Environmentalism and Political Theory.

According to Robyn Eckersley, ecocentrists view the world as a dynamic, interrelated web of relations between all organisms - animate and inanimate, human and nonhuman - and reject what they call the anthropocentric focus on humankind that favors humans because of their special capabilities. The author's intent in Environmentalism and Political Theory is "to explain and defend the ecophilosophical foundations of ecocentrism...(and) to examine a range of specific Green political theories and, through a dialogue with these theories, find out how a general ecocentric perspective might be fleshed out in a political and economic direction" (p. 3).

The strength of this book is its scholarly treatment of the political theories of the environmental movement and their relationship to ecocentrism. The author essentially finds ecofeminism the most ecocentric of the current theories. Thus, if the reader is already a camp follower, he or she undoubtedly will find this book insightful and useful since it aids in the separation of the truly ecocentric theories from those which are tainted by anthropocentrism, the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

For the rest of us, who are probably too numerous in Eckersley's view, the book's weakness is the author's unexplained zeal for ecocentrism and scorn for any theory in which she finds a trace of anthropocentrism. Eckersley is a true believer who simply assumes the necessity of ecocentrism for solving our current environmental crisis. As a result, she provides, at best, minimal philosophic, economic, and social explanations for the superiority of the ecocentric orientation over other perspectives. We are unconvinced. Ecocentrism is only one environmental ideology in the galaxy, and Eckersley has not demonstrated its preeminence. She ignores too many essential issues.

The rise of Green parties and the development of environmental political theories signal a transformation in Western values and beliefs about humanity's relation to the physical environment - from a relationship of extraction to one of renewal, from domination to accommodation, from detachment to union. In other words, a social movement is underway, one with growing credence and support. Yet Eckersley does not treat Green politics as a social movement and thus, does not deal with issues of sustainability. Rather, in assuming the correctness of ecocentrism, she ignores problems such as resource mobilization, the free-rider, and the roles of leaders and ideology in maintaining movements.

Nor does Eckersley address possessive individualism and private property which many political theorists believe are the main barriers to achieving an ecologically sound way of life. In addition, many believe that a relationship between human beings and nature that is not destructive to nature must be achieved by the development of existing, although recessed, sentiments of communitarianism. These concepts were scarcely mentioned in the book. We are left uncertain as to how democracy would allow for an ecocentric policy. We are not convinced by her treatment of social justice issues with the insertion of a few lines about Rawls. We are not persuaded by her assertion that the lower social classes will not take the brunt of the redistributive policies which will follow from solutions to the environmental crisis.

Also, it would have been useful if the author had related the roots of ecocentrism to traditional political theories rather than ignore their connection to the past. Every social movement began with a transformation and, thus, has an intellectual heritage. Transformation occurs when old ideas are seen in new ways or previously unimportant facets of thought are brought forward, when established paradigms give way to new ones (Kuhn). Of theoretical interest, then, would be knowing what bits and pieces environmental theorists have taken from their intellectual forebears to build ecocentric theories.

In summary, those seeking a non-dialectical treatment of ecocentrism should buy this book while those requiring a more critical treatise may want to read it at the library and save a tree.

Raymond L. Goldsteen
University of Oklahoma

Karen Goldsteen
University of Oklahoma