In five pages a hypothetical dialogue between Murray Bookchin, a 'social' ecologist and Arne Naess, a 'deep' ecologist, is presented in terms of defining these ecological schools of thought as well as presenting the viewpoints of the ecologists who espouse them. Three sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_khdepsoc.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Deep ecologists and social ecologists, first of all, disagree as to how nature should be defined and also how nature should be seen in relation to human behavior (Humphrey, 2000).
While "nature" is the core concept for both of these schools of thought, each ecological philosophy draws divergent accounts of how, precisely, "nature" should be defined and this contradiction in
semantics also encompasses what human reason consists of and what reason can ultimately inform us about human action in the world (Humphrey, 2000). The following analysis proposes what a
social ecologist, such as Murray Bookchin, might say in a dialogue with a deep ecologist, such as Arne Naess. In 1973, Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess published a summary of
a lecture entitled "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-range Ecology Movements" (Angus, 1997). In this lecture, Naess coined the term "deep ecology" and it presented his perspective that all forms
of animal life on the planet have intrinsic value and worth that is separate from their usefulness to humanity (Angus, 1997). Subsequently, deep ecology has become a major school of
thought and inspiration for social activism that has endeavored to replace the "human-centered" ethic of industrial society with an ethic that acknowledges the intrinsic value of all beings (Angus, 1997,p.
18). As this suggests, the central concern of deep ecologists is to encourage the development of a sense of identification with nature that includes a sense of the interdependence of
all living beings (Humphrey, 2000). In contrast to this perspective, Murray Bookchin, as well as other social ecologists, construe deep ecologist as socially na?ve in the way that they allot
the "blame" for ecological problems indiscriminately and denigrate the potential for human beings to behave in a "rational and creative manner" (Humphrey, 2000, p. 247). Bookchin and his