Arne Naess: Deep Ecology

Introduction and Context

Arne Naess (1912-2009) was a Norwegian philosopher who founded the deep ecology movement, one of the most significant developments in environmental philosophy of the 20th century. Naess coined the term “deep ecology” in his 1973 article “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary,” distinguishing between “shallow” environmentalism concerned primarily with resource management for human benefit and a “deeper” approach that questioned fundamental assumptions about humans’ relationship with the natural world. As both a professional philosopher and an accomplished mountaineer, Naess brought together academic rigor and direct experience of wild nature in developing his ecological worldview.

Fundamental Concepts

Deep Ecology vs. Shallow Ecology

The core distinction in Naess’s thought is between:

1. Shallow Ecology: An anthropocentric approach focused on resource conservation, pollution control, and population management primarily to protect human interests
2. Deep Ecology: A biocentric approach questioning fundamental premises of modern society by recognizing the intrinsic value of all living beings independent of their utility to humans

For Naess, shallow ecology merely treats symptoms of ecological crisis while leaving underlying causes—embedded in social structures, economic systems, and philosophical worldviews—unexamined and unchanged.

Ecosophy T

Naess distinguished between deep ecology as a general movement and his own personal ecological philosophy, which he termed “Ecosophy T” (the ‘T’ referring to Tvergastein, his mountain cabin in Norway). Ecosophy T was Naess’s individual articulation of principles that might guide human relationship with the natural world, developed from his philosophical studies, life experiences, and cultural influences.

Naess emphasized that while deep ecology provides a framework of general principles, each person should develop their own “ecosophy” based on their unique experiences, cultural background, and personal values—an important aspect of philosophical pluralism in his thought.

Self-Realization and the Ecological Self

A central concept in Naess’s philosophy is “Self-realization” (deliberately capitalized), which he distinguished from narrow self-realization focused on the individual ego. Through Self-realization, a person’s sense of identity expands to include identification with the wider natural world. This involves:

1. Recognizing the fundamental interconnectedness of all life
2. Moving from an ego-centered to an eco-centered understanding of self
3. Developing empathy and compassion for all living beings
4. Understanding that harming nature ultimately harms oneself

This expanded sense of Self creates the foundation for environmental ethics based not on abstract moral principles but on direct identification with the natural world. When a person experiences trees, animals, or mountains as part of their extended Self, protecting them becomes an act of self-interest rather than self-sacrifice.

Biospherical Egalitarianism

Naess advocated for “biospherical egalitarianism in principle,” recognizing the equal right of all living beings to live and flourish. While acknowledging that practical considerations require some killing for vital human needs, this principle challenges the assumption that humans have the right to reduce biodiversity except to satisfy vital needs.

This concept stands in stark contrast to traditional Western hierarchical views that place humans above other species and grant moral consideration primarily to human interests.

The Eight-Point Platform

In 1984, Naess and American philosopher George Sessions formulated an eight-point platform that articulates the core principles of deep ecology:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves, independent of their usefulness to humans.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease in human population; the flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed, affecting basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation to try to implement the necessary changes.

This platform was intended to unite diverse supporters of deep ecology while allowing for various religious, philosophical, or spiritual foundations for these principles.

Gestalt Thinking and Relational Holism

Influenced by Gestalt psychology and Spinoza’s philosophy, Naess developed a relational ontology that views all entities as constituted by their relationships. He rejected atomistic thinking that sees the world as made up of discrete, independent objects. Instead, Naess understood reality as a complex network of relationships where the identity of any being emerges from its relations with others.

This “relational total-field image” challenges both mechanistic reductionism in science and individualism in social theory by emphasizing that organisms cannot be understood in isolation from their ecological contexts.

Philosophical Foundations and Influences

Spinoza’s Influence

Baruch Spinoza significantly influenced Naess’s thought. From Spinoza, Naess derived:

1. A non-dualistic metaphysics rejecting sharp divisions between mind and matter
2. The concept of natura naturans (nature actively creating) vs. natura naturata (nature as passive product)
3. The idea that self-preservation involves identifying with and protecting the whole of which one is a part
4. A view of freedom as understanding necessity and acting from one’s own nature

Naess’s book Freedom, Emotion and Self-subsistence (1975) explored these Spinozistic themes in relation to ecological thought.

