Customer Reviews

Ecology in the 20th Century: A History

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

 

 

A new era is upon us, which will be the era of the Peasant. - Heinz Haushofer.

_Ecology in the 20th Century: A History_, published by Yale University Press in 1989, by ecological historian Anna Bramwell (author of a book on Walther Darre and Hitler's Green Party) is an excellent history of the roots of the Green and ecological movements beginning in the late Nineteenth Century and into the Twentieth Century. This book came out in 1989 during the Reagan and Thatcher years and the author obviously owes much to the libertarian, pro-free market economic views popular at the time. Anna Bramwell was a historian at Trinity College, Oxford, and as she notes in the preface to this book she has mixed feelings about the ecological movement. She takes as a given that nature is beautiful and harmonious and that the simple life of the rural yeoman is satisfying though difficult. She also has genuine credentials as part of this movement in that as she admits in the preface, she lived in a working, yeoman Herefordshire smallholding. This book argues that while the Green and ecological movements began with noble ideals, advocating rural localism, decentralization, respect for tradition, and back-to-the-land utopian idealism, that (like the subsequent hippie movement which too began with noble ideals), they were infiltrated by vicious eugenicists, Social Darwinists, Marxists, Maoists, cultural Bolsheviks, radical feminists, and birth controllers. It is for this reason that she contends that the ecological movement has partly lost its way, especially in its newfound support for centralized planning and technocracy. The previous reviewer refers to this as a hostile history; however, I do not believe this is so, as the author obviously respects ecological ideas greatly. Rather, I think that this is a history which shows a pollution of such ideas by corrupt elements - a pollution which must be purged so that the original movement can reclaim lost ground. As the author notes, many ecological and Green ideas began as part of a "soft, alternative right" composed of anarchists, Cobbettian democrats, High Tories, and "Tory anarchists" who were anti-capitalist, anti-system, and anti-Establishment and opposed the mercantilist state. Later following the Second World War with the discrediting of the Nazi state, such ideas moved to the "soft left" which turned towards cultural Bolshevism advocating feminism (sometimes violently anti-patriarchy), anti-nuclear power, and pro-communism. This book traces such an unfortunate development. As Bramwell notes, this book does not focus on such things as the anti-vivisectionist, the commune, the vegetarian, or the animal rights movements in much detail.

The first section of this book is entitled "A Political Theory of Ecology". In the Introduction, Bramwell traces the origins of ecological ideas, showing how they arose from the need for an "earth-bound identity" and a revolt against the industrial age. One early source of ecological ideas was the movement that sprang up around the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel of anti-mechanistic, holistic biology. Haeckel is perhaps most famous for his remark that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Other Green ideas incorporated Social Darwinist elements of Herbert Spencer or the anarchism of Kropotkin. Finally, individuals such as Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Steiner also played some role in furthering ecological ideas during the Twentieth century. In particular, the thinkers Goethe, Nietzsche, Bergson, Driesch, and Heidegger are frequently claimed as progenitors of the ecological movement. Other important ideas arise from Buddhism or Taoism. In the second chapter, entitled "The Manichaean Ecologist", Bramwell explains how ecologists frequently came to view the world as having a dualistic nature and contrasting the harmful effects of man on nature. In particular, some regarded man as having usurped the role of God and thus having become the shepherd of the earth. Different individuals with sympathies towards Green ideas came to place the blame for the destruction of nature on various forces. These included: Christianity, the Enlightenment (with atheism, skepticism, rationalism, and scientism following on), the scientific revolution (incorporating capitalism and utilitarianism), Judaism (via either the Jewish element in Christianity or via capitalism), Men, the Nazis, the West, and various other wrong spirits, such as greed, materialism, acquisitiveness, and not knowing where to stop. While certain Tories and "right wing Catholics" such as Chesterton and the Oxford Inklings blamed atheism, others blamed Christianity, or rabid feminists blamed the patriarchy. In particular the writings of Robert Graves (_The White Goddess_) served as a rallying point for feminist paganism. Others emphasized a racial element, including notions of Aryan and Nordic superiority. Finally, some ecologists have tried to claim Marx as one of theirs; however, as Bramwell notes, Marx cannot properly be considered an ecologist and uniformly despised the peasants and nature (as much if not more so than Ayn Rand).

