Ecocentrism is a philosophical worldview that holistically values ecological systems as morally considerable entities, meaning that humans have ethical responsibilities towards them[1].

This week, we read two contrasting pieces regarding ecocentrism. In an excerpt from A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold writes about “The Land Ethic,” which holds humans responsible towards living communities of animals, plants, insects, and all biota interacting on the land[2]. In a critique of Leopold’s work, Chaone Mallory discusses the contradictions between Leopold’s writing and his love of hunting through an ecofeminist lens[3].

Before exploring Mallory’s critique, it’s important to first understand Leopold’s claims. Leopold’s land ethic rests on the value of communities, and the role individuals play in community well-being. As humans already consider themselves citizens of their own communities, Leopold argues, this mindset must simply be extended to the biotic community, which “changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it”[4]. He posits two mentalities, groups A and B, as opposing each other in terms of “ecological conscience”[5]. Group A continues to manage nature and view it as a commodity for human use, while Group B looks beyond nature’s usefulness to humans and considers human impacts on living interactions.

While Leopold’s land ethic has been praised by many conservationists as ecocentric, in her 2001 paper Mallory considers how Leopold’s passion for hunting supports human domination of nature, contrary to ecocentrism.  Mallory uses ecofeminism, the view that exploitation of nature is linked to the oppression of women, as a framework of analysis in her writing. Although Leopold presents hunting as an activity bringing him closer to nature, Mallory considers how hunting for the positive experience of connecting to land ultimately uses wildlife for the satisfaction of humans. Mallory further argues how Leopold’s vivid descriptions of hunting as a process of pursuit mirror male pursuit and objectification of women.

In my opinion, Mallory presents valid critiques of Leopold’s work, especially because Leopold makes conflicting claims. For example, in “The Land Ethic,” Leopold states that greater violence leads to greater destruction and interruption of ecological processes[6]. Yet simultaneously, he openly advocates violence through hunting as a positive way of interacting with nature.

In addition to Mallory’s points, I’d like to offer my own critique of Leopold’s suggestions for enacting a land ethic. Although I believe humans should value ecosystems and care for them accordingly, Leopold suggests that this should be done by placing more responsibility on the “private owner” of the land[7]. The issue I see is that the ownership and privatization of land directly allows for human domination over it. If, as Leopold says, we are equal citizens of a biological community, then we should not be able to “own” another citizen, any more than humans should own other humans. For this reason, I find Leopold’s positioning of private landowners as the optimal ecological stewards to be contradictory.

Having offered my thoughts on Leopold’s work, I will now discuss a critique of Mallory’s paper. While Mallory presents a strong analysis of “The Land Ethic” in contrast with Leopold’s hunting habits, she identifies the main problem with hunting to be “the type and degree of damage done to natural systems…that is unrelated to a human being’s biological need to survive.”[8] Mallory is careful to state that her critique of Leopold’s hunting relates to his privilege as a male settler hunting for sport, but she does not clarify her position on hunting that does support one’s need to survive. This is relevant in climates that don’t produce enough plant sustenance year-round for human survival. Although through globalization many of us now have access to plant-based food year-round in grocery stores, food insecurity is a major issue in isolated communities and some have found that hunting supports healthier nutrition while valuing ecosystems (see this article in The Narwhal). Given her strong opposition to Leopold’s hunting for pleasure, I think that Mallory could have strengthened her analysis by providing her thoughts on alternative approaches to hunting in the context of ecocentrism.

Overall, reading both of these authors was an interesting way to learn about varying perspectives on ecocentrism. In particular, I appreciate Mallory’s perspective that although Leopold is a pioneer of ecocentrism, many of his readers fail to see the contradictions in his writing. Meanwhile, both authors offer important perspectives on caring for land. Leopold’s valuing of ecological communities is necessary in order for humans to see ourselves as biological citizens, while Mallory’s ecofeminist critique of sport hunting explores human attitudes of domination. While I think an exploration of subsistence hunting would have enriched Mallory’s writing, both of these pieces were fascinating introductions to ecocentrism.

-By Mary

 

[1] “Glossary of Terms in Environmental Philosophy,” University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, updated September 20, 2010 , https://www.uwosh.edu/facstaff/barnhill/490-docs/thinking/glossary.

[2] Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” in A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf.

[3] Chaone Mallory, “Acts of Objectification and the Repudiation of Dominance: Leopold, Ecofeminism, and the Ecological Narrative,” Ethics and the Environment 6, no. 2 (2001): 85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40339013.

[4] Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” 1.

[5] Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” 2.

[6] Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” 4.

[7] Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” 3.

[8] Mallory, “Acts of Objectification,” 76.