Deep Socialism? An interview with Arne Naess

8/12/2019 Deep Socialism? An interview with Arne Naess

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [Nottingham Trent University]On: 31 January 2014, At: 03:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Capitalism Nature SocialismPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcns20

Deep socialism? An interview with Arne NaessAndrew Light

a

aAssistant Professor of Philosophy , The University of Montana

Published online: 25 Feb 2009.

To cite this article:Andrew Light (1997) Deep socialism? An interview with Arne Naess , Capitalism Nature Socialism, 8:1,69-85, DOI: 10.1080/10455759709358723

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455759709358723

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in tpublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be

ndependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevcaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10455759709358723http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455759709358723http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10455759709358723http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcns20


2/18

NT RV W

Deep Socialism?An Interview with Arne NaessBy Andrew Light

This interview with famed Norw egian philosopher Arn e Naess tookplace in Edmo nton, Alberta on March 5, 1996. Naess, the founder ofdeep ecology, had been invited to the University of Alberta as adistinguished visitor, primarily under a grant secured by graduatestudents in the Department of Physical Education and Sports Studies.While I had known Naess for a while, I had not previously had thechance to sit down with him for a long chat over an extended period oftime. Rarely does anyone have the opportunity for such sustainedconversations with Naess these days. At 85, he is the best know nenvironmen tal philosopher in the world now more in demand forpublic appearances than ever before. Of late, however, Naess is rarelycalled on to debate at length his own philosophical positions in the

field. In some sense this is a sign of respect for someon e who se thoughthas becom e the foundation for one of the largest worldw ide ecologicalmovements today. For his work, it is thought, the important debates areat the level of practice, not theory.But it is probab ly a mistake to treat Naess with kid gloves. (Thoughin a boxing exhibition on campus during his visit he demonstrated quiteliterally that kid gloves are not requ ired around him ) Th e fact that hehas held the position of "eminence grise" of the environmental

Iam indeb ted to Arne and Kit-Fai Naess for m aking this interview possibleand for working with me on editing the final draft. The Center for PoliticalEcology generously supported the project to see it through to its conclusion.Peggy Brackett w as of invaluable service in helping with the preparation of theoriginal transcript of the interview.

CN S 8( 1), March, 1997 69


3/18

movement for so long is no reason to stop careful evaluation of hiswork. Even though I don't count myself as a deep ecologist, I find muchof his recent work of great impo rtance for ongoing debates inenvironmental philosophy.Given the interests of CN S, I tried to direct the conversationtoward political matters. T hanks largely to the critiques of socialecologists, it is often thought that deep ecologists have no interest inmore pedestrian economic and social questions. Worse still, some inthe former movem ent characterize deep ecologists as exclusivelymisanthropic, spiritualist, and anti-humanist. It is clear, however, thatfor Naess at least, this is not the case. He is well aware of the politicalissues involved in deep ecology, and more generally of the prospects of

forming a broader base for a radical political ecology. These viewsshape not only his approach to the intramural debates of environmentaltheorists, but also his own personal political affiliations as well.

1. Theory and PracticeAndrew Light: It 's now been over 20 years since you published "TheShallow and the Deep." 1 I think most people probably regard that asyour ground breaking article. It really launches deep ecology as acoherent position, I guess, in environmental philosophy, and somepeople w ould say that since this article came out only in 1973, you 'vebeen incredibly successful in creating a philosophical argument that hasreached a very wide audience, compared to the reception of manyphilosophical arguments. Are you satisfied with how this message hasbeen received, given the original motivations you had for writing thatpaper, and the development of the work you've done since? Are youhappy w ith how your work has become disseminated?Arne Naess: I think I'm happy with that. I don't feel I should complainabout any of that. On the other hand, in that summary speech in 1973 atthe World Congress on Philosophy, there is much too much of Naess in

1Arn e Naess, 'T he Shallow and the Deep: Long-Range Ecology Movements,"Inquiry 16, 1973 . Widely regarded as one of the first major papers inenvironmental ethics, this piece was originally presented as a talk at the XVWorld Congress on Philosophy in Varna, Bulgaria that same year. Another"classic" of environmental philosophy was also presented at the sameconference by the late Richard Sylvan (then Routley), "Is There a Need for aNew, an Environmental Ethic?" This paper is republished in MichaelZimmerman, et. al, eds., nvironmental Philosophy(Englewood Cliffs, N .J.:Prentice Hall, 1993).

