This week in Environmental Ethics, we read a piece titled “A Wilderness Environmentalism Manifesto: Contesting the Infinite Self-Absorption of Humans” by Kevin Michael De Luca (2007). De Luca argues that by focusing on social issues, the environmental justice movement detracts from environmental concerns due to an anthropocentric prioritization of human needs (2007, 29). Although De Luca raises some good points about the value of nature beyond its use to humans, the majority of his chapter can only be described as ecofascist. Despite De Luca’s recognition that humans are part of nature, I believe his claim that environmental justice is anthropocentric actually reinforces a human-nature dichotomy. Furthermore, De Luca’s flippant tone regarding human rights and social needs reinforce the ecofascist character of his writing.

Before getting further into De Luca’s writing, let me first define eco-fascism. Oxford’s Lexico dictionary defines it as “radical environmentalism of a type perceived as excessive, intolerant, or authoritarian,” (2020) while the Oxford Dictionary of Environment and Conservation describes it as environmentalism regardless of “personal wishes, preferences, or needs” (2007). Although the term is used in different ways, I understand eco-fascism to be the prioritization of the environment above any concern for social needs or human rights. As I will soon discuss, I believe true concern for the environment should always encompass social concerns. These issues are not separate.

De Luca is critical that “Environmental justice activists have redefined ‘environment’ to focus on humans” (2007, 29). To prove his point, De Luca points to organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, who have incorporated social and environmental sustainability in their slogans. Although he praises the Sierra Club’s valuable work, De Luca cautions that “Their move to adopt the principles of environmental justice at the expense of a focus on wilderness…is a grievous error” (2007, 46). Instead, De Luca argues that too much concern with cultural preservation and social sustainability is anthropocentric, claiming that “Putting humans first dilutes the focus and efforts of environmental groups” (2007, 45).

These claims are a serious mischaracterization of environmental justice, first and foremost because environmental justice does not claim to put humans above all else. Rather, environmental justice acknowledges that all humans, in all our diversity, are part of nature. As Environmental Justice Canada lays out, all humans deserve equal protection from environmental harms, and have equal rights to live in a healthy environment. In other words, environmental justice acknowledges that humans are equal to each other, not that humans are above other species or aspects of nature. Although De Luca emphasizes that humans are part of nature, his claim that environmentalism must prioritize “wilderness” instead of social justice actually reinforces the anthropocentric hierarchy that he tries to dismantle (2007, 30). Instead, it’s important to see that environmental justice is social justice, and vice versa.

This prioritization of wilderness above humans approaches the realm of eco-fascism when it implies that human rights and environmental concerns are unrelated. Several of the examples De Luca uses to support his arguments fail to recognize the root of the environmental problem at hand, which is often the fact that basic human needs aren’t met in the first place.

A key example is De Luca’s description of a restaurant serving prized wildlife as food. He condones how the environmental group WildAid raided the restaurant at gunpoint and “[did] not concern itself with the young teenage girls working as waitresses and prostitutes” (2007, 45). Although De Luca calls this a “brutal choice,” he concludes that “If environmental protection depends on eradicating prostitution, we may as well all go buy SUVs and retire to the beach,” completely failing to examine why young girls may become sex workers in the first place (2007, 45).

Although sex work is dignified work, and some people may simply choose it as their job, there are of course situations where it is a person’s only means to survive. In the case that De Luca describes, the eradication of forced sex work in wildlife restaurants would absolutely reduce environmental harms. Why? Because people who engage in sex work out of necessity, rather than choice, do so because they do not have access to basic needs. If the social problems of poverty, income inequality, and access to jobs were first addressed, then people would not have to work in an industry that thrives on killing endangered wildlife. Raiding a restaurant at gunpoint to save animals does not prevent employees from seeking similar jobs elsewhere out of necessity. The only sustainable solution to this wildlife restaurant, then, is to address social needs in tandem with environmental concerns.

There is a lot to unpack in De Luca’s chapter, and very little space to do so. Although De Luca is correct in his stance that humans are not above nature, his attack on environmental justice and social concerns are severely misguided. Rather than dismantling the human vs. nature dichotomy, I believe his disregard for social justice in protecting the environment actually reinforces a separation between humans and nature, rendering many of his arguments ecofascist. If we are to truly protect the environment, we must protect all of its components, which includes both human and non-human entities.

-Mary

Reference:

De Luca, Kevin Michael. 2007. “A Wilderness Environmentalism Manifesto: Contesting the Infinite Self-Absorption of Humans.” In Environmental Justice and Environmentalism: The Social Justice Challenge to the Environmental Movement, edited by Ronald Sandler and Phaedra C. Pezzullo, 27-55. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2781.003.0005.