~"*"'*s-~^-\_í Jk-^ Toward a More ^ Radical * Ecopsychology Therapy for a Dysfunctional Society Andy Fisher If ecopsychology is to help reconcile humanity with nature, it must become more critically oriented. O THE MANY ETHICAL DILEMMAS I faced as an environmental engineer, one stands out in particular. A sand and gravel company that had consulted my firm wanted to expand its quarrying into an area that was home to a regionally endangered species of butterfly. The conflict between butterflies and gravel disturbed me profoundly, especially when I was told (jokingly) to step on any of those butterflies should I happen to see one. At mat time in my life, I was becoming increasingly aware of afeelinglhad long held but rarely allowed into full consciousness: that I live in a world where something has gone terribly wrong, -where a pervasive madness rules our actions. Ecophilosopher John Rodman shares this view: I strongly suspect that the same basic principles are manifested in quite diverse forms - e.g. in damming a wild river and repressing an animal instinct (whether human or nonhuman), in clear-cutting a forest and bombing a city, in Dachau and a university research laboratory, in censoring an idea, liquidating a religious or racial group, and exterminating a species of flora or fauna.1 No longer an engineer, I am now an ecopsychologist: I think about butterflies and why we might want to step on them ... or not Ecopsychology has recently emerged as a new player in the project of reconciling humanity with nature. "Nature* is meant here in two senses: the human nature studied by psychologists (among others) and the more-than-human nature that concerns ecological scientists, thinkers and activists. Ecopsychology brings these two natures together to study how they are interrelated: how the "inner" or psychological dimensions of the ecological crisis are linked to the more visible "outer" manifestations. Ecopsychologists thus attempt to both break out of the purely human bubble within which we presently locate psychology and bring psychological insight into the ecology movement. Central to ecopsychology is the ideathat the diminishment of the human self and the natural world are reciprocal processes, as presumably are the processes for dieir libento Giventhe«ecologizing"ofotherfieldssuchasfemi- nism and economics, ecopsychology was perhaps inevitable. The first major collection oeco?Sycho- ^toringtheiirtKHeaUngtheMindis^^fovvay review* promising a creative new approach to our contemporary problems. What makes ecopsyc^ loey unique among ecological perspectives s the . defaiľed attention it gives to the innerexpenen« normally overlooked in a society more concerned with economic indicators and technological innova j tions. It views the ecological crisis in«asjejitiaLer ^pmtjaaLterms, not merely technocratic or manage-ŽTo^ľwMe there is muchtalk of "healing_*e planet,"anecopsychologistmightaskwhythereisso , little talk about the psychological^ynamics behind our wounding of the planet in the first place. Why, m short, is "the screaming link between pervasive personal dysfunction and the ecological crisis so little recogJLed, especially by psychologists? Ecopsycho-logyfthen, sees psychological distress as akey component of the glue that holds our crisis m place and looks to what amore sane state of affairs might be While to assert, as ecopsychologists do, Üiat the human soul is intimately bound up with the natural world is in itself a kind of radical act, ecopsychology nonetheless needs to be pursued as a more setf-con-sciously radical discipline. "Radical" W * <** lenging the underlying systems that produce and maintain personal suffering, social oppression and rmstreatmentofmeearm-Au^yramcalecop^cho logy would thus draw more fully on existing.radical apFoacheswithmpsychologyandmeecologymov^ Sľnttoexposemedeeplypamolog^ Guilt, shame and scare tactics may do more to engender resistance, r hopelessness and apathy in the public than to embolden them to act. m-Wsrirrnus HERrWNTlUGföß OUR 60-CAOED CMUZMICW TO COWfSE ONCER. HS OWM WEIGHT. social arrangements and relations to the more-than-human, and offer support for radical social change. Specifically, ecopsychology lacks radical social criticism, is inadequately engaged with significant critical currents within psychology, and has a tendency in some quarters toward a naive, conservative politics. Though not applicable to all ecopsychologists, these criticisms do apply in general THE INHERENT RADICALNESS OF ECOPSYCHOLOGY Ecopsychology has positioned itself as an alternative to, or a revisioning and expanding of, mainstream psychology.3 In 1960, psychoanalyst Harold F. Searles - a proto-ecopsychologist - stated that in