7


4/18

it. It's too specialized, for instance, in the appeal to the nature of egossuch as our own, defined relationally in a human sense theterminology there is such that it would be natural to say that deepecology is something very very special, something very radical,whereas later I would say this [the philosophy of deep ecology] is on eway of articulating something very important within the deep ecologymovement. Others in the movement find it too specialized, too "farout," so to say. So I try now more to take a role as a supporter of thedeep ecology movement. The basic term for me in the last ten or 15years has been to be "supportive" of the deep ecology movement. Andthat support takes a somewhat different form and different terminologythan my earlier contributions like "The Shallow and the Deep."A.L, So, what is really the relationship between thephilosophy of deepecology and the deep ecology movement? I think it 's commonplacenow in the literature, for example, if you read Michael Zimmerman'sbook, Contesting Earth's Future, to make a strong distinction betweendeep ecology as an articulation of a philosophical view and the deepecology movement (which actually is a distinction y ou 've been makinga lot longer).2 So what's the relationship between the two? I was goingto ask you if you consider yourself the founder of the deep ecologymovement as well as deep ecology as a form of environmentalphilosophy, but I take it that you would say no, right?A.N. When you are a supporter of the deep ecology movement, youmove up and down, back and forth between fairly abstract and generalsentences. For some decisions, and, in some particular situations,philosophy is inadequate. We cannot underestimate the [role of]empirical practice in the deep ecology movement. I dislike deepecology reduced only to philosophy in a narrow sense of philosophy,because inspiration comes from direct actions where hundreds ofpeople are together protecting part of nature. Those people, what theysay, is for me important, and also what they do. Partly in the sense ofthe Frankfurt School, I do not recognize the possibility of political orsocial theory which does not say something about practice.A.L. Do you think the Frankfurt School succeeded in that respect?A.N. Temporarily. You must be able to say my theory is so-and-so, andwhen asked, well, "what is the implication for this moment today,Friday, this moment, what is the implication for us?" you can't answerby linking up more abstract general statements with this particular2Michae l Z immerman , Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology andPostmodernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

7


5/18

situation. Deep ecology, for example, couldn't be only abstract and bean active social movement. If you represent a social movement youhave to connect theory and practice.A.L . Okay, but take for example the point toward the end of Ad orno'slife where he called the police to arrest some students who he wasconvinced were trying to occupy the Institute for Social Research.There is a wonderful exchange of letters between Marcuse and Adornowhere Marcuse criticizes Adorno by saying essentially, "look wehelped create this, we influenced these students now you can'thandle the results?"3 I guess in some sense people might wonder thesame thing about you. Have you always been entirely happy with theway that the practices and the statements of the deep ecologymovement have reflected on the philosophy of deep ecology?A.N. I am very satisfied because from the very first moment I havemixed the deep ecology movement with Gandhian forms of resistanceand even the most committed activists, like Sigmund Kval0y, got thatpoint completely.4 The activis ts of the movement grasp thesestatements, acting democratically and nonviolently. Frankfurt Schoolactivism had a different, more ag gressive character barricades and soon. I deplore Adorno and others who said, "no no no that is going toofar." That is not going too far. We have to have conflict on that level ofintensity at least. It is so much different from war and class hatred, andthese things.A.L. What about the way the deep ecology-social ecology debate gotoff the ground? In that literature, it wasn't a question of tactics, non-violent or otherwise that was problematic for the social ecologists, butmore a question of the statements concerning population and otherissues by Miss. Anthropoy, Dave Foreman, Edward Abbey, and someof those other deep ecology activists.A.N. Bookchin.A.L. Yes, well, Bookchin was attacking the statements of these peoplewho were calling themselves deep ecologists, who were saying some3See Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, andPolitical Significance (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1994), pp. 633-634.4Kvaly, one of Naess's former students, has been described as the mostMarxist of the Norwegian philosopher-activists. He is largely credited withhaving drawn Naess into environmental issues. For an overview of his workand some examples of his writings, see P. Reed and D. Rothenberg, eds.,Wisdom in the Open Air: The Norwegian Roots of Deep Ecology (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1993), pp. 113-154.

