The International Wildlife Day

Tomorrow is the International Wildlife Day. On this occasion, the Ministry of Forest has invited our school to join their rally. The rally will end in the Osmani Auditorium. Executive members, who are interested to participate in this program, are requested to report in the school tomorrow by 8:00 am.

Environmentalism: A Global History, by Ramachandra Guha. New York: Longman (2000), xiii, 161 pp. [Reviewed by Kathryn Hochstetler, Department of Political Science, Colorado State University]

Environmentalism: A Global History is best read as a short but ambitious text that will introduce readers to a series of environmental thinkers from across the globe.  In Guha’s own explanation of the book, “this is a historical account and analysis of the origins and expressions of environmental concern, of how individuals and institutions have perceived, propagated, and acted upon their experience of environmental decay” (p. 2).  As such, it is not a history of the environment itself, which he leaves to scientists, but a history of environmental ideas.  In just 145 pages of text, Guha covers many of the most prominent environmental thinkers over the last two centuries, and adds a few lesser known as well.  The thinkers are placed in their social contexts, with particular attention to the unfolding of industrial and colonial (and post-) processes.  Taken as a whole, the book is well written and engaging; I think it would be successful as a text chosen to instigate discussion of global and historical varieties of environmentalism.

Guha divides the book into two halves, one for each of two waves of global environmentalism.  In the first wave, which began in the 1860s and continued through the interwar period, three varieties of environmental thought competed to construct a diagnosis of environmental degradation and an alternative vision to it: the “back to the land” movement, the scientific conservation movement, and the wilderness movement.  The “back to the land” movement found strong adherents in England and Germany, as industrialization brought a revival of agrarian sentiment.  Pre-industrialized India also contributed a more practical agrarian thinker in Mahatma Gandhi, who read Carpenter and Ruskin while studying in England.  Scientific conservation, characterized by a concern with environmental degradation and confidence in science’s ability to reverse that degradation, also took root in Britain and Germany before spreading elsewhere.  Global transmission of the ideas of scientific conservation was more direct and custodial, as colonial powers established state-run departments to manage their colonies’ forests, soil, water, wildlife, and fisheries.  Guha strongly criticizes these management efforts on both social and environmental grounds, preferring Japan’s indigenous forest science.  Similarly, colonial rule spread the wilderness idea to Europe’s colonies, with protection of native wildlife often taking priority over native peoples.  The wilderness thinking of the Americans John Muir and Aldo Leopold (born in Germany) is presented more sympathetically, with attention to their differences as well as their shared appreciation for non-human species.

The first wave of environmentalism ended with an interlude of  “ecological innocence” after World War II, when both North and South were committed to economic growth through technology.  Dissenters from technological optimism ­ Sauer, Mumford, Schumacher, Mira Behn (in India) ­ were easily ignored in the industrialized world, and the newly independent countries sought economic liftoff on the western path, not a renewed village economy.

With numerous others, Guha dates the beginning of the second wave of environmentalism to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), which he extols for its impact and quality.  Across the globe, the second wave added an environmentally engaged public to the previously expert arena of environmental thought.  Guha organizes his discussion of the second wave with three chapters on what would once have been called the first, second, and third worlds.  Among the affluent, both the threat of impending doom and the desire to consume nature as another good drove the steady growth of the environmental movement after 1962 (Guha’s data end with 1991).  Guha differentiates deep ecologists from environmental justice activists in American radical environmentalism.  A section on the German Greens, “the finest achievement of the second wave of environmentalism” (p. 97), completes this chapter.  Guha cites Gandhian influences in all of these branches of modern environmentalism, but still sees a strong polarization between this environmentalism of the affluent and the environmentalism of the poor of the next chapter.  He rejects the hypothesis of Inglehart and others that environmental concern belongs to the wealthy, but notes a change in its concerns.  When peasants and indigenous peoples of Malaysia, India, Thailand, and Brazil mobilize on environmental issues, they link environmentalism to social justice and livelihood concerns.  Sections comparing Brazil to India and Chico Mendes’ rubber tappers to the Chipko movement offer some rare extended concrete examples of environmental thought in action.  Finally, a brief chapter on environmentalism (or the lack thereof) in the Soviet Union and in China serves mostly to underline that the strongest debate of the second wave is that between North and South.

A concluding chapter argues that a shared global common future would have to be based on a genuinely equitable and participatory global democracy.  In the absence of that democracy, concrete environmental debates will be conflict-ridden.  Yet Guha’s final word is that two ideas unite all the kinds of environmentalists he has discussed: restraint, in the sense of limits on behavior toward both the environment and other humans, and farsightedness, looking toward “a common future ­ and the multiple paths to get to it” (p. 145).