the writings of most major developmental psychologists: frjhe nonhuman environment is... considered as irrelevant to human personality development,... as though the human race were alone in the universe, pursuing individual and collective destinies in a homogeneous matrix of nothingness/ From the point of view of ecopsychology, psychology's ignoring of the "nonhuman environment" is a staggering oversight, one which persists to this day. David V. Kidner suggests that this is because: [Tjhe ideological preconceptions that underpin [psychology] are similar to those of the technological-economic system that is largely responsible for degradation of the environment. Psychology, by normalizing the behavioral, life-style and personality configurations associated with' environmental destruction, and lacking a historical perspective on changes in consciousness and technology, is unable to contribute effectively to the ecological debate.3 Following Kidner, then, ecopsychologists must necessarily take a radical stance, beginning, as some have, with a critical examination of the ideological and What ís^Ee®psychology!® j._ Ecopsychology is a promising new discipline that seeks to synthesizer& " ' V psychology and ecology/it suggests that thé'vjôlence we do to" ourselves ;- and to the natural world results froni our psychological and spiritual,_. t separation from rature. By ecologizmg psychology and bringing psychp-._ Jogical insight into theecoldgy movement, it seeks to understand the &1 fä; psychological dimension of the environmental crisis and to help us recover s£ our capacities to care for the earth and .each other. By its very nature/» v i" ecopsychology challenges the human-centred status quo of mainstream OPHUJPSTMCT-HEPWNTEDWITHPaMBSlON \ metaphysical biases within psychology that presently \ limit its relevance, and even make it hostile, to ecological concern. They must likewise add an ecological voice to those that already criticize mainstream psychology for its general promotion of adjustment and conformity to a mad (ecocidal) social order, and its repressing and forgetting of a growing "social unreason."6 Ecopsychology also distinguishes itself fromthe existing discipline of environmental psychology. While some environmental psychologists do study human-nature interactions and the psychological conditions underlying the ecological crisis, they generally do so from within the research tradition criticized by Kidner. To put it plainly, environmental psychology does not go far enough in addressing the kind of systemic, anti-ecological prejudices within psychology that ecopsychologists seek to redress. Environmental psychology is mostly interested in managing social and natural environments for human health and in modifying human behaviour toward the goals of mainstream environmentalism.7 Ecopsychology, by contrast, is more interested in exploring the psychological consequences of repressing the ecological dimension of our existence and in advancing an ecocentric psychology. Despite that ecopsychology embodies the more radical view, the interests of these two psychologies clearly overlap. RADICALIZING ECOPSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY Many of the themes taken up by ecopsychology, as discussed above, are familiar to radical ecologists, especially supporters of the deep ecology movement The promise of ecopsychology is to bring a more detailed or sophisticated psychological approach to these themes, hopefully opening up new theoretical spaces in the process. The potential contribution of ecopsychological theory is two-fold. The first is to offer models of human psychology in which the earth is not a resource-filled background to the human enterprise, but rather I the living matrix out of which we are born and in relation to which our self-understanding and well-being lie. Human ecologist Paul Shepard, for example, has proposed an important model of normal psychological development in which children spend their pre-adolescent years bonding with the earth as a crucial step in the process of individuation and in coming to a sense of being at home in the cosmos.8 Others' efforts in this area include extending existing psychological perspectives, such asjungian, psychoanalytic, Gestalt and transpersonal theories, to in- 21 Alternatives Journal 22:3 July/August 1996 woftiöwwt wsrm/iE S«KUJEW££DTDSTÖP CONSUPW<6lH£ f*W OTOMTOUSANDTHE (UFW10 NEWS-REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION The practical task for ecopsychology is to to develop practices that affirm our deep interconnection with the rest of nature. CdVIOjMS', [« Ý z, elude nonhuman nature; exploring psychologies of -indigenous peoples and of early pagan