72


6/18

very extreme things about closing the U.S. border, and how AIDS orother plagues would be of benefit because they would decreasepopulation and....A.N. But these critics could really only refer to one single man, DaveForeman. Foreman had a rather far rightist background when he wasyoung; he started out as a rightist in many ways and gradually driftedaway from that. But certainly I think that in his personal behavior, inhis youth, he had a conception of the deep ecology movement verydifferent from the sense that I understand it. He has been very hesitantin saying that he has different opinions now. Most people ar e hesitantabout saying, "I regret certain statements" or "that's not what I reallymeant." He says that, but not in his publications. That makes him not inpractice a supporter of the deep ecology movement. Foreman did notwrite anything as bad as what you mention about AIDS and otherplagues. He seemed really to mean something like, to save Ethiopianecosystems is more important than to try to save Ethiopian babies fromdying of hunger. This point, expressed even cruder, made headlines allover the world. In Europe they believed that Foreman was a deepecology theorist, a claim I believe he never, even indirectly, made. Sodeep ecology was conceived as a movement which does not care abouthum ans. But to take more care about non-humans does not necessarilyimply to take less care of humans. Extreme suffering of humans mustbe fought. Unfortunately, Europeans were reminded of Hitler whenthey read more or less extreme renderings of what Foreman hadwritten.

2.W hich Deep Ecology?A.L.This is actually good to get into, because I wanted to ask you alsoabout how there is a proliferation of deep ecologies: there are so manydifferent versions, so many different practices. In thinking just aboutthe theories, it 's hard, sometimes very hard, to pin down exactly whatdeep ecology is as a philosophical position. This is in part becauseyou've got a different kind of perception of it in the U.S. with BillDevall and George Sessions, and different perceptions of it in Australiawith Warwick Fox, and I guess each country sort of shaped its ownversion of the philosophy ....A.N. I t 's a great overlapping....A.L. But are you happy with this diversity? Are you satisfied with it,because ....A.N. Yes, because it means that really, people are moved by thesewritings , and they of course w ill react in different w ays, running things

73


7/18

in somewhat different directions. That is so good; it means here issomething going on which is really social and political and it'simportan t. So I think the versions are different and that is good, and weshould then disagree and agree, disagree and agree for the next years asmuch as even now. But there will still be something we have incommon. Whatwe have in com mon will have to be just a little differentevery five ye ars, let us say, even though som ething is there all the time.A.L . But, do you sometimes worry about F m not sure how to putthis do you worry that the different formulations are so different?Certainly there's a common core, but, for instance, there can be verydifferent way s of articulating a spiritual reconstruction of deep ecolog y,or a more philosophical, for example, "Spinozistic" version. Do youfeel intellectually responsible for all these different versions since theyare all derivations of your system? I'm sure you don't agree with all ofthese reconstructions of the theory.A.N. Of course not, but if you think of what I wrote, think of the maindeep ecology area of opinions as being inside a circle, then you havethe circle bulging out at three points of a triangle, three points of acircle are bulging out. One bulge is what I call the "nature-nature"people, who say, "nature is excellent, wonderful nature, we shouldfollow nature," etc. And then we have another bulge, and that's a bit farout from the center of my deep ecology, which I call the "spiritualists."They start with theself saying that we have lost religion, that this lossexplains the ecological crisis, etc. They call for a new religion, a newreligious consciousness. They use their opportunity in public to talkabout that all of the time. They don't disagree with the "nature nature"people in a sense, but they don't primarily talk about the sameconcerns. And then the third bunch, those who only talk about thepolitical aspects, saying "all man's ecological problems are political." Itseems that they think that these problems are only political, and say"sure we 're politically different, we'll save the planet." The spiritualiststalk as if they think it's only spiritual things, and the nature-naturistssay we should just save nature for its own sake. But, it's a big circlewhere there are lots of agreements, and you see it, it supports the samekind of actions mostly. We denounce the same kinds of politics on thewhole. So, I feel the deep ecology movement is very alive. That meansa lot of different ways of focusing; they ar e the focus. Then certainlythey start quarreling a little: "you should come out to me, I am here inthe center of our circle," "no, you should come to me." This is a kindof, I would say , friendly, very friendly fight.

