Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity

Rating:
Summary: contesting philosophies....
Review: I had to rate this book so I gave it a 3; be advised that if you're looking for something from it that I didn't find in it, this rating might be way too low.

The title "Contesting Earth's Future" sounded to me like a wonderful intro to radical ecological thought. And thought there is here in abundance. Arguments. Counter-arguments. Naess says this (in a Spinozistic grid). Bookchin, whose name is just asking for it, says that. Roszak is over this way, Chodorow over that way, and Ken Wilber (does Wilber even write about ecology? Has he been outdoors lately? I cannot find out) somehow comes in on the sidelines, grandly and developmentally, ever transcending while always graciously including, as is his wont. Heidegger...well, never mind about Heidegger, let alone Hegel. "And so forth," as Vonnegut would say.

The cross-currents of highly theoretical debate in the field of ecology and ecopsychology get good exposure in this thick book; if that's what you want, then do buy it, you'll get all that and it's readable. I didn't want that. I bought it at a time when I wanted to know what people who care about the Earth too much to waste a lot of time in debate are actually doing with themselves. So this review could well be based on a mistaken purchase.

To invoke a possibly unfair comparison, there is a place for in-the-head discussions about the chemistry and psychodynamics of, say, love. We need conceptual maps, no doubt about it; we need to know what great thinkers say about relationships. But damn it, there comes a point when you just have to kiss the girl (or the Earth) and see what happens. Or when you need to say: the house is burning down and the hell with all these eloquent arguments--get some water!

If the ideological contest for our home's future is this frozen in arid intellectualism (and all credit to the author for letting us know this!), with every theorist so transparently cashing in a self-serving view of what ought to passionately involve us all, then it's no wonder we're so impotent when more forcible conservative agendas roll back ecological treaties, ignore environmental concerns, and threaten to pry open what little of the Earth remains protected.

Perhaps what readers like me really need are fewer books on how to sort all this out (an ego endeavor) and more on what the Earth seems to want from us (a joint endeavor). While activists are active and theorists theorize, I don't hear much from those of us who sweat all this in the bone, stand up, and bear witness to it, truly being a voice for the Earth and no theories about it.

"Now for near five years I have been indulged by the gracious Heaven in my long holiday in this godly house of mine entertaining & entertained by so many worthy & gifted friends and all this time poor Nancy Baron the madwoman has been screaming herself hoarse at the poorhouse across the brook & I still hear her whenever I open my window." -- Emerson

Rating:
Summary: contesting philosophies....
Review: I had to rate this book so I gave it a 3; be advised that if you're looking for something from it that I didn't find in it, this rating might be way too low.

The title "Contesting Earth's Future" sounded to me like a wonderful intro to radical ecological thought. And thought there is here in abundance. Arguments. Counter-arguments. Naess says this (in a Spinozistic grid). Bookchin, whose name is just asking for it, says that. Roszak is over this way, Chodorow over that way, and Ken Wilber (does Wilber even write about ecology? Has he been outdoors lately? I cannot find out) somehow comes in on the sidelines, grandly and developmentally, ever transcending while always graciously including, as is his wont. Heidegger...well, never mind about Heidegger, let alone Hegel. "And so forth," as Vonnegut would say.

The cross-currents of highly theoretical debate in the field of ecology and ecopsychology get good exposure in this thick book; if that's what you want, then do buy it, you'll get all that and it's readable. I didn't want that. I bought it at a time when I wanted to know what people who care about the Earth too much to waste a lot of time in debate are actually doing with themselves. So this review could well be based on a mistaken purchase.

To invoke a possibly unfair comparison, there is a place for in-the-head discussions about the chemistry and psychodynamics of, say, love. We need conceptual maps, no doubt about it; we need to know what great thinkers say about relationships. But damn it, there comes a point when you just have to kiss the girl (or the Earth) and see what happens. Or when you need to say: the house is burning down and the hell with all these eloquent arguments--get some water!

If the ideological contest for our home's future is this frozen in arid intellectualism (and all credit to the author for letting us know this!), with every theorist so transparently cashing in a self-serving view of what ought to passionately involve us all, then it's no wonder we're so impotent when more forcible conservative agendas roll back ecological treaties, ignore environmental concerns, and threaten to pry open what little of the Earth remains protected.

Perhaps what readers like me really need are fewer books on how to sort all this out (an ego endeavor) and more on what the Earth seems to want from us (a joint endeavor). While activists are active and theorists theorize, I don't hear much from those of us who sweat all this in the bone, stand up, and bear witness to it, truly being a voice for the Earth and no theories about it.

"Now for near five years I have been indulged by the gracious Heaven in my long holiday in this godly house of mine entertaining & entertained by so many worthy & gifted friends and all this time poor Nancy Baron the madwoman has been screaming herself hoarse at the poorhouse across the brook & I still hear her whenever I open my window." -- Emerson