As should be clear from this summary, this global environmental history synthesizes a very broad array of environmental ideas, across both time and space.  As Guha himself says, this requires him to be “savagely selective” (p. 7).  Fitting the introductory nature of this book, the selection criteria favor the better-known thinkers and movements, but there are plenty of lesser-known stories to send the more experienced reader to the bibliographic essay at the end.  (This is especially useful since there are few citations in the text, and no conventional bibliography.)

The first part of the book, on the first wave of environmentalism, best achieves Guha’s two aims:  to present a “trans-national perspective on the environmental debate” and “to document the flow of ideas across cultures” (p. 8).  In this section, we see clear linkages across cultures as travel, reading, and colonial institutions moved ideas around the world both freely and by force.  These chapters show at once the global relevance of certain environmental ideas, such as wilderness, and their very different local meanings depending on where, how, and by whom they are put into practice.

In the second section, on the second wave, there is much less attention to the transnational flow of environmental ideas, despite the fact that global news reports, the internet, and international travel and meetings have shrunk the effective distance between peoples.  This is especially noteworthy in the chapter on the southern challenge, where several of the examples Guha uses are commonly cited as classic instances of international advocacy networks (see Keck and Sikkink 1998).  Guha stresses their domestic origins, which are certainly also a part of the story, but his references to the “prolific misrepresentations...by the international media” (p. 119) do not do justice to the transnational flow of ideas, perspectives, and activists at work.  Similarly, he misses the ways that at least parts of the environmental justice movements of the north were inspired by their southern counterparts.  I would have liked to see a fuller analysis of transnational environmentalism as we turn into the 21^st century.  Is it, as some have argued, a new variant of the 19^th century’s colonial relations?  Could it be, in contrast, a manifestation of the more equitable and participatory global democracy Guha seeks?

Throughout the book, Guha’s characteristic post-colonial critiques give the book a consistent perspective, which will challenge the northern students who are likely to be among the book’s readers.  Because of its focus on environmental thinkers across the globe, it is not the best presentation of the complexities of Guha’s own perspective, however.  For that, I prefer some of his other works, such as Ecology and Equity (with Madhav Gadgil, 1995) and Varieties of Environmentalism:  Essays North and South (with Juan Martinez Alier, 1997).

References Cited:

Gadgil, Madhav, and Ramachandra Guha. 1995. Ecology and Equity: The Use of Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India.  New Delhi: Penguin Books India.

Guha, Ramachandra, and Juan Martinez-Alier. 1997. Varieties of Environmentalism:  Essays North and South.  London: Earthscan.

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

A notice for the participants

Registered GWEC members for the 1^st International Nature Summit called "Green Inspiration" of Notre Dame College Nature Study Club, are requested to report at school by 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

A call for "Green Inspiration"

This is to attract interested students and GWEC members to register for the 1^st International Nature Summit called "Green Inspiration" of Notre Dame College, Nature Study Club. It is a two day event, which will be held on 23^rd and 24^th of January in Notre Dame College.

The summit also holds a range of competitions, which are suited for the following participants.

>For University Category (Graduates and Undergraduates): Confab seminar (Power Point Presentation), Nature Olympiad and Photography

>>For Higher Secondary Category (aged 15-18 yrs or Classes XI & XII): Transformation (Turn Coat), Confab Seminar (Power Point Presentation), Nature Olympiad, Eco-Friendly Project, Wall Magazine & Photography

>>>For Junior Category (aged 12-15 or Classes VII to X): Nature Olympiad, Eco-Friendly Project, Wall Magazine & Photography

For registration and more info: www.greeninspiration.weebly.com

The GWEC team wishes all of our regular readers a wonderful grace-filled Christmas and warm holidays. 

*Further notice of the club's activities will be posted as soon as school reopens. 

Reduce - Reuse - Recycle 

Gandhi and Ecological Marxism

The independent India witnessed several developmental policies which both protects and destructs the natural environment. Gadgil and Guha observed that the development policies of India created three kinds of people, the omnivores, ecosystem people and the ecological refugees. Omnivores comprise the elite group who are the real beneficiaries of the economic development. The ecological refugees encompass the displaced and environmentally exploited tribal and downtrodden while the ecosystem people depend the natural environment for their material needs. The independent India became “a cauldron of conflicts” between these groups, “triggered by the abuse of natural resources to benefit the narrow elite of the omnivores”. The environmental movements mushroomed in India as a response against this abuse. Guha identified three ideological trends in Indian environmental activism; crusading Gandhians, ecological Marxists and appropriate technologists. He argues that the crusading Gandhians upholds the pre-capitalist and pre-colonial village community as the exemplar of ecological and social harmony. The methods of action favoured by this group are squarely in the Gandhian tradition-or at least of one interpretation of that tradition-fasts, padayatras, and poojas, in which a traditional cultural idiom is used to further the strictly modern cause of environmentalism. The appropriate technologists strive for a working synthesis of agriculture and industry, big and small units, and western and eastern technological traditions. The ecological Marxists are hostile to traditions and rely heavily on the scientific facts. Guha mentions the works of KSSP as an instance of ecological Marxism.