cultures; " studying the^gffect" of wilderness experience; and using narratives about the evolution of consciousness and the unfolding of the cosmos to specjilate about the relationships between humans, the natural world and the cosmos.9 The second potential contribution - continuous with the first - is to illuminate the deep psychological conditions (including their socio-historical contexts) that tend to contribute to, and result from, the ecological crisis. Of particular interest here is how to bring more psychological know-how to ecological activists, who as a group "often work from poor and short-sighted ideas about human motivation."10 Guilt, shame and scare tactics, for example, may do more to engender resistance and hopelessness in the public than to embolden them to act In another major area of theoretical development, some ecopsycho-logists are arguing that our runaway consumerism, addictions, denial, psychic numbness, emptiness, love of artificial realities, and so forth all indicate that we live in a deeply wounded society that has trouble facing up to the reality of our contemporary crisis, and that is in need of radical healing.11 While many ecopsychological theorists have already made insightful contributions to ecological and psychological debates, I am concerned with some of the ways in which the field is developing. My first concern is methodological. If ecopsychology is going to adopt an interpretive, conversational and speculative approach, as seems appropriate, then it must at a minimum present theories in which we can recognize ourselves. Consider, for example, historian Theodore Roszak's use of the Gaia hypothesis, Anthropic principle, and other highly abstract scientific findings in weaving together some of his ecopsychological speculations.12 His approach is characteristic of many "new age" and "paradigm shift" thinkers who often make ^uniustifigdleajsjcom, contested scientific claimsto metaphysical assertions."13 Such flights into high abstraction are less helpful than those efforts that can make a more immediate appeal to our concrete experience. These include David Abram's phenomeno-logical description of the intimate conversation that is always already underway between our living bodies and the earth, and Joanna Macy's discussion of our "pain for the world."14 Secondly, ecopsychology needs to broaden its theoretical base to include other radical perspectives, both psychological and ecological. Most noticeably, ecopsychology is presently limited by its failure to consider adequately what deep/social ecologist George Bradford calls the "social question." The general reluctance in ecopsychology to bring radical social analysis into its theorizing seems to have been carried over from mainstream psychology. Psychologist Philip Cushman charges that psychology has traditionally profited from treating decontextualized, hollowed-out individuals, while not challenging the social arrangements that cause personal distress in the first place.15 As suggested above, in upholding the ideological status quo, psychology has in many ways actually retarded social change. Some ecopsychologists, mindful of such considerations, do argue for non-individualistic psychological approaches and community building, and general criticisms of modern society are found throughout ecopsychological writings. What ecopsychology has yet to do, however, is adopt a critical rationality, wherein issues of race, class and gender are foregrounded and placed in historical context In this respect, ecopsychology generally mirrors the reluctance of many deep ecology supporters to adequately consider the legitimate claims of social ecologists and the more demanding political claims of ecofeminists.16 Social ecology's contention that social conflict and ecological crisis are intimately linked and ecofeminism's critique of the middle class and masculinist biases (among others) in deep ecology must be given serious attention by ecopsychology if it is not to repeat some of the mistakes of deep ecology. This is no small matter, for ecopsychologists are unlikely to see any real societal shift toward a more ecological consciousness unless they consider more fully how socio-economic and political forces presently mould consciousness otherwise, namely toward the demands of a capitalist, patriarchal and racist social order. By neglecting social analysis, ecopsychology has also avoided reflecting upon its own politics. Carl Anthony is one critic who has found ecopsychology wanting in this respect: There is a blind spot in ecopsychology because the field is limited by its Eurocentric perspective, in the same way that the environmental movement as a whole has been blind to environmental