From Critical Theory to Critical Ecology

Abstract

For the critical social theory of the Frankfurt School, man's mastery of nature has always been double-edged, an ideology which often extended to the domination of men. Marcuse has argued for a new science and technology which would avoid this repressive double mastery; but another member of the school, Jiirgen Habermas, rejected his proposal and others as mysticism. 1 Are we then precluded from conceiving liberation in terms of a nonrepressive mastery of nature, "a mastery guided by human needs that have been formulated by associated individuals in an atmosphere of rationality, freedom and autonomy?" 2 The increasing evidence of the ecological problems attendant to advanced technology's 'successes' also • demands the development of a nonrepressive standpoint toward our natural habitat. But must that standpoint be romantic? Or is it a necessity of survival as well as of liberation? What would it mean in the context of critical theory's attack on historical objectivism and positivism and rejection of the irrational immediacy and activism of the new left? No mere repetition of old socialist saws can suffice here.Critical theory can no longer presuppose an economics of abundance, as it once did. 3 For some classic problems have reappeared: inflation, starvation, blatant imperialism, resource exploitation, and even the threat of depression. The economy has lurched from the promise of abundance to the old fact of scarcity, even in the new industrial systems.Once again material need, economic justice and political selfdetermination may dominate the struggle for liberation. The late shift of attention to cultural forms of liberation may have to readjust itself not only to an old focus on economics, but also to a new focus on nature.Habermas' critique of the extension of technological rationality into the social world seems abstract and remote. Of course, critical theory is not meant to be a strategy manual. So my concern is to preserve critical theory's contribution while directing it to issues now relevant to the majority of people on this planet: those outside the advanced industrial centres. We can not think of returning to a pre-industrial economy. Yet, a more ecological conception of man's relation to nature must be developed, one which would not legitimate the continued exploitation of poor countries by the rich industrial states.

Habermas in Environmental Thought

“…Environmental scholars have criticized Habermas' split with the first‐generation critical theorists and his idea of a technical interest. In Telos , Di Norcia () provided the first environmental assessment of Habermas' social theory, arguing that the science of ecology had made Habermas' notion of an ahistorical technical interest untenable. For Di Norcia, it was not Marcuse who was the mystic, as Habermas claimed, but Habermas himself.…”

“…For Di Norcia, it was not Marcuse who was the mystic, as Habermas claimed, but Habermas himself. It is flawed to believe that humans can be understood as beings detached from the biophysical environment and that the object of humanity's mastery (some piece of nature) can be separated from its surroundings (Di Norcia :89). Habermas' Knowledge and Human Interests had uncritically accepted the characteristically modern (i.e., not ahistorical) “myth of mastery” where human beings (active subjects) are separate entities from nature (passive objects) and ought to fully dominate the latter.…”

“…Di Norcia proposed an alternative human interest that he felt is both rational and fraternal: a “natural” human interest. Di Norcia's (:91–92) alternative natural interest is “an interest in the proper form of cognitive and practical interaction with the natural environment, one which will allow benefit to men in securing their goals with the minimum harmful interference in natural processes.” Accounting for this human interest would require a fundamental reworking of Habermas' system.…”

“…Is Habermas' system “ecologically disastrous” (Nelson :114) or does it have “the greatest potential to be useful, not only in explaining sources of the environmental problematique but in … reconciling democratic politics and environmental values” (Baber and Bartlett :81)? Although these dichotomous positions have been formulated for four decades (for earliest environmental critique, see Di Norcia ; for earliest environmental support, see Dietz ) and continue today (for environmental critique, see Nelson ; for environmental support, see Rosa, Renn, and McCright ), there is minimal extensive communication between these two camps, excluding Eckersley's () and Murphy's () critique of Dryzek and Brulle's () critique of Eckersley. Furthermore, there has not been an extended analytic and systematic review and study of these disparate interpretations.…”

Moving Toward Ecosystem Management: Examining a Change in Philosophy for Resource Management

“…Moreover, unlike mainstream political science, critical theory is often directly tied to political issues and political action, particularly by those opposed to racism and those interested in ecological issues (P. Wexler 1991:vii). Specifically, critical theory has been suggested as a way to understand and improve the relationship between humans and the natural world (J.Whitebrook 1979; V. Di Norcia 1974;W.Leiss 1974).…”