💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-biocentrism-ideology-against-nature.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:29:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Biocentrism: Ideology Against Nature Author: Mikal Jakubal Date: 1989 Language: en Topics: critique, deep ecology, ideology Source: Retrieved on 22 February 2011 from http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no8/biocentrism.html Notes: An article from Do or Die Issue 8. In the paper edition, this article appears on page(s) 121–124. Also found in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed Issue 19, this article appears on pages 20-21.
That humanity is somehow ‘out of balance’ with nature is hardly a topic
of controversy nowadays. There is little question that humans are
fouling the world to the point of suicide for us and mass extinction for
all other life. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. In a variety of ways,
people have attempted to grasp the problem, define it, and seek
solutions. Of the many new and more faddish results, few have been as
popular as Deep Ecology — also known as Biocentrism — the view that
humans are acting out of excessive human-centredness (anthropocentrism)
and thus destroying the planet and the rest of the species which have
just as much ‘intrinsic right’ to live out their biological destiny as
we do. Accordingly, Biocentrism (life/earth/nature centredness) calls
for a new way of acting. Specifically, it calls for ‘earth-centred’
activity and thinking — putting the ‘earth first’ (instead of putting
ourselves first) as a way out of the global dilemma.
In the following rant I wish to take a critical look at these assertions
and show them for what I believe to be false, misleading and even
counter-productive. I don’t mean this to be a sermon or some statement
of absolute truth. No way!
What follows is, more than anything else, just my initial attempt at
deciphering and understanding the relationships between some types of
ideas and activity that I’ve discovered to be true to the best of my
experience. The points I take on here, and their broader implications,
have been of central importance to many of the great disputes and
inconsistencies within what can loosely be called the ‘radical ecology
movement’. Hopefully, my efforts here will help to encourage further
discussion.
According to its proponents, Biocentrism is nature-centred living. It
therefore must be premised on an irreconcilable separation of humans and
nature. This is so because if humans were inherently natural beings —
i.e: an equal part of nature, fully integrated into the natural flow of
life — then to be human-centred (anthropocentric) would also imply being
nature-centred (biocentric). But Biocentrism has already been defined by
its practitioners to be the opposite of Anthropocentrism. So, according
to Biocentrist thought (nature-centred philosophy) humans are
irredeemably estranged from nature — or were never part of it in the
first place — because ‘human’ is posited as the opposite of ‘nature’
(Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism). Oddly, Anthropocentrism implies
the very same thing. If Anthropocentrism is human-centred living and
this is the opposite of Biocentrism, or nature-centred living, then once
again, ‘human’ and ‘nature’ are opposite and therefore separate. It is a
contradiction to say that two positions which are identical are, in
fact, opposite. I will try to resolve this dilemma by going outside of
what is common to both Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism — ideological
thinking.
Ideological thinking is false consciousness. In other words, it is ideas
and activity which originate elsewhere, outside of our own emotional and
intellectual subjectivity, our identity. Ideology is when we mistake
others’ thoughts for our own or when our own thoughts become rigid and
fossilised and those thoughts come to control us — instead of the other
way around. Marxism, all religions, guru cults are all very clear and
obvious examples of ideological thinking. The politically correct sacred
or official line is what one must adhere to. These ideas and demands on
our activity originate not out of our own needs or desires, or ideas or
personal lived experience or community, but from outside of us,
externally to us. Other examples of ideologically (false) activity
include: all political ideologies, ‘causes’ (doing things for ‘the
cause’ instead of for our own needs), consumerism (externally created
wants and preferences) and philosophies.
Both Biocentrism, and its necessary companion, Anthropocentrism, are
ideologies. They both place external demands on our thinking and
activity. Biocentrism differs from, say, Marxism, Christianity or the
Moonies only in content. In form it is identical. How it differs is that
it demands that we act, not according to the politically, morally or
guru determined correct line, but to the ‘naturally’ correct one.
‘Nature’ — or an abstract overruling idea-of-nature replaces the guru,
Bible or Party doctrines. There is no room in any of these (or any other
ideologies) for the vagaries of human wildness, independent thought,
activity or desire — or nature. All thought and activity is pre-scribed,
determined externally to our human need, desires. At times we may agree
with something that is also part of an ideology. But at this point, if
it is truly no longer ideological, no longer external, no longer false
consciousness, then we need not invoke the label, category, guru, or
other ‘authority’ to justify our ideas and activity. In other words,
instead of saying “according to the Marxist doctrines...”, or “The Bible
says...”, or “Deep Ecology says...”, we would say “I think that...”,
“I’ve noticed that...”, “I feel that...”, or “I’m doing this
because...”. In this case — authentic, subjective ideas and activity
based on our constantly changing needs and desires and always personally
checked out against our own everyday lived experience — we can defend
and explain our ideas and activity with arguments and examples that we
know to be true because we’ve thought about or actually experienced
them. (This has been called ‘theory’ — more on that later). In other
words, we can claim our ideas as our own.