racism. There are a lot of people who would like to hear the voice of the Earth who are not currently being reached by the movement for deep ecology, which, I believe, can be seen as the basis for ecopsychology.17 An incorporation of more critical social theory, then, would add valuable breadth and depth to ecopsychology. A good starting point would be to turn to the work of critical psychologists/psychiatrists,18 particularly to that of radical psychoanalyst Alternatives Journal 22:3 July/August 1996 23 Unblocking of our "pain for the world»» n energizes us, clears our heads, allows us to feel our connections with one another and the earth, and empowers us to act. Joel Kovel. Kovel comes to radical ecological politics as a well-versed social critic with sympathies for both deep and social ecology. His writings include a discussion of how the domination of nature is tied to "the major forms of social domination, of class, of race and of gender," each of which is "mediated through the domination of nature-as-body."19 My third point closely relates to the last one, but needs to be stated separately: ecopsychological Íieory risks becoming a form of psychological reduc-onism. The ecological crisis is far too complex a jcial and cultural phenomenon to be reduced solely to its psychological "roots," yet this is what some ecopsychological theorists seem to do. Roszak, for example, whose earlier writings have elsewhere been criticized for such reductjonism,20 argues that "open accessiufthe ecological unconscious is the path to sanity."21 Perhaps most dangerously, such a viewpoint can be used to support a naive politics in which social reconstruction is seen as primarily following from personal transformation, rather than necessarily occurring in concert with it Finally, some of the politically conservative thinking in ecopsychology undermines its own radical implications. Roszak, a central figure in ecopsychology, has suggested, for example, that it "might generate a new, legally actionable, environmentally based criterion of mental health that could take on prodigious legal and policy-making implications."22 Psychologist Sarah Conn has similarly argued that the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) be revised to include such diagnoses as "materialistic disorder," to describe the need to consume.23 The danger here is that the DSM is a highly contested document which has been criticized for both its metaphysical dubiousness and its use as a tool for oppressing and mystifying people by label-| ing them with psychodiagnoses, thereby serving the í dominant power interests ofsociety. Thus, while challenging psychology's lack of consideration for the RESUMÉ ľécopsychologie est une nouvelle discipline prometteuse qui cherche ä apporter une perspective écologique ä la psychologie mats aussi une perspective psychobgique ä ľécologie. Elu se différencie de la psychologie environnementale aduelle en opposant ľécocentrisme ä une approche anthropocentrique et diredrice, et en tenant compte des consequences psychologiques de la repression de la dimension écologique dans nos vies. Ľécopsychologie est par essence radicak puisqu'elle questionne les parti pris idéologiques et métaphysiques de la psychologie traditionneUe qui ne hi accorde actuellement qu'une attention limitée et qui est mime défavorable ä la question écologique. Pourtant, ľécopsychologie dans sa forme aduelle n'estpas sufßsamment radicate. Ainsi, eile ne propose pas une critique sociale radicale, eile n'estpassujjhamment impliquée dans les courants contestataires ä ľintérieur mime du domaine de la psychologie, et certains de ses tenants ont parfbis tendance ä avoir des vuespolitiques naives. Ľintégration de theories soríalesplus critiques pourrait donner ä ľécopsychologie une perspective plus large ainsi qu'une profondeur et une ampleur plus interessantes. Ľécopsychologie doit aussi encourager des pratiques comme la prise en charge individuelle et ľintérétpour la santé de la cottedivité, au lieu des psychothérapies conventionnelles proposéespar la psychologie traditionnelle. earth, Roszak's and Conn's proposals may wind up further legitimizing the authority of an oppressive mental health establishment RADICALIZING ECOPSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE Because ecopsychology aims to provide a detailed analysispf the psychospiritual dimensions of the ecological crisis and of the human-nature relationship, it holds the promise of offering original, perhaps .critical, practices for personal, social and ecological renewal. Whatever else may be necessary to reverse the ecocidal behaviour of our society, such a reversal is unlikely to occur unless we find ways to address the deep