74


8/18

3 . Pluralism Social Ecology and CentralismA.L. I notice that every time I've heard you in the last few years, youalways say, when you're talking to an audience interested inenvironmental philosophy, that "I 'm a social ecologist" and "I 'm anecofeminist," and I think actually once you even told me you were anenvironmental socialist.A.N. Yes, wheny ou talked to me.A.L. [Laughs.] Right, well, do you really consider yourself all of thesethings?A.N. [Laughs.] That means you think I am slippery.A.L . No, no, I 'm not going to take it that way But then also, on thislast visit here, I also heard you say on a couple of occasions that you'vetalked to leaders of corporations, and that you consider that they haveintuitions that are consistent with deep ecology.A.N. Yes, yeah that's right. They agree with our general position onman versus nature, and these things they are for, they are glad we areworking the way we do and so on and so on. And they would gladlysupport ecology movements. But activism? They cannot participate inthat way. It's a really serious point; if they were really supporters theywould have to say "thank you very much, next year I am not thechairman of the company."A.L . Okay, O kay, that's fair enough . But about this compatibilism youembrace the sense of being every kind of radical ecologist at once.It's not that you're being slippery, but it is that you embrace a ratherextreme form of compatibilism, I think. It's a kind of tolerance, whichis good, but do you think it ends up thinning out your own position toomuch?A.N. I don't think so because, say, there was a quarrel about directaction or some very practical thing, where the different views clashed,then I would start taking much more seriously the differences. If therewas a serious clash on some issues with social ecologists, then Iwould....A.L . You w ould have to make a hard choice.

75


9/18

A.N. Yes, that would be a warning. It would be threatening. But now,with John Clark, the social ecologist, bridging gaps to us, things aremuch better.5A.L. Yeah, but not everyone in social ecology circles is happy withJohn Clark. In fact, Murray Bookchin, after Clark presented a paper onthis topic at the International Social Ecology meeting in Scotland lastsummer, wrote up a denouncement of Clark and personally mailed it tosocial ecologists all over the world. 6A.N. Yes, John Clark was criticized by Bookchin and that's the firstsocial ecologist I've seen really criticized openly on this account. Idisagree very much with Bookchin, but I would never criticize him inthat way. What I say is that I am supportive of social ecologists but thatdoesn't mean I agree with everything they say, and maybe I disagreemore with what their leaders say. The same with ecofeminism. EvenKaren W arren, where she says that if ecofeminism is successful then allsocial domination would cease on this planet. You see, that's for me animpossible statement. I think feminism, with its empha sis on caring as amore central feeling, this is important. Genetically, I don't know ifthere is any basis for it, but caring seems easier for them. It's a hardtopic. Nevertheless, I am a great supporter generally of them too, evenwith my particular disagreements with some people.A.L. I want to go back to what you just said about ecofeminism later.But first I want to finish this thread on social ecology. Do you thinkthere really is an issue between deep ecologists and social ecologists?Or....A.N. Y es, priorities.A.L. Priorities. All right. So what's the issue on priorities?5The reference is to John Clarks' recent work which has attempted to bridgesocial ecology and deep ecology. These papers include "The Politics of SocialEcology: Beyond the Limits of the City," which in 1995 was read at a worldgathering of social ecologists in Scotland. This paper will be published inAndrew Light, ed., Anarchism, Nature, and Society: Critical Essays on SocialEcology (New Yo rk: Guilford Press, forthcoming). Also see Cla rk's "HowWide is Deep Ecology?"Inquiry,39, 2, 1996.6This piece by Bookchin is called "Comments on the International SocialEcology N etwork G athering and the 'Deep Social Ecology' of John Clark." It isalso interesting to note that after this "exc hange" between Bookchin and Clark,Clark was dropped without comment from the editorial advisory board of thesocial ecology journalSociety and Nature (nowDemocracy and Nature), editedby Takis Fotopolis.

