Customer Reviews

The Ecological Life: Discovering Citizenship and a Sense of Humanity (Nature's Meaning)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have hesitated a long time in writing this review. In case you haven't noticed, my name is very similar to professor Bendik Keymer's. That's because I'm his father. (Esther Bendik, my GREAT wife, is his mother.) So, reader, if you read further, be aware that I am prejudiced to begin with in favor of professor B-K.

That may or may not influence my judgment on his book, though because I am also deeply prejudiced in favor of (1) logical and concise argument, (2) thinking that is outside the box, and (3) concise, evocative and effective writing. On two, maybe three of these counts, I think BK performs exceedingly well.

I'm least sure of the logic issue so let me start with that. In this relatively short book, BK is trying to do a difficult thing: to present a range of arguments for restraint in the way we treat other species and the ecosphere. Not all of these arguments rely on classical logic. In fact, the most convincing of them rely instead on more poetical, evocative forms of thinking, and especially the use of analogy. "How do we feel? How do they feel?" "Where are we rooted? What obligation, if any, do we owe the inanimate?" The latter of these pairs is the harder to argue in rigorous analytical terms but the question, "What ... do we owe the inanimate?," may in the long run be the truly important question we need to address.

BK does a good job of summarizing prudential arguments in support of a more enlightened approach to the environment. I don't find these the most exciting or illuminating parts of the book, in part because these arguments have been presented often before. I also, personally, don't find an (Adam) Smithian approach to environmental issues, that inspiring. \I'm convinced that there is something within us that resonates to the idea of nurturing the world we were born in and nestle in.

Here is where BK shines. I do not think the arguments he presents are free of flaw, but this is messy grounds, indeed. At least, he is not afraid to venture into unexplored terrain. And his argument from analogy I find not only compelling -it made me think, honestly think, for a moment, which is something few books do--but I felt it mirrored the way humans in fact actually think through complex situational issues. There is a sizeable literature available now from many fields -psychology, philosophy, cognitive science, linguistic, social anthropology--that demonstrates the tenuous hold of pure, step-by-step logic on the human decision making process. It appears clear that we are analogical animals when it comes to deciding things: we draw comparisons across large chasms of missing evidence and decide for emotional reasons plus logical ones. Here, I feel, BK has opened new grounds in environmental ethics.

BK employed a pleasant conceit in this book, presenting it as a set of classroom lecture, with the professor commenting on life outside the classroom and his students asking him questions. I didn't find the banter between professor and students convincing. At times I winced because it seemed artificial. But a page or two into each `lecture,' the artificiality disappeared as BK engaged himself in the argument he was presenting that week. I also felt the quality of the argument was not as high when he was presenting the argument for prudence (if you assault nature, it will hit back). The best parts of the book were the most original: I had not read an argument like BK's for the force and power of analogy as a convincer in ecological issues. I also appreciated BK's use of poetry (some of which I like and some not) and non-philosophical examples to make points for a generalist audience of environmental neophytes.

The last book I read that made me feel the way I did about this book was Raymond Gaita's The Philosopher's Dog, a book I liked a lot. (On the jacket cover of BK's book, Gaita praises it.) Gaita's book, too, is of mixed quality. But both books, Gaita's and BK's, offer new insights into a key area of contemporary ethics. They both make you feel that analytical thinking doesn't exhaust this very human and urgent problem: how shall we nestle in the world into which we were born and which we seem now to be defiling?

If you have ever wondered why people don't care about the environment and what you can do about it, you should read this book. Its answer demonstrates how important philosophical thinking about such issues is.

The author suggests that we are all greener than we think, and respect for nature is something that just needs to be pulled out of us. In doing this, he rejects the requirement deep ecology seems to push: that we transform ourselves into something else.