fear, anger, grief, despair, hopelessness, denial and so forth which presently block our finding creative responses to our present dilemma. The practical tasks for ecopsychology, then, are to offer (eco) psychological support for social movement, facilitat-ingwhatJoannaMacy has called "the 'inner work' of social change," and to develop practices that affirm our deep interconnection with the rest of nature. Practical developments in ecopsychology fall into two main overlapping categories that parallel the two major categories of theoretical development The first deals with the human encounter with nonhuman nature, and includes wilderness practices, vision quests, shamanism,' ecological restoration work, bioregional practice, experiential deep ecology, and finally "eco-counselling," in which participants allow themselves to "reconnect with nature."24 The second area is more socially and urban centred. The main developments here are in psychotherapy and "despair and empowerment" work. Some (eco-)psychotherapists are now legitimizing and working with the distress their clients - activist and otherwise - experience about the ecological crisis, and are endeavouring to become more socially active themselves. Some therapists are also using "natural" settings with their clients. In despair and empowerment workshops, participants are encouraged; with the support of a group setting, to face the dreadful facts about the state of the world on an emotional and existential level. As Macy argues, such unblocking of our "pain for the world" energizes us, clears our heads, allows us to feel our connections with one another and the earth, and empowers us to act As a radical move, ecopsychology needs to stress those approaches that involve collective, grassroots healing, empowerment, and nature "remembrance" over those that adopt a more traditional psychotherapy mode, with nature possibly incorporated into the therapy. Psychotherapy-oriented ecopsychology risks continuing a conservative, conformist tradition that retreats from political engagement, and in which I those who can afford it and are inclined toward therapy willbenefit, while those who are less able or inclined will not Focusing on individual "improvement," moreover, tends to play into the hegemonic view that social inequalities result more from indi-/ vidual deficiencies of character than from institution-| alized inequities.25 Feminist therapy - in which the therapist's role includes both empowering her clients and being an 24 Alternatives Journal 22:3 July/August 7996 $Ué{CO&&téb activist herself- offers an initial model for doing psychotherapy in a way that aims at social change, and some ecopsychologists have indeed adopted a similar approach. Beyond such reforms to psychotherapy, however, the enormity of our contemporary crisis calls for bold and creative ways to invite as many people as possible to do the personal emotional work that will help them find the energy, courage, humour, motivation, compassion, and clarity to find constructive responses to the crisis of modem times. There are clearly no easy strategies, but two practices, in addition to the ones discussed above, could be fruitfully adopted or promoted by ecopsychology, especially since they are inexpensive, accessible and inclusive. The first is peer-counselling, a form of self-help work in which non-professional peers form a community and learn to act as counsellors for one another. Peer-counselling is already used by a number of activists for its relevance to social change.26 It can it be an inexpensive vehicle not only for personal healing/ empowerment and community building, but also for conscientizfltion. This term, popularized by educator Paulo Freire, refers to "the process whereby people attain an insightful awareness of the socio-economic, political and cultural circumstances that affect their lives, as well as their potential capacity to transform their social reality."27 Peer-counselling with an explicit social change and ecological agenda could potentially support despair and empowerment work on a wide scale as well as the challenging of hegemonic definitions of the human-nature relationship. Ecopsychology Resources Centre for Psychology and Social Change an affiliate of the Department of Psychiatry at The Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School 1493 Cambridge St., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 phone: (617) 497-1553 fax: (617) 497-0122 • Publishers of CentreP/ece three times per year, they also organize various workshops, and offer numerous related resources for sale. Ecopsychology Institute . at California State University, Hayward --■ PO Box 7487, Berkeley, California 94707-0487 r''': *"'"' "' ' • Publishers of The Ecopsycho/ogy Newsletter Project NatureConnect - „._ a project of the University of Global Education, Department of Integrated Ecology -.""'' "*"■-• ' "Ip'i-fi' -,'■ \ik. ŕ .