We’ve learned a lot this semester about the negative effects of a patriarchal culture. There’s an individualistic competition for power and an aggressive control of nature. This extremism oppresses many animals and causes the destruction of ecosystems. Our society is so patriarchal that it becomes natural for opposing matriarchal elements to rise out of a necessity for balance. These elements include a cooperative distribution of power and a passive acceptance of nature. It’s obvious that incorporating such elements into our culture is vital if we hope to reach a stable equilibrium between society and nature, but should these elements replace the patriarchal ones completely? It seems that deep ecology seeks to do just that.
A scenario can be imagined in which a culture has become as extremely matriarchal as ancient and contemporary cultures have been patriarchal. Such a society would uphold the deep ecology principles or something similar to them. All life forms would be considered children of mother earth and they would all be worthy of an equal opportunity to live and flourish. Humans would have just as much value as fleas and natural processes would occur with minimal human interference. We would only kill what we needed to eat or we would all be vegans. Such a vision may seem utopian to a deep ecologist. My concern is simply this: what would be the cost of implementing such principles?
For example, the fourth principle of deep ecology states, “The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.” How would a society bring about such a substantial decrease in human population? It doesn’t seem likely that people would agree to cease reproduction or voluntarily sacrifice their lives for the greater good. It is imaginable, though, that an eco-centric society could justify genocide in order to maximize biodiversity. The only other alternative would be something similar to China’s infanticide policies. Are deep ecologists really willing to go this far to realize their utopian society?
I think we need to strike a balance between traditional masculine and feminine elements in order to make human society more compatible with the interests of other animals and natural processes. It must be kept in mind, though, that we should do this because it’s beneficial to our long-term survival and well-being. It’s a mistake to believe we are in any self-righteous position to “save the planet”. I agree with eco-feminists that our problem is primarily androcentrism, oppressive patriarchal point-of-view, rather than anthropocentrism. We can’t escape our human perspective, but we need not delude ourselves into thinking that nature has preferences for how things should be run.
What are your opinions on this? Could deep ecology lead to such extremism? Is a radical matriarchal culture really preferable to a patriarchal one? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I disagree with your statement that it is a mistake to believe we are in any self-righteous position to “save the planet”. I thought we agreed in class that because humans are the only species on the planet with ethics, that it is our moral responsibility to "save-the-planet" and I also do not believe that anything about saving the planet is "self-rightous" except the fact that saving the planet will in the long run, help human existence. I do not agree with eco-feminists that our problem is primarily androcentrism, oppressive patriarchal point-of-view, rather than anthropocentrism. There were many matriarchial societies that existed throughout culture that may have had the same problems that we did. I think it is more of a problem of anthropocentrism. I guess I disagree with Deep Ecology because I don't think it is a problem that humans be saving nature for our own purposes. In some way, I don't think the motivations matter as much as whether or not it happens. In an ideal world, someone would like the motivations to be pure and for the other creatures of nature, but in the real world, I don't believe everyone will ever have those motivations. Some? Yes. But all? No. It is true that we can’t escape our human perspective, but I think it is completely obvious that nature has preferences for how things should be run. Nature has its own course and even if humans never existed, it would run its own course, so therefore, isn't it quite obvious that nature does have a preference for how things should be run?
ReplyDelete