Most environmental ethics explain to us what we are doing wrong, and what we ought to stop. Sometimes these instructions are mostly about how we think "we ought to stop thinking anthropocentrically." (And of course, sometimes the instructions are just plain ol' "oughts", we ought not to harm animals.) But, especially if, say, global poverty is the main cause of environmental destruction, perhaps our environmental ethic ought to inspire us to act in ways we would not have otherwise thought of. I think the author's proposal in this wonderfully careful and readable book has the potential to do this. I think this because he supplies norms we do not normally encounter (not in our day-to-day life, nor in our reading). If you think ethics matters, I can't overstate how novel and important this contribution is.

The Ecological Life comes to the aid of those who hold (seemingly) conflicted desires to care for the self, care for others, and care for the earth. It does this by clearing a path into an under-explored question: Is there a sense of humanity that commits us to respecting non-human life? For the civic-minded and eco-conscious readers who struggle with feelings of moral schizophrenia, this book is an antidote to obscurity.

Before I go on, I should tell you my relation to the book: I was an undergraduate student of Jeremy Bendik-Keymer while he was writing this book. So, I have a closer relation to the book than had I picked it up off the shelf of Barnes and Nobles. But, this review comes three years after reading the book, so I have the advantage of writing about what stuck to my memory over time.

The Ecological Life is an imagined lecture series at a fictive liberal arts campus with a small, culturally mixed class of students (or so I presume, judging by their names). The class meets in an informal lecture format, with plenty of room for Q&A, and a few multi-media presentations. Rather than chapters, the book is organized by lecture, each dedicated to significant people in Bendik-Keymer's life.

Throughout the course, you sense the movement of the day when, for example, Bendik-Keymer draws attention to the shifting shadows on the wall that betray the movement of the sun. You remember that the argument is spoken, because students interject questions when points aren't clear. At times you see passages on the blackboard, or lists the class has brainstormed, or contemplate the significance of human land-relations, as the lights dim, and Bendik-Keymer illuminates the room with slides from around the world, scenes of beautiful and sacred places in nature. Sometimes the conversation sounds contrived, sometimes the students a bit too eager. But still, the class is engaging. What's more, this delivery constantly reminds us of our connection to our physical surroundings, and that philosophical work is relational.

The language is conversational and free of jargon; the style is poetic and full of rich description. It's accessible to the average Jane who likes clear, articulate argument, but doesn't have much formal training in philosophy or the mechanics of logic. Bendik-Keymer teaches the reader how to apply logic and analysis to the messy and complicated problems of our busy lives (if only my logic professor had taken this approach!)

Analogical Identification, the topic of my favorite lecture, shows us how to combine a tool of logic with a sense of humanity in order to identify with other forms of life. This discussion springs from an argument by the philosopher Cora Diamond, and a story about a group of scientists who watch and laugh at a deformed gorilla. The gorilla is not human, and it doesn't know that the scientists are laughing at its deformity. But Bendik-Keymer asks: is there something inhuman about the act of laughing at another creature's suffering? He argues that there is, through analogical identification.

As the effects of overpopulation and excessive consumption on the planet continue to headline the news, this book reminds and reassures us that the effort to respect the earth and its myriad life forms is a sign of our humanity.

Imagine what would happen if CS Lewis took "Mere Christianity" and wrote about the environment. That's basically what this book is. It's largely a philosophical discussion on having an ecological-mindset and changing your environmental morals. His main point is that we should be "ecological citizens", i.e., we should respect all forms of life because "Life is something rare."

It's not one of those generic environmental books where the author is excessively cynical and rants about global warming, deforestation, etc. The author is more focused on explaining why life in general deserves respect. He gives some good examples, but I think there are some holes in his arguments. Also, the format of the book is set up so that the author writes as if he were a professor, and you, the reader, are his students. This lets Keymer make his point, then have some random student retort in a colloquial "so what?" type response, and then he'll respond to that student. Anyways, overall, I thought it was ok, he brings up some interesting points/examples, but not too much you shouldn't already know.