76


10/18

A.N. Well, the social ecologists, for instance, in Uruguay I was theretalking with the people, Uruguayans they are focused on the poorpopulation who are f ishing, trying to revive the methods theirgrandfathers used because that was a sustainable way. And this strugglehelps them to fight the influence of the North with their big boats. Thefight is against those who would make fishing a capital-intensiveindustry. W here now, at the moment, in some parts of Uruguay fishingis still somewhat labor intensive. So the social ecologists there are onehundred percent immersed in that kind of work and when I discussedthe eight points [of deep ecology] with them, sure they agreed, but theysaid, "that's not enough for us." 7 So they would say, all right wesupport your deep ecology movement, but they also said that I shouldsay more about relations to poor people, social conditions, and so on.They said those concerns should be added to the eight points.A.L . And do you agree with them?A.N . No, I don 't agree with them. The Uruguayans said yes to the eightpoints, but then they said that the eight points cannot be the corewithout adding something about social relations.A.L . And you didn 't want to do that?A.N. No, because there are three gigantic movements, three gigantictasks in the next century. You have the peace problems, we mustsomehow solve this is too strong a word but we must get muchfurther in the peace movement. Then we have the movement against7The "eight points of deep ecology" are the backbone of the deep ecologymovement. They are: (1) The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent ofthe usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes. (2) Richness anddiversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are alsovalues in themselves. (3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness anddiversity except to satisfy vital needs. (4) The flourishing of human life andcultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. Theflourishing of non-human life requires a smaller human population. (5) Presenthuman interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation israpidly worsening. (6) Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affectbasic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state ofaffairs will be deeply different from the present. (7) The ideological change willbe mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherentvalue) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. Therewill be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.(8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly orindirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. See Naess' contribution toEnvironmental Philosophy,op. cit., p. 197.

77


11/18

unspeakable poverty. States of affairs that we cannot accept existing.Then we have the ecological crisis. Those three we cannot compare inimportance, they are al l important. But one thing with the ecologicalcrisis that's interesting, namely, is that for every year that we don't doanything, the cr isis deepens exponentially. Otherwise the povertyproblem, ethically, of course, central, is an unacceptable kind of miserywhich w e can do something about, ethically th at's....A.L. But then to the extent that you f ind all these movementsimportant, it would sound like there really wasn't much of a differencebetween your view and that of those social ecologists.A.N. No, not with those in Uruguay. Now many social ecologistswould point at what Dave Foreman and others have said on differentissues and object to them. Because they don't feel at home with somedeep ecologists, they call themselves social ecologists. But they don'tfight deep ecology as such. Not at all.A.L. Well maybe those people in Uruguay don' t , and maybe evenmany North American social ecologists don't, but there certainly ismore of a theoretical wrangle at least that Bookchin is trying to raisebetween deep ecology and social ecology....A.N. Yes, I would say let him think that.A.L. But according to Bookchin, there just is an unbridgeable dividebetween social ecology and deep ecology. Is he wrong?A.N. Yes, because social ecology is a movement, a social movement,and not a definite theory. So, he's not right.A.L. Okay, if i t ' s a movement he 's not r ight, but what aboutBookchin's definite theories?A.N. The idea that in a movement you have to abide by more or lessone theorist, namely Bookchin, is of course outrageous. In the next 50years you cannot expect that Bookchin's sort of special Utopian wish ofa future society will be a general one. I believe in lots of centralism inthe next century. Anarchism won't work.A.L. What do you mean you believe in centralism: that it 's going tocome about, or that we actually need it?A.N. Again and aga in cent ra l author i t ies must coerce loca lcomm unities. Whereas ideologically, I 'm all for local communities andagainst central authority, it is clear now that for the environment wehave to have it. Like we have some parts of Alaska where central

