No description available.

The subject-matter of the following essay is to investigate the relationship between what is commonly called Deep Ecology or Biocentric Philosophy, as articulated by the co-founder of the Deep Ecology Movement, Arne Naess, and later proponents of the biocentric school of environmentalist thought. I contrast Naess’ concept of Self-realization as founded in his Ecosophy T to the ideas of american conservationist and co-founder of the radical green movement Earth First! Dave Foreman, and to the controversial finnish environmentalist and ecofascist Pentti Linkola’s ideological agenda of population-reduction respectively. According to some critics of the movement, especially the social ecologist Murray Bookchin and French liberal philosopher Luc Ferry, the Deep Ecology ideology is essentially misanthropic and totalitarian in structure. A central idea among deep ecologists is that ecosystems and natural entities have intrinsic value in themselves, even outside a human social context. This idea is thought of among deep ecologists to create a philosophically sound basis for counteracting the environmental global crisis. Both Bookchin and Ferry argue that this idea reduces the role of human reason and ethics in a fundamental way, especially in relation to questions concerning population-growth control. My aim is to show that the original intention of Arne Naess in his philosophy (Ekosofi T) does not resemble either Ferrys focus of critique, neither the controversial statements made by Dave Foreman and Earth First! nor Linkolas population-control agenda.

Ce mémoire propose une défense de la pertinence de l’éco-anarchisme. Cette défense se fera à travers une analyse critique des arguments adressés à l’éco-anarchisme, ainsi que ses deux branches principales : le biorégionalisme et l’écologie sociale. Pour mener à bien ce projet, il sera nécessaire d’offrir un portrait détaillé des théories dont j’analyserai également les critiques. Ce mémoire commence par une présentation de l’éco-anarchisme, du biorégionalisme et de l’écologie sociale. Puis, il passe en revue les différentes critiques qui ont été émises sur ces théories. Cette analyse critique sert de base à la présentation d’un ensemble de recommandations, qui auront comme objectifs de pallier les failles mises en lumière par certaines critiques. Ces recommandations tourneront autour de trois objectifs principaux : soulever l’importance de confédérer les communautés ; soulever l’importance de créer des ponts entre l’éco-anarchisme et l’éco-féminisme et l’éthique du Care ; abandonner la branche du biorégionalisme. / This master thesis offers a defense of the relevance of eco-anarchism. This defense will be done through a critical analysis of the arguments made against eco-anarchism, as well as its two main strands: bioregionalism and social ecology. To carry out this project, it will be necessary to offer a detailed portrait of the theories from which we will analyse the critics. Therefore, the beginning of this thesis will be a presentation of eco-anarchism, bioregionalism and social ecology. Then, it will be necessary to establish a review of the various criticisms that have been made of these theories. Ultimately, this critical analysis will serve as the basis for the presentation of a myriad of recommendations, which will have the objective of remedying the flaws highlighted by certain criticisms. These recommendations will revolve around three main ones: highlight the importance of confederating communities; highlight the importance of building bridges between eco-anarchism and eco-feminism and the ethics of care; abandon the strand of bioregionalism.

This paper interweaves narrativized readings and experiential narratives as personal and cultural resources for counterhegemonic cultural critique within our historical context of globalization and ecological crisis. Framed by perspectives on epistemology, everyday life, and place, these reflections seek to engage and revitalize our notions of community, creativity, and the individual, towards visioning the human art of community as a counternarrative to globalization. Such a task involves confronting the meanings we have come to ascribe to work and economy which so deeply determine our social fabric. Encountering the thought of key 19th and 20th century social theorists ranging from William Morris, Gregory Bateson, and Raymond Williams, to Murray Bookchin, Martin Buber, and Wendell Berry, these reflections mark the indivisible web of culture in the face of our insistent divisions, and further, iterate our innate creativity as the source for a vital, sustainable culture that might reflect, in Bateson’s terms, the pattern that connects.