The second section of this book is entitled "A History of Ecology, 1880 - 1945". The first chapter of this section discusses "Biology and Holism". This chapter turns to the ideas of Ernst Haeckel and his Monist Leagues. Haeckel was a Darwinist who coined the term "Oekologie" and who advocated a pantheistic religion of nature (as opposed to traditional Christian belief). Bramwell spends some time trying to argue against Gasman's thesis that Haeckel was a key founder of the ideas behind the Third Reich. Other early ecologists included vitalists such as Driesch, Jakob von Uexkhull, and Lorenz who advocated holism. The second chapter of this section turns to "Energy Economics". Here, mention is made of scarce resources and solar power, land and planners, patriots and peasants, and the "frontier economy". Important thinkers mentioned include the economist von Thunen (author of _The Isolated State_), Lewis Mumford, and Nobel Prize winner Frederick Soddy. Finally, such ideas as utopian socialism are mentioned. The third chapter of this section is entitled "Communes and Communards". Here, reference is made to the followers of Henry George, libertarian anarchists such as Tucker, the Catholic distributists (mention is made of Chesterton and Cobbett's _Rural Economy_), Tolstoyian pacifists, and others. The author notes that many of the communes were likely to fail or eventually rely on outside support, while religious based closed-communities such as the Amish or the Doukhobours were more likely to succeed. The fourth chapter of this section turns to "Back to the Northland" ideas of pan-Nordic ruralism. Here, Bramwell mentions the various pan-Nordic, pro-German, and back-to-the-land Volkish ideas that emerged in such places as rural England during the 1930s. One movement in particular that involved such ideas was the Green shirts that advocated a system of Social Credit (as advocated by Major C. H. Douglas) and advocated for a return to Anglo-Saxon roots. Such movements also frequently involved youth groups similar to the Boy Scouts in which the youth were seen as passing through the stages of primitive man (as noted by Haeckel in his famous dictum that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"). Such youth groups may have played some role in the formation of the German Youth Movement. Other thinkers involved in such movements included novelist D. H. Lawrence, Hugh J. Massingham and J. R. R Tolkien (author of the famous _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy). The fifth chapter of this section is entitled "The Literary Ecologist". This chapter discusses the writings of Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun (author of _Growth of the Soil_) and Henry Williamson. The sixth chapter of this section is entitled "Was There a Generic Fascist Ecologism?" This chapter discusses Ernst Junger, Ortega y Gassett, as well as various fascist movements such as the British Union of Fascists, and the "Blood and Soil" mysticism surrounding such individuals as Walther Darre in the Nazi regime.

The third section of this book is entitled "Ecology: A German Disease?" The first chapter in this section is entitled "The Chill of the Forests". Here, the author discusses German naturism, neo-Lamarckian ideas, Fidus, Heidegger, and Berthold Brecht. The second chapter in this section is entitled "The Steiner Connection". Here, the author discusses the Third Reich and the role of the ideas of Rudolf Steiner (Anthroposophy) within that regime. The author notes how such ideas emerged from a largely Germanic millieu.

The fourth section of this book is entitled "The New Age". The first chapter of this section is "Greens, Reds, and Pagans". Here, the author explains how with the breakdown of the Nazi regime the ecological movement was taken over by the "soft left" and advocated such things as anti-nuclear power (Pagans Against Nukes). The second chapter of this section is entitled "The Political Economy of Ecology". Here, the author explains some of the failures of the social planners and the move of the ecological movement away from decentralization and localism and towards planning. The author views such a movement towards socialistic planning as highly problematic.

This book is an excellent history of an important movement that has unfortunately been corrupted. As the author notes, the Green movement must return to its roots and cast off ideas of socialistic planning and cultural Bolshevism returning to an appreciation for radical localism and rural traditions. Such ideas are certain to play an important role in the political thinking of the future, particularly in a time of global crisis.

This is an impressive work, a history of a diffuse concept that evolved

and appeared in different contexts and with different companions in

different places and at different times. Bramwell covers the politics,

literature, economics, religion, philosophy, sociology, biography, and

results of the people and groups involved.

Once upon a time, ecology was serious science investigating population

dynamics in nature, such as forest regrowth and cycles in the ratio of

predators to prey. It was the quantitative study of biological

relationships. Ecologists got their boots dirty counting things in the

field, and used differential equations to understand what was happening.

These ecologists are mentioned briefly. The bulk of the work is about

those that stress the oneness of nature or the need for all of us to

be close to nature.

You might have wondered about opposition to some projects by ecologists.

What do these people want? This book will not help you answer the

question. It will help you understand why it is so hard, or even

impossible to answer.

The ecology movement is mostly in Germany, Britain, and North America.

The movement has been supported, even strongly supported, by political

groups or factions or parties from the entire political spectrum.

Bramwell tells us the differences between the Red Greens and the Green

Reds. Nazi Germany was so involved that some groups in post war Europe

avoided mentioning some of their beliefs because others might be bothered

by the similarity of ideas. Some ecology groups are pacifists and

others are anarchists. One group admires J.R.R. Tolkien and holds

Tolkien summer camps where they teach runes and bomb making.

Bramwell covers all these and more in an even handed way. She even seems

to keep a straight face when mentioning someone's advice that compost

heaps should include some flowers gathered by moonlight. Connections to

feminism, wicca, land redistribution, human waste as essential fertilizer,

free trade, nuclear power, no trade, etc. are examined. Some factions are

for and others against most everything.

The book was published in 1989, and the latest date I noticed in the

bibliography was 1987, so it is no longer up to date. A lot has happened

since then. The last section, covering most of the period after WWII,

seems rushed, and does not have as much detail as the earlier chapters.

It also seems less even handed. Bramwell lets some opinions show.

She notes that group farms are almost always much less productive than

private farms, and most ecological groups are not satisfied to just

live according to their beliefs, but insist that everyone share their

beliefs. The last several pages are Bramwell's opinions about various

aspects of the movement, and have far more negatives than positives.