When we are in the grips of ideological thinking and acting we cannot do
this because the ideas are not our own — we did not think, feel or
experience them for ourselves. (Ideology, in this way, is administered
thought, directed action — more on that later.) Therefore, we cannot
argue, explain or justify them ourselves. Instead when someone opposes
or challenges our ideology, we must put them into a category — i.e:
label them as ‘other’. The label (authority, justification) of the
ideologist is then used to justify evasion of any challenge. Some
examples are “That’s just Marxism...”, “That’s Violence, we follow the
Non-Violence Code...”, “She’s a Humanist...”. Thus, any challenge to an
ideology can be dismissed as that of an ‘outsider’ in the eyes of the
Party faithful who will all nod their heads in agreement at how clever
the ideologist is.
Earlier I referred to ‘theory’. Theory is (to clearly define it at least
for the sake of this discussion) the opposite of ideology. Ideology is
inside-out theory. In ideological activity, the motivations come from
without. With theory, motivations come from within, from our own
subjective ideas, experiences, longings and needs. Thus theory can also
be called ‘self-theory’. Most people today are walking around
inside-out, motivated and directed by a myriad of things — anything but
themselves. Theory is never static, never rigid. Our theory, if we fail
to constantly evolve and test it against our experience and new
information, quickly fossilises into ideological thinking.
When we base our activities and ideas on our self-theory, we can clearly
see what the actuality behind new information is and choose to take or
leave whatever we want. The self-theorist skips and dances through the
great supermarket of ideology, tearing open every package, scattering
the contents and appropriating what seems good and nourishing and
discarding the rest. The ideologist shops carefully, or even perhaps on
impulse, looking for just the right fit of pre-packaged ideas to take
home and consume wholeheartedly — after paying at the register of
course! Ideologists often are brand switchers. They’ll stick with one
package of (non-) thought only until the next one in a shinier package
comes along and lures them in. Other ideologists maintain a lifelong
brand loyalty!
In the earlier discussion about ideologists using labels to evade
challenges, we can say that the self-theorist can easily see — and see
past — ideological boundaries of the opponent by watching for examples
of ideological thinking such as statements like “Deep Ecology says
that...”, “Marxism says that...”, “Gandhi would’ve said that...”. The
person under the influence of an ideology, a false consciousness, on the
other hand, having constructed these barriers, cannot see out. It has
become a wall, a real barrier to advancement, a very un-radical thing to
do.
Note also that just as the ideologist isn’t the originator of his/her
ideas, so s/he neither claims the credit for them (e.g. “Biocentrism
says...”). But here is another example of how the ideologist is
mystified. Doctrines, ideologies and the like do not themselves talk and
so it is wrong and misleading to say “Biocentrism says...”. Who is
Biocentrism? When we begin to ask such questions, we can peel off layers
of mystification and confusion like the skin of an onion until we can
see what lies beneath: Actually Biocentrism doesn’t say anything. Actual
people do and say things such as “Biocentrism this and that...”, not
some mystical Biocentrism force or creature. It’s important to uncover
the real source of ideas we hold so they can be fully evaluated on their
actual content and meaning. If we then really do agree, then we can say
“I think this and that...” and the ideas will no longer have control
over us. We will control the ideas. Beware the dangers of attributing
concrete activity and thinking to abstract concepts or doctrines or
slogans.
In response to attacks, the person who engages in ideological thinking
and activity simply builds higher and bigger walls. To continue this
imagery for a moment longer, we can see that eventually the ideologist
will be overwhelmed by the theorist who, being free to think, evaluate
and rove around, will eventually find the cracks and weak spots that
will bring the whole thing down with little effort. Imagine a guerrilla
group with a radical self-theory challenging a monolithic state military
force under the grip of a rigid chain of command (external control,
ideology). This whole preceding discussion has obvious relevance for
anyone engaged in direct subversive resistance — or think they are:
ideology creeps up where you’d least expect it. But you can draw you own
conclusions on that...
I’ve tried to present a fairly clear and simplified (if not simplistic)
picture of what ideological activity is, how it operates and how it can
limit us. I’ve tried to contrast that with theory, a better way to
understand the world and think and act. What I’ll try to do now is
explain how ideology is the death knell of radical change, of humanity,
of nature and of the earth and wilderness. I showed at the very
beginning how Biocentrism (an ideology, a category of Nature-ally
correct thought and activity, a label used to discredit opposing views,
an external source of ideas and action, an authority) is premised on the
view that humans are separate from nature and act out of
human-centeredness (Anthropocentrism) and this is what is destroying the
earth. But I also showed that the apparent opposites of Biocentrism and
Anthropocentrism both in fact mean the same thing. I said that this
dichotomy was resolvable by breaking out of ideological forms of
thought. This is what I mean.
I’d like to start with this assertion: Humans are not separate from
nature. Our ‘nature’ is that which is most ‘natural’ to us — our deepest
needs, desires, dreams, internally defined ideas (self-theory), our
emotional wants and expression, our wild, animal instincts. Our human
nature is our wild, free animal instinct and subjectivity. This is what
is most natural and also what is most human about us since these
qualities arise naturally and from within us. ‘Human’ and ‘nature’ are
not contradictory, mutually exclusive terms.