78


12/18

regulation is needed to protect free nature. 8This is a terrible thing, butnevertheless, central authority is necessary. More and more there willbe less free nature in Alaska. More also we have to really do somethingabout the Saumi people's use of Arctic Norway. Because, in order toget to a higher standard of living, they only see one way there, namelymore reindeer, and more reindeer means [cutting sound].A.L. But is the ground, the legitimacy of the central authority over thelocal, is that....A.N. Pragmatic only.A.L . It 's pragmatic only?A.N. Completely pragmatic, and against the different feelings we mighthave concerning the respect for the local community, the local market.A.L. So the final court of inquiry is what is good for nature?A.N. My book is Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle, no t Ecology,Society, and Lifestyle.9 Th at 's interesting, especially in Europe.Tennies, a German philosopher of the last century, wrote a bookwhich polarized Gesellschaft versus Gem einschaft. Gemeinsch aft is"together," feeling together, coming together; Gesellschaft is a kind ofa feeling of society. So, anyhow, ecology, commun ity,and lifestyle. W ecertainly cannot have big societies the way we have today given ourenvironmental imperatives, but at the same t ime we need somecentralization.

4.Deep SocialismA.L. Has anything good come out of this debate between socialecologists and deep ecologists, especially as it has happened not only inthe professional philosophy and sociology journals, but also in thepopular media?A.N . I think so because in the circle [of deep ecolo gy], people are goingmore in the direction of political thinking and somewhat less in thespiritual and nature-nature direction. But most of the theorists of deepecology have a background in the wilderness wilderness ideology.8Naess prefers to speak about "free nature" rather than "wilderness." He saysthat the goal in Europe is to try to protect those areas not obviously dominatedby humans. Such areas are mostly small (even though there are still thousandsof them) and are not generally equated with North American conceptions of"wilderness."9Ecology,Comm unity, an dLifestyle (Cambridge: Cambridge University P ress,1989) is Naess'magnumopuson environmental issues.

79


13/18

So that background pushes them toward the nature-nature side. Butwhat I am saying is that for us this is an imbalance; deep ecologytheorists do too much nature-nature and spiritual thinking. That'simbalanced. We must point to what we mean politically, particularlypointing to the green political theorists and the green economists whowe side with. It is parallel to deep and non-deep ecology. Paralleldistinctions must be made for economics. There are no great greeneconomists, no great green political theorists, but you have very goodones of course.AX, And capitalism? Does political ecology await its grand theoristwho will actually make a very strong statement, giving a fundamentalgreen critiqu e of capitalism or the current nation-state system ?A.N. Yes, of course, of course. Capital is out, industrial society is out.Industry, yes, yes, yes. But industrial society? Out. An ecologicalcommunity is impossible in the kind of capitalism you have, especiallythe one you get in Eastern Europe and other places. In the UnitedStates, capitalism is in some ways very civilized, at least compared toNorwegian capitalism, the capitalism of the social democrats. Still,Americans call the Norwegian social democrats "communists"....A. L. Right, exactly, all social democrats are comm unists [Laughs.]A.N. [Laughs.] Basically. So capitalism is out, industrial society is out,yes absolutely....A.L. So, would you ground that claim again, on a pragmatic argument that there is a need for some kind of a more redistributive paradigmfor economies which is based on what they do to nature?A.N. Not only what it does to nature, because capitalism also has to dowith the problem of our strain on community. Even the Republicanparty sometimes acknowledges this.

But, adding a couple of words about my own position. In Norwaythere is a party called the Sosialistisk Venstre Parti (SV), it's a radicalsocialist party, different from communism. That party got about sevenor eight percent of the vote, and I really agree with them and supportedthem. There was a press conference where I agreed to come to supporttheir party. I was there helping them, and I supported them in public,with reference to their "green socialism ." But they arenew socialists, sodifferent from twenty years ago. I think they are developing socialismfurther. There is a continuity of socialism beginning last century totoday, and they are continuing socialism in a good way. I use the basicstatement in communism, "to everyone according to need, fromeveryone according to abilities." Sadly, however, in our society, the