~ y ,"-.'* *\<- " j PO.B0X 1605, Friday Harbor, Washington 98250 v'.-. í' ~ '- "phone: (360) 378-6313 ^^Ž* *' "M í-'ť^:: •" -'*?■ •'-'.* contact: Michael J. Cohen, email: mjcohen@aol.com , : World Wide Web: http://www.pacificrim.net/~nature/ • Offers a correspondence course by mail or on the Internet Ecopsychology email Discussion List % ,. contact Claudia Robinson, email: claudir@hubcap.clemson.edu •- - ', ~< To subscribe, send email to:' *,•', '. *-»>-- 'is K~'-:\Jr '' i aiSTSERV@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EbU $": :~**' Y;<;~'~ -ji*.»,'^ and in the body of the message, put: ifí'"^<~- - • *"•' V ; s SUBSCRIBE ECOPSYCHOLOGY yourfirstriame yourlastname v," j A second area of great potential already advocated by some ecopsychologists is spiritual practice, including various forms of meditation, contemplation, experiential work and ritual. Although spiritual practitioners are not always interested in direct social activism, a more "engaged" spirituality is gradually emerging,28 and the links between spiritual practice and the ecology movement are well established.29 Simply put, these practices can help bring to social action the much needed qualities of love, compassion and clear vision, while helping attenuate hatred, ignorance and greed. Furthermore, any practice that works to release us from the sense of being a separate, isolated ego set over against the (natural) world, helps to free us from death anxiety, which some see as a deep source of the human drive to control and dominate other humans and nature.30 A final practical concern is the political conservatism of some ecopsychologists. Psychiatrist John Mack, for example, states that "psychologists committed to environmental change must... work with professional environmentalists, policy makers, population experts, corporate leaders, economists, and others" toward institutional change.31 Such an approach may have some merit, but by itself it simply carries on a mainstream tradition of trying to change things from the "top," while insulficienuy considering more socially radical approaches. As a radical project, ecopsychology must address not only our ecological unconscious, but also our political unconscious. This would mean, among other things, looking for the false consciousness that may be at work in ecopsychology's own politics, such as those advocated by Mack. There are, of course, many kinds of radical practices, from the most intimate and personal, to the most public and broad based. There are likewise many kinds of activities that are potentially consistent with an "ecopsychological worldview." Ecopsychology should not, then, lay out some master political agenda for changing society to a more ecological path, for nobody really knows how this might happen, especially given our sad starting point. What is more important is that it should encourage and support us to lead radical lives, aware of the forces that shape our consciousness, and with our hearts open to the suffering of other beings, human and otherwise, whose freedom we work toward in our own particular ways. CONCLUSION In the several decades since the modem environmental movement was bom, the much-heralded subversive potential of ecology has been litde realized. Perhaps radical ecologists are learning that both a more (ecologically) mature and a more socially (self-)criti-cal approach is needed. And perhaps the unique perspective of ecopsychology can play an important role in finding this broader, more comprehensive approach. My criticisms here have been directed toward this end. As it is now, ecopsychology will certainly benefit some people, and will no doubt produce many books and workshops, but I suspect that without a commitment to a broad radical agenda, it will fall short of its own potential. My hope, by contrast, is that the good work begun by many ecopsycho- Alternatives Journal 22:3 July/August 7996 2S logists will lay the ground for ecopsychology to become an even richer and more radical discipline than it already is. E Andy Fisher is a doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, North York, Ontario. He would like to acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. NOTES „'John Rodman, "The Liberation of Nature?" Inquiry, 20 (1977), pp. 89-90. 2 Chellis Glendinning, My Name Is Chellis, and I'm In Recovery from Western Civilization (Boston: Shambhala, 1994), p. ix. 3 See Ralph Metzner, "The Place and the Story: Where' Ecopsychology Meets Bioregionalism," The Trumpeter, 12:3 (1995). * Harold F. Searles, The Nonhuman Environment: In Normal Development and in Schizophrenia (New York: International Universities Press, 1960), p. 3. 