The work is thoroughly documented, with 25 pages of notes in small type

and 10 pages of bibliography (and most of the entries are a single line).

An attempt to connect the varied strands of the ecological movement. Even the neocon bias of the author could have been easy to ignore if the writing weren't so bad. At times, the author seems merely to string short stubby sentences with confused pronouncements together in an attempt to lengthen the book. I understand that many academics are unable to write, but a good editor might have helped here.

In order to avoid the dialectic, the author attempts that somewhat paranoid-sounding linkage between utterly disparate forces that is eerily common to fundamentalists of all stripes, whether free market, religious, libertarian etc. The ghoulish eugenic ecology of the Nazi party can easily co-exist with the waste-spitting factories of Krupp, just as a supposed 'free' market and 'free' elections can co-exist with the corporate state and imperial power.

In short, this is pretty bad. It would have been more engaging to disagree with the author if the writing was better and more provocative. The problem of plain bad writing on the right and center-right is something they ought to address.

Still, some of the information here is very curious and might be useful in the hands of a more daring writer. You often get the impression that the author has read only the book jackets of her sources.

By its title, this book, published 1989, purports to be a history of Ecology in the 20th Century. It is actually a rather critical look at the various ideas behind a relationship to nature that our author has collectively termed "ecologist", and their political implications. As stated in the Preface "I argue that today's Greens, in Britain, Europe and North America, have emerged from a politically radicalised ecologism, based on the shift from mechanistic to vitalist thought in the late nineteenth century." (p. xi) It is really a book about the ideas that motivate certain political parties. "Ecology is now a political category, like socialism or conservativism" (p.39) she states at the start of chapter three.

The thesis as explained in the Introduction (p.3) is that "ecologism" - a term our Bramwell employs to describe an awareness of the human impact on the ecology of the planet and the concomitant plans to ameliorate this impact - is independent of actual damage to the environment, borrowed different political labels from time to time, was unique to the educated Western classes, and required a "shift in mentality" with regard to the biological and physical sciences. Ecologism, we are told, consists of two distinct strands, one derived from Haeckel's anti-mechanistic approach to biology, the other from energy economics (the economics of the problem of non-renewable resources). Already we have our first problem of logic on page 4: We are told that the two strands arose in the late 19th Century, then two sentences later we hear that the second strand was a product of the energy crisis of the 1970's. This lack of clarity on a basic level is present throughout the text. The thesis is introduced as "fall[ing] into three parts" actually maps out to five points in the same paragraph (p.3). On page 5 we are told "German ecologism well predated National Socialism. It formed part of a generic cultural phenomenon that was in part diverted into the Third Reich as an underlying theme. It re-emerged, well after the Second World War, in more obviously left-oriented groups." On page 196 she argues the opposite: that the ecological ideas legislated by the Third Reich were integral to it and further would not have found expression under any other government.

In pointing out these problems of logic I may apear overly harsh. The book as a whole shows a quite comprehensive background in the sources that frame the argument. But the style is an odd mixture of the colorful prose of an editorial writer and the studied obfuscation of an academic.

"The ecology movement represents a new political consciousness and direction. It as been struggling to see the light of day since the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Like all half-smothered things, it wailed sometimes for mother, sometimes for food, sometimes for companionship. Or, to put it less picturesquely, ecological ideas borrowed different political labels from time to time." (p. 3)
"The political picture was complicated by the remnants of the nineteenth-century, intellectual middle-class love affair with Germany. For many of these inter-war ecologists contact and cross-fertilization with German alternative ideas continued in the 1920's, and for some into the 1930's." (p.161)

This has a tendency to hide the central argument while appearing simultaneously bold and erudite. And she remains little able to mask her suspicion and even contempt for thinkers whose ideals encompass the biology of the planet as well as it's sociology. What her own political leanings are she does not say. Reading between the lines, it appears that she is a typical right-of-center laizze-faire American conservative with libertarian leanings. That one can deduce this so readily from a book on history is evidence of the extent to which her bias colors her exposition.

The book concludes with a section titled "The Political Economy of Ecologism". Here the hostility to environmental thought oozes out around the academic prose. Ecologism is a religion. The first purpose of civilization is survival, and those who value the planet over people stand directly in the way of the survival of civilization. They value the planet over other people. Their politics, in the form of the German Green Party, are thus dangerous. Bramwell will no doubt feel that this an oversimplification of her prose, and indeed it is. However she has argued just these points, among others, in her book. Stripped naked they do look ugly.

This book is likely to be a disappointment to a reader who picks it up looking for a sympathetic description of the development of environmentalism. It does contain a number of interesting ideas concerning the antecedents of environmental thought, though I suspect that these are not original to Bramwell. Like many academic books today, it would be greatly improved if it were more clearly written. Bramwell can't decide if she wants to write polemic or history, or if she is addressing an academic audience or a popular one. As such, the book fails on all four points. She is unlikely to reach a popular audience of those who share her views on the politics of environmentalism; academics will likely be put off by her persistent bias.