishers.
Suzuki, Daisetz T. 1961. Essays in Zen Bud-
dhism. London: Grove Press.
Toulmin, Stephen. 1961. Foresight and Under-
standing. London: Hutchinson.
Train, Russell E. 1978. “The Environment To-
day.” Science 201: 320-324.
Vycinias, Vincent. 1961. Earth and Gods: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Martin
Heidegger. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Watts, Alan. 1955. The Spirit of Zen: A Way of
Life, Work and Art in the Far East. London:
John Murray.
Watts, Alan. 1970. Nature, Man and Women.
New York: Vintage Books.
Watts, Alan. 1975. Psychotherapy East and
West. New York: Vintage Books.
Watts, Alan. 1977. The Essence of Alan Watts.
Milbrae (CA): Celestial Arts.
Weisberg, Barry. 1971. Beyond Repair: The
Ecology of Capitalism. Boston: Beacon Press.
White, Lynn. 1967. “The Historical Roots of
Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155: 1203-1207.
Whitehead, Alfred N. 1925. Science and the
Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Wienpahl, Paul. 1979. The Radical Spinoza.
New York: New York University Press.
Worster, Donald. 1977. Nature’s Economy. San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Zimmerman, Michael E. 1977. “Beyond Hu-
manism: Heidegger’s Understanding of
Technology.” Listening 12: 74-83.