80


14/18

ablest, to gain power and prestige may feel the least socialresponsibility. The ablest in business are often the ablest in avoidingpaying taxes. The public thus expects able people not to serve theircommunities more intensively than other people.A.L. It's really, I must say, wonderful to hear you talk about politicalissues the way that you are now , because it seems that, unfortunately, inphilosophical circles at least, there is complete ignorance often of thefact that there is any literature on environmental socialism. This is infact the biggest problem with Michael Zimmerman's new book.10 Hisbook is about "radical ecology," and radical ecologies for him are justdeep ecology, social ecology, and ecofeminism, and that's it. I eventalked to him about this, and asked about the things that are being done,for instance, in this journal, or by all the economists who work on thistopic, and he just didn 't know anything about it. I found this quiteextraordinary.A.N. No, that's right. Socialism is such a great movement, such afantastic movement in the last century; to say that's all over, that'simpossible. Practically all of my friends have been socialists and I'mnot a socialist because I'm so much for personal initiative. The kind ofsocialism I have seen among my friends they all come together inthese long meetings. [Both laugh.] I never personally could feel athome with their kind of [bureaucratic] socialism, but I voted socialist. Imostly voted socialist even though I was never a party member.A.L. But now you're a supporter of this environmental socialism that'sbeing talked about by the SV.A.N. Well, I supported them, and gave them my vote, instead of givingit to the green party because they are too much fundamentalists. I gavemy vote to the SV for pragmatic reasons. I still have difficulties withhow they write about socialism and some of their solutions todistribution problems.A.L. Hard to figure out the rationale for distribution: is that what youmean?A.N. I mean the [distribution] problems are central of course. The sameway as ecological problems in the narrow sense are central. I supportthe welfare society because they have that in Norway. Arctic Norway,for example, is uneconomical in the old sense; I mean it costs so muchto grow potatoes there because of the climate. I support that people livein Arctic Norway. They should be able to live there and have their10See note 2.

81


15/18

income, and that means some kind of income transfer to ArcticNorway. And that's socialist. That's the best kind of socialism we have.You see, they are at home in Arctic Norway, they were part of it andthe culture is so good there. It is so rich, so original. There is anecological behavior there. And we must see to it that it is possible forthem to stay there, and not make it impossible so they have to go fromArctic Norway to somewhere else. That's a socialist policy. But as Isay, I don't feel at home with being a party member.5. Ecofeminism

A.L.Let's go back to what you were saying about ecofeminism before.There has been something of a debate in CNS about the relationshipbetween environmental socialism and ecofeminism. And the claim hasbeen very parallel, actually, to the ecofeminism-deep ecology debate asit has occurred in journals like Environmental Ethics. Essentially thedebate in CNShas been whether the goals of ecofeminism can be takencare of within a broader socialist paradigm. And in EnvironmentalEthics, the whole debate between Warwick Fox, Jim Chaney, DeborahSlicer, and others, has been this question of whether or not deepecology subsumes all the goals of ecofeminism. Warwick Fox wrote inone of these exchanges, "in accordance with its extremely broadecocentric egalitarianism, supporters of deep ecology hold that theirconcerns well and truly subsume the concerns of those movements thathave restructured their focus to the attainment of a more egalitarianhuman society,"11 and he's talking about anti-racist, anti-imperialist,and feminist movements. The claim is that deep ecology subsumesecofeminism by subsuming its goals. Do you agree with those kinds ofarguments?A.N. That's not a completely happy formulation, because the goals [ofecofeminism] comprise a focus, and the focus is different [from deepecology]. The focus is fairly important. You must at the most say thatit's compatible being asupporter of deep ecology [and ecofeminism],but not that we can express ourselves in the special terms of anothermovement, no, no. It [ecofeminism] is compatible with a deep ecologypoint of view. But it is not enough focused on the eight points. Justsaying, "we are deep ecologists, and we are social ecologists, and weare ecofeminists and we focus in such and such a way," is compatiblewith a deep ecology perspective. Deep ecology is a kind of umbrella ofthe movement, where other forms of political ecology do not always go Warwick Fox, "The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels,"Environmental Ethics, 11, 1989, p. 8.

