INTRODUCTION
5
We have also inherited a Germanic understanding of nature formalized
during the nineteenth century by thinkers such as Ernst Haeckel. For Haeckel,
who coined the term ‘ecology’ in 1867, nature represented a pristine and
mystical realm bound to the people of the German nation, a wholesome haven
which must be protected from exogenous elements. We in the West are the
inheritors of such understandings. Our notions of nature are often abstract and
romantic, proscribing idealized places and times to protect or return to, rather
than proposing radical social change that could provide the basis for a free and
ecological society.
(
Our ideas regarding desire are also highly problematic. As citizens of a )
liberal capitalist society, our desires constitute an amalgam of individualistic,
competitive, and acquisitive yearnings. Consequently, we tend to see ourselves
as individuals destined to compete for scarce resources, striving to fulfill a
range of personal desires for sex, wealth, status, or security. Desire is largely
viewed as a matter of self-interest expressed within the realms of work, politics,
and even love. Informed by a capitalist sensibility, desire is often reduced to
yearnings for an accumulation of private property, both material and symbolic.
Even matters of spirituality, meaning, and aesthetics tend to be translated into
quests to ‘acquire’ personal truth and beauty. Rarely do we view desire as a
yearning to enhance a social whole greater than our selves, a desire to enrich
the larger community.
When such approaches to nature and desire meet, they give rise to an
unfortunate approach to ecology. Combining an individualized and capitalistic
notion of desire with an abstract and romanticized understanding of nature, we
engender a movement of people who long to return to a more pristine quality
of life by consuming artifacts and experiences that they deem ‘natural’. Ecology
becomes a movement of people who see themselves as individuals and
consumers yearning for ecological asylum rather than as part of a social whole
that strives to radically transform systems of power.
Thus, our ideas of nature and desire direct ecological criticism away from
social change and toward the protection of a ‘nature’ to be enjoyed by
privileged peoples. This tendency has dismayed social change activists who
regard middle-class desires for wilderness preservation and personal life-style
as being insensitive to the needs and desires of poor people.
Yet as we have seen, the question is not whether to focus on
ecologically-related need ordesire; clearly, we must address both. The question
is what kind of desire will inform the movement and what kind of ‘nature’ will
be the subject of that desire within ecological discussions? Will it be an
individualistic desire for a nature that is understood to be outside of society? Or
will it be a social desire, a yearning to be part of a greater collectivity that will
challenge the structure of society to create a cooperative and ecological world?