While closely analyzing the movement one can see the elements of these three strands in Silent Valley movement. Like the crusading Gandhians, the movement adopted the Gandhian methodologies to protest against the environmental injustice. The activists of the movement include people from different strata of society, like students, teachers, intellectuals, journalists, social workers etc. They organized padayatras, prayer meetings etc to educate the public. KSSP (Ecological Marxists as explained by Guha) used science as a medium to analyze the facts that the present project is not enough to satisfy the existing power needs. They taught the people of how the Silent Valley forest contributed to the southern monsoon and blissful climate.  The grass root acceptability of KSSP and its wide audience helped the movement to achieve its objectives.

The ideological difference between the Gandhian and Marxian system of environmentalism is that Gandhi believed modern industrialization as the root cause of environmental degradation while Marxists think capitalism as the major element which deteriorates the environment. Marx suggests the development of science and technology as a tool for mastering nature while Gandhi considers science and technology as a hindrance to nature conservation. Gandhi advocates the limitation of human wants for the sake of nature while Marx stood for “each man according to his needs, and each man according to his ability”.  Among these differences, there are a number of similarities between these two groups. Both Gandhian and Marxian system seeks justice to the poor people who are living in tune with nature. They promoted the idea of self-sufficiency and sustainable economy and work for an egalitarian society.

The Silent Valley movement comprises both Gandhian and Marxian elements in methodologies and practices. The success of the movement reminds us the relevance of a “fourth world”, a concept put forward by Dr. M P Parameswaran, an active participant of KSSP. He proposed of a fourth world, his vision about a future world, which is a synthesis of Marxian, Gandhian, Environmentalists, Eco-feminists, Human right activists etc. It is an alternative world order which is based on the participative democracy, views on progress and approach towards the progress of productive forces and technology. M P argues that, today we are facing a challenge from the capitalist world. Certain capitalist’s countries disseminate the message that there is no alternative to capitalism. The socialist countries like China accept the fact that they too cannot escape from the capitalism in certain contextual basis. The remaining solution is the fourth world which comprises the ideologies of Marxism, Gandhism, Peace Studies, Environmentalism, eco feminism and human rights.

SOME THOUGHT ON THE DEEP ECOLOGY MOVEMENT - Arne Naess - by Alan Drengson

In 1973, Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Arne Naess introduced the phrase “deep ecology” to environmental literature. Environmentalism had emerged as a popular grassroots political movement in the 1960s with the publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. Those already involved in conservation and preservation efforts were now joined by many others concerned about the detrimental environmental effects of modern industrial technology. The longer-range, older originators of the movement included writers and activists like Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and Aldo Leopold; more mainstream awareness was closer to the “wise-use” conservation philosophy pioneered by Gifford Pinchot.
In 1972, Naess made a presentation in Bucharest at the Third World Future Research Conference. In his talk, he discussed the longer-range background of the ecology movement and its concern with an ethic respecting nature and the inherent worth of other beings. As a mountaineer who had climbed all over the world, Naess had enjoyed the opportunity to observe political and social activism in diverse cultures. Both historically and in the contemporary movement, Naess saw two different forms of environmentalism, not necessarily incompatible with each other. One he called the “long-range deep ecology movement” and the other, the “shallow ecology movement.” The word “deep” in part referred to the level of questioning of our purposes and values when arguing in environmental conflicts. The “deep” movement involves deep questioning, right down to fundamental root causes. The short-term, shallow approach stops before the ultimate level of fundamental change, often promoting technological fixes (e.g. recycling, increased automotive efficiency, export-driven monocultural organic agriculture) based on the same consumption-oriented values and methods of the industrial economy. The long-range deep approach involves redesigning our whole systems based on values and methods that truly preserve the ecological and cultural diversity of natural systems.
The distinguishing and original characteristics of the deep ecology movement were its recognition of the inherent value of all living beings and the use of this view in shaping environmental policies. Those who work for social changes based on this recognition are motivated by love of nature as well as for humans. They recognize that we cannot go on with industrialism's “business as usual.” Without changes in basic values and practices, we will destroy the diversity and beauty of the world, and its ability to support diverse human cultures.
In 1972, very few people appreciated that Naess was characterizing an existing grassroots movement, rather than simply stating his personal philosophy. In order to establish shared objectives, Naess proposed a set of eight principles to characterize the deep ecology movement as part of the general ecology movement. The platform can be endorsed by people from a diversity of religious and philosophical backgrounds as well as differing political affiliations. “Supporters of the deep ecology movement” (rather than being referred to as “deep ecologists”) are united by a long-range vision of what is necessary to protect the integrity of the Earth's ecological communities and ecocentric values.