Phenomenology and Direct Experience

Naess emphasized direct, embodied experience of nature as a source of ecological wisdom, influenced by phenomenological approaches in philosophy. His own experiences as a mountaineer shaped his understanding of human-nature relationships. This grounding in lived experience distinguishes Naess’s approach from purely abstract ecological theory.

Gandhian Nonviolence

Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence and his concept of self-realization profoundly influenced Naess, who wrote extensively on Gandhi’s ideas. From Gandhi, Naess adopted:

1. The principle of minimizing harm to all living beings
2. The unity of means and ends in social action
3. The importance of personal example in creating social change
4. A commitment to nonviolent resistance against environmental destruction

Buddhist Philosophy

Buddhist concepts of interconnectedness, compassion for all sentient beings, and non-attachment to material possessions resonate throughout Naess’s work, though he typically integrated these ideas without explicit attribution.

Methodological Approach: Apron Diagram and Pluralism

Naess developed the “Apron Diagram” to illustrate the relationship between deep ecological principles and specific actions. The diagram shows:

Level 1: Ultimate premises (religious or philosophical worldviews)
Level 2: Platform principles of deep ecology
Level 3: General normative consequences and policy guidelines
Level 4: Practical decisions and actions in specific situations

This approach accommodates philosophical pluralism by allowing different cultural, religious, or philosophical foundations (Level 1) to support the same deep ecological platform (Level 2). People with diverse worldviews—Christian, Buddhist, secular humanist—can arrive at similar ecological commitments through different conceptual pathways.

Practical Applications

Ecological Activism

Naess advocated nonviolent direct action to protect ecosystems, participating in civil disobedience during the Alta Dam controversy in Norway. However, he distinguished between deep ecological motivation and specific tactical choices, emphasizing that supporters of deep ecology might legitimately disagree about particular strategies.

Modest Living and Self-Limitation

Naess practiced and advocated for “simple in means, rich in ends” living, exemplified by his own modest mountain cabin lifestyle. This involved:

1. Reducing material consumption and environmental impact
2. Cultivating non-material sources of fulfillment (relationships, creativity, spiritual practices)
3. Distinguishing between vital needs and mere preferences
4. Finding richness in direct experience rather than possession

Bioregionalism and Local Community

Naess’s thought supports bioregional approaches to human settlement that adapt cultural practices to local ecological conditions. This involves developing place-based knowledge and emotional attachment to specific landscapes rather than abstract global environmentalism.

Critical Reception and Controversies

Social Ecology Critique

Murray Bookchin and other social ecologists criticized deep ecology for:

1. Insufficient attention to social justice and economic factors in environmental problems
2. Potential misanthropy in its critique of humanity’s impact
3. Inadequate analysis of how capitalism and hierarchical social structures drive ecological destruction

Ecofeminist Critique

Ecofeminists like Carolyn Merchant and Val Plumwood argued that deep ecology:

1. Fails to address the connection between domination of women and domination of nature
2. Risks reinforcing rather than dissolving dualisms through its concept of expanded Self
3. Underestimates the importance of recognizing difference and particularity in human-nature relationships

Practical Implementation Challenges

Critics note tensions between deep ecology’s radical critique of modernity and the practical challenge of implementing such fundamental changes in contemporary society, questioning whether its vision is politically viable.

Influence and Legacy

Despite these critiques, Naess’s deep ecology has profoundly influenced:

1. Environmental Philosophy: Establishing a biocentric alternative to anthropocentric environmental ethics
2. Environmental Activism: Providing philosophical grounding for groups like Earth First! and the radical environmental movement
3. Transpersonal Psychology: Contributing to understanding of expanded identity and ecological consciousness
4. Environmental Education: Inspiring approaches that foster direct experience and emotional connection with nature
5. Conservation Biology: Supporting arguments for wilderness preservation based on intrinsic rather than instrumental values

Conclusion

Arne Naess’s deep ecology represents one of the most significant philosophical contributions to environmental thought. By questioning the fundamental assumptions of modern Western society regarding human-nature relationships, Naess developed a framework that continues to challenge conventional thinking about environmental ethics and policy. His emphasis on Self-realization, relational thinking, and the intrinsic value of all living beings offers conceptual resources for addressing contemporary ecological crises. While subject to important critiques, Naess’s thought remains influential precisely because it goes beyond superficial environmental reform to address the deeper philosophical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of our relationship with the natural world.