Both Biocentrism (life/nature/earth-centred) and Anthropocentrism
(human-centrism) mean the same thing, yet one is defined as being
opposed to the other. They both are ideologies. They both are external,
packaged thought for consumption and directed action. Both have
adherents who purport that the ideology must be allowed to do the
thinking for us, and that we must act out of motivations it prescribes.
Ideological thinking requires that we relinquish our desires, our
unpredictability, our ability to change and adapt and submit them to the
category, label, doctrine, guru, Bible or, in the case of Biocentrism,
to an abstracted Nature; an idea of nature.
When we relinquish our desires and wild animal instincts, we are
relinquishing what is most natural, what is most human about us.
Ideological thinking (false consciousness, since the thoughts and
actions are not our own) is the enemy of nature. It is the enemy of
humans because it deprives us of what makes us human — our human nature,
our wildness. All authority — since it is ideological, externally
imposed — is the enemy of nature and wildness. All domination and
obedience kills nature in us, deprives us of our natures by depriving us
of our humanity, our dreams, desires and wildness.
This is the mistake of claiming to act or think in the name of something
external to us — whether it be Biocentrism, Marxism, Non-Violence, ‘The
Cause’, America, Deep Ecology or an abstracted idea of Nature itself.
These all kill our unruly, natural wild humanity. To say we are thinking
or acting for Deep Ecology of the Earth or Nature or the Spotted Owl is
to act for reasons external to us. To do this we must submit our desires
to these ideological forms of thought, we must suppress our wildness,
individuality — our nature. What a bizarre circumstance, to be risking
injury or imprisonment to defend an idea of nature while killing the
real living nature in ourselves! Of course, if you are doing/thinking
those things for yourself and not killing wildness, not killing nature,
not involved in ideological activity, them there is no reason to invoke
labels as justifications. Be able to say: “I’m doing this out of my own
desires for wildness, for my own human nature (or whatever).” And herein
lies the way out of the contradiction.
Both Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism are ideologies and therefore
anti-nature. If we act out of Biocentrism we are actually killing our
nature, not being nature-centred. If we act out of Anthropocentrism, we
are not acting out of our human-centred desires and wild animal
instincts. We are acting out of ideological demands. So, Biocentrism is
anti-nature and Anthropocentrism is anti-human! So they are both
anti-human and anti-nature.
So, big deal? But this becomes critical when we see that it is this same
mode of self-denial or self-repression of wildness that allows us to do
anti-human activity and anti-nature activity in this society.
Biocentrism (and all ideologies), therefore, reinforces this
precondition, reinforces our domestication. The actual daily activity,
the dominant mode of human existence on the earth today is mislabelled
by the Biocentrists. It is not Anthropocentrism, not human-centred. It
is not done to meet human needs, not done as a result of the fulfilment
of wild human desires. This activity is done to fulfil the needs of
power and capital, nation-states and commodity-exchange, the whole
military-industrial-national-empire. It should rightly be called
production-centred or power-centred or death-centred since we must kill
our wild natures to be part of it. Our daily activity is done to keep
this ‘Machine’ running. This Machine is what is devouring the earth,
nature, wilderness and humanity. To work in the entrails of this
���leviathan’ requires that we submit all our wildness to the needs,
schedules and routines of it. On a daily basis, this is how we
individually kill our desire for our nature, our wildness.
To do this, to suppress our own wild, human, animal instincts, we must
put on successively think layers of emotional ‘armour’ to protect
ourselves from the pain of a murdered nature trying to break through.
Like asphalt and herbicide to keep the wild plants from destroying the
roadbed, this armour must be constantly added to or it begins to fall
away. This armour can also be thought of as the internalisation of the
Machine, its logic and schedules. Eventually the armour can be mistaken
for what it is suppressing in the same way that so many people today
mistake concrete, machinery and media images for the real world. This is
the success of the system, the goal of our education, the triumph of
Domestication over Wilderness.
It is only such armoured beings, domesticated humans who have
internalised the Machine, that would engage in
self-destructive/nature-destructive activity. Herein lies the danger of
all modes of ideological (pseudo) awareness and activity (of which
Biocentrism is but one of many, many). By encouraging us to follow that
which is external to us, that which negates our own human wildness and
desires, these ways of thinking and acting, help build our emotional
armour against nature! They encourage self-repression and domestication.
Ideology causes us to further distrust our wild natural instincts to be
free. In this way, we are more able to destroy the world while at the
same time we are that much less able to transcend and break free from
this very mode of destructive behaviour.
What is needed is a subjective, critical, internal-human-nature-centred
type of ‘self-theory’ that helps us peel away the mystification
surrounding our relation to ourselves, our world and our daily activity.
We need to see domestication and suppression of wilderness and freedom
clearly and without illusions before we can begin the wild, liberatory
celebration of our nature, the creation of planetary wilderness and the
pitiless annihilation of everything which stands in the way.