82


16/18

deep enough. For instance, Henryk Skolimowski says that humanevolution is so important for the future of the cosmos, and since hethinks deep ecologists don' t emphasize that , he says he 's not asupporter of the deep ecology movement. It 's all right for him to saythat, but, I reply, "I class you as a supporter of the deep ecologymovement anyway." And he says, "Oh no you don't " So I would saythe importance of the deep ecology movement is not greater in any waythan any other. It 's vaguer, more ambiguous, unfocused, in a sense,which I don't like. But it 's an umbrella undertaking, simply lessambitious in it's aims than some think.A.L. It would sound like, then, that you would think that the wholedeep ecology-ecofeminism debate has been miscast?A.N. No t miscast. We had to w ork out these things.6. The State of the DisciplineA.L. What do you think of the current state of environmental ethics,mainstream academic environmental ethics? Because it seems to methat for you, the foundation of the ultimate compatibility of differentenvironmental movements is found at the level of their practices. Sowhat about the current state of environmental ethics as an academicdiscipline, which you had just as m uch to do with helping to establishas environmentalism as a movement?A.N. T oday, m any coun tries, Norway for example, give out millions ofdollars for environmental ethics, and I have a suspicion that it costsmuch less than doing anything in practice. I 'm happy that this is goingon with environmental ethics. But you see it 's dominated mostly byacademics who do not really do ethics, but metaethics. They talk aboutwhat is an ethic, and what you do when you have this sort of ethic, andthat sort of ethic. That is not normative ethics where you disagree verymuch on what is right. So, I'm happy that there is such a flourishingamong academic ethicists, but it's very much metaethics and very muchtrying to find a consensus, trying to find an ethical consensus in theworld, and a moral consensus. That for me is ultimately a sign ofpassivity, because they say, for instance, we cannot do some thing nowbefore that consensus is reached. Sometimes, they even point to theUnited States and say we can't do something before we have the UnitedStates on our side, so then we just have to wait. But I see the future asmuch more conflict laden, really bad, ugly conflicts. I 'm afraid thatmany who are in environmental ethics are not what I would callactivists on the front; they are not activists, they are discussing things .A.L. Do you think that fact causes problems with their philosophy?

83


17/18


18/18

might want to go in the boxing ring with you, but they don't want totake you on in the literature the way that people still do with, say Quineand Habermas. How do you feel about that?A.N . I feel badly about that. For instance, Paul Feyerabend, he was atBerkeley at the same time as I was, and we had long, long discussions.And he was very interested in my philosophical point of view, butdidn 't seem to want to discuss it with me in public. Very strange. Andsome others, they don't like to meet me to discuss these matters either.I don't know why, but some think I 'm too far out. But Feyerabendwould never think I am too far out because....A.L. Right, because he's Feyerabend [Both laugh.]A.N. Right, so that cannot be the reason. But, maybe I have not reallyhad such a great desire for argumentation either. I've not been happywith the altercations I 've had with these people Feyerabend, Lakatos I also had discussion with him [Lakatos], he agreeing with me andhe said to me that his position on some topics was because of what hehad read in one of my articles. But he didn't really engage with iteither. And, of course, the grand old man, Sir Karl Popper, we had lotsof good times together. But he only speaks about nature to nie. Wewere visiting professors together, but he didn't want to talk philosophywith me, only about nature. One thing is, of course, the talent, the kindof talent required for argumentation. I have an interest in interactionsmore through my personal relations than through my arguments.A.L. But sometimes I think that even when you're giving a publiclecture, you would like people to challenge you....A.N. Of course.A.L. And it seems like, especially, if you'll forgive me, but, forinstance your visit here the students who invited you here, theyadoreyou; they don't want to push you and challenge your ideas in anyway. This is troubling.A.N. No, that's right. At the end of my talks, when they say, "and nowProfessor Naess would you be so kind as to answer questions," I wouldlike it if someone would jump up and shout, "I 'm against you " Thatwould be great, but they don't do that. If someone just said, "I thinkyou are ahypocrite,and so on and so on," see, I would smile.A.L . [Laughs.] That's good I think that's a good line to end on.

85

Documents

Deep Socialism? An interview with Arne Naess