Overall, I find that Bookchin’s social ecology is helpful in framing the range of ethical issues involved in moving toward environmental and social justice. Unlike Deep Ecology or many of the other non-anthropocentric viewpoints we’ve examined, social ecology finally addresses (or at least in a more direct way) the ethical connection between the dominated and dominant (both human and nonhuman). It also does not seem like an ethical theory only practical for those of higher social status. More importantly, I find that social ecology steps back from the individual moral question and instead attempts to make sense of why we might think as we do. First understanding this question seems important when thinking about why certain solutions to moral problems are immediately rejected while others seem to fit well with a large number of people.
In this way, Bookchin’s claim that ideology intimately shapes how people see the world is relevant to addressing environmental issues. It seems impossible for humans to separate themselves from the social system that so subtly produces and then reinforces these values with their roots in domination. I also think his use of hierarchy “as a social condition” (DJ 235) is fascinating and also important as it directly relates to the rights people assume they have and the ethical questions they choose to ask in the first place. Why avoid polluting water tables when you know you can purchase a Brita water pitcher from the Target on the corner? Here the hierarchy is evident in what seems like a simple choice. Morever, to me it makes sense that access in the social order (as it follows from the social hierarchy) is such a dominant force in ethical decision-making.
Bookchin’s assessment that “societies characterized by a high degree of hierarchy are also likely to abuse and damage their environment” (DJ 635) is also reasonable, but I think it also implies that there must be constant reinforcement of that social order to continue this domination. In general, because of the individualized undertones of the U.S. social system, it seems almost inevitable that people will use any reference point, including the natural world, to create some sort of higher, or relatively higher social standing. Like DeJardins points out, “success,” usually measured in income level, drives this sort of inequality. To me, it seems obvious that if human relationships are based on this same sort of domination/success model, then our relationship with the natural world should follow those same guidelines. And it appears as though, for the most part, it has. And where it has not, another group seems to take the place of nature, as in the case study we looked at featuring Larry Summers. When we argue to protect our own environment, the hierarchy isn’t removed, but only seems to shift to some other group, allowing the dominant body to remain in place. Frightening.
