Envisioning Ecotopia: The U.S. Green Movement and the Politics of Radical Social Change

by Kenn Kassman

How do various worldviews, praxis orientations, and preferred future visions differ between the three major subcultures within the American Green Movement? Drawing on his experience as an activist, Kenn Kassman explains the distinctions between the three elements, which he terms Neo-Primitivism , Mystical Deep Ecology , and Social Ecology What emerges is a perceptive analysis of one of the most important of North America's new social the Greens. Kassman examines and contradistinguishes the approach of each element in the movement to the general Green agenda―ecological harmony, social justice, societal participation, and nonviolence―and goes on to explore potential weaknesses in the utopias they seek. The study concludes with the author's considered view of the likely progress and development of the three components in the future. He asks and suggests an answer to the what, ultimately, will be regarded as the political and social significance of the Green movement? Kassman's work will be of interest to scholars, students, and activists in politics and environmental studies.

Genres: Politics

160 pages, Hardcover

First published October 28, 1997

Reviews

[Matthew · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book could've been so much better. It promised a lot - analyzing the dominant subcultures and praxes within the American Green movement, how they relate to the four pillars/ten key values, how they might achieve loose Green unity and the Green potential to transform American politics - but ends up failing to demonstrate much of anything.

I can't decide if the faults of Kassman's analysis are due mainly to sloppy scholarship (misspells names, confuses Charles Reich and Robert Reich in citations, conflates deep ecology with ecofeminism, etc), shallow thinking (truncated cultural history of roots of Green thought, arbitrary selection of these three subcultures to be the dominant currents within the Green movement, etc) or overt bias (I'm sympathetic to Social Ecology, but his representation of other currents aren't very flattering - I've never heard any deep ecologist refer to their philosophy as "Mystical Deep Ecology", so Kassman shouldn't brand it as such either).

How can you discuss Green thought in America with scant mention of E.F. Schumacher, no mention of the environmental movement of the 70s (aside from the fact that it was a social movement among others), the consumer movement, Mother Earth News/back-to-the-land-ers, etc? I understand he is focused on ideologies rather than movements, but these currents don't fit well within the three ideologies represented; they also, along with agrarians, represent more Greens than Social Ecology or Deep Ecology. That's a major problem when trying to work a useful analysis into an organizing strategy.

As if the narrow choice of ideologies wasn't bad enough, the representations of these ideologies are flawed. For those unfamiliar with deep ecology, it has nothing to do with goddesses or paganism, but with Spinoza, ecological monism, and the radical critique of anthropocentrism in science. The term was coined by Arne Naess, though his name appears only twice - once in the section on Neo-Primitivism and once quoted as criticizing the conflation of deep ecology with mysticism - ironically, the very conflation Kassman had spent the previous ninety-eight pages developing. So, was Kassman's criticism an elaborate straw man or a critique of a popular misconception of deep ecology (without giving us the real article to compare)? He explicitly refers to deep ecologists as advocating a suppression of reason and critical thinking (uncited, of course), favoring intuition instead. He "evaluates" deep ecology's political thought without mentioning Naess' 8-point platform, let alone the debate over what the points mean. He places the origins of deep ecology with the "religious-metaphysical worldview" itself (as ahistorical an origin as "human nature"), while Naess lists a pretty clear ideological genealogy. It's not like this stuff is hidden or marginal, but Kassman doesn't mention it at all.

And let me mention again, I lean in the direction of Social Ecology myself, so I am a sympathetic reader, but such blatant misrepresentation of deep ecology has compelled me to dig it out and study it again. Far from being irrational, exclusive, private and faith based, deep ecology calls for a radical re-evaluation of all human knowledge. It seems likely that its critique will be absorbed by Social Ecologists, it will shape mainstream science and will lose its distinct identity.

Lastly, it's possible that I don't understand the technique of "incasting", but it looks like a storytelling heuristic to develop directions to study the implications of positions. Kassman's use seem like superficial stereotyped stories in place of analysis. Yes, it paints a picture in the mind and in a useful shorthand, but unless you know what the hell you're talking about, the picture in mind is worse than useless.

In short, the Kassman's premise and promise are the most valuable part of this book. Read it for questions rather than answers.