RESCUING LADY NATURE
35
industrial capitalism, the state preceded the emergence of capitalism itself. The
desire to eliminate ‘high’ technology therefore, is not just insufficient for
creating a free and ecological society; it also shifts the focus from the real
problem of undemocratic, dehumanizing, and anti-ecological social institutions.
And so the question remains: just because we have no direct democratic
control over our economies or state (and thus over technological practice), do
we cease to critique technologies which we esteem to be socially arid
ecologically dangerous? Are we obliged to choose between a critique of
technology per se and a critique of the state or capitalism? Clearly, the answer
to these questions is no on both counts. Questions concerning technology may
allow us to broaden our thinking about the lack of political and economic
democracy surrounding particular technological practices. We can explore the
specific harms of particular technologies, calling for social and political action,
while broadening our understanding of the political and economic context in
which we have little control over capitalist and state practice. In this way, each
specific issue concerning technology provides a forum to speak generally about
the need for economic and political democracy. Each time we talk about a
specific technology or about technology in general, without discussing the
urgent need for political democracy, we miss a vital opportunity to raise
consciousness regarding the broader context of social or ecological change.
For TIhe Love Of Nature: KNowiNq SeLF, KNowNq OtIher
In love, there is a paradox. In order to know and understand that which we
love, we must first know ourselves. We must engage in a continual process of
becoming conscious of our own beliefs, prejudices, and desires if we are to
truly see that which we love. When we fail to know ourselves in this way, the
beloved can be nothing more than a projection of our own desires, a
projection that obstructs our vision of the desires, history, and distinctiveness of
those we love.
In order to truly love nature, society must know itself; it must understand
its own social, political, and economic structure, understanding in turn how
each individual benefits or suffers from such structures.
Yet instead of knowing society, many in the ecology movement tend to
focus exclusively on an idea of ‘nature’ that has become the small blue pool
into which Narcissus gazed, enamored by his own reflection. Rapt with his
own image, Narcissus saw neither the color of the water, nor did he feel its
coolness against his fingers. In the same way, when the privileged look into
the ‘pool of nature’, they too, cannot see what grows there. They cannot see
‘nature’ as a contested political and social ground whose abundance and
scarcity are unevenly distributed. Instead they see only the romantic reflection
of their desire to preserve die institutions and ideologies that grant them access