5 David V. Kidner, "Why Psychology is Mute About the Ecological Crisis," Environmental Ethics, 16:4 (1994), p. 359. 6 Russelljacoby, Social Amnesia (Boston: Beacon Press, 1975), p. 18. ' See, for example, Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Daniel Stokols and Irwin Atwins, eds. (Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company, 1991) and Rachel Kaplan and Stephen Kaplan, The Experience of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 8 Paul Shepard, Nature and Madness (San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1982). 9 See, in general, Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind, Theodore Roszak, Mary E. Gomes and Allen D. Kanner, eds. (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1995); and The Ecopsychology Newsletter (Berkeley, California: Ecopsychology Institute, California State y£ University). See also a special ecopsychology issue of the Gestalt Journal, 18:1 (1995); William Keepin, "Toward an Ecological Psychology," Revision, 14:2 (1991), pp. 90-100; and Warwick Fox, Toward a Transpersonal Ecology (Boston-, Shambhala, 1990). 10 Theodore Roszak, The Voice of the Earth (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 38. 11 See Glendinning, My Name is Chellis [note 2]. 12 Roszak, The Voice [note 10]. Sa Michael E. Zimmerman, Contesting Earth's Future (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), p. 42. 14 David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous (New York: Pantheon, 1996); and Joanna Macy, Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1983). 15 Philip Cushman, "Why the Self is Empty," American Psychologist, . 45:5 (1990). 16 See Ariel Salleh, "Class, Race and Gender Discourse in the Ecofeminism/ Deep Ecology Debate," Environmental Ethics, 15 (1993), p. 225. 0 Carl Anthony, "The Deconstruction of Whiteness," Ecopsychology, Roszak et al, eds. [note 9], p. 264. 18 See Isaac Prilleltensky, The Morals and Politics of Psychology (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994); and Critical Psychiatry: The Politics of Mental Health, David Ingleby, ed. (New York: Penguin, 1981). 19 Joel Kovel, "The Marriage of Radical Ecologies," Environmental Philosophy, M. Zimmerman, ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice HaU, 1993), p. 412. See also Joel Kovel, History and Spirit (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991). 20Jacoby, Social Amnesia [note 6], p. 9. 21 Roszak, The Voice [note 10], p. 320, emphasis added. 22 Theodore Roszak, "Where Psyche Meets Gada," Ecopsychology, Roszak, et al, eds. [note 9], p. 15. 23 Sarah Conn, "When the Earth Hurts, Who Responds?" Ecopsychology, Roszak et aL [note 9], p. 162. 24 See Michael J. Cohen, Reconnecting with Nature (Friday Harbor, Washington: Project NatureConnect, 1995). 25 On this see Prilleltensky, The Morals [note 18]. 26 See Virginia Coover et al., Resource Manual for a Living Revolution (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1985); and Thomas J. Scheff, "Reevaluaüon Counselling: Social ImpUcations,"Joarna/o///ama!!«ric Psychology, 12:1 (1972). 27 Prilleltensky, 7niAfora&[note 18], p. 189. 28 See Ken Jones, The Social Face of Buddhism (London: Wisdom €ications, 1989), e Earth and Spirit: The Spiritual Dimension of the Environmental s, Fritz Hull, ed. (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1993). 30 See Zimmerman, Contorting [note 13], passim. 31 John Mack, "The Politics of Species Arrogance," Ecopsychology, Roszak, et al, eds. [note 9], p. 287. The____________________ HnHUBEffliH Biotechnology A Project of the Canadian institute for Environmental Law and Policy Biotechnology: the science of life? a real-life drama? a science to watch? The Citizen's Guide to Biotechnology: An excellent plain language guide that demystifies the world of biotechnology and genetic recombination. An activist's must Special price for Alternatives readers, just $19.99 (includes s+h; no GST or PST required). The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP) 517 College St., Suite 400 Toronto, Ont M6G4A2 tel'(416) 923-3529 fax (416) 923-5949 email: cielap@web.apc.org Forest Forum a cross-section of perspectives for informed decision making Read what leading authorities from environmental groups, forest industry, government and universities have to say about the most current forest issues: Biodiversity and Monocultures Clearcutting Old Growth Forests ForestWildfires Private Woodlots Protected Areas Herbicides Public Participation Mention you heard about the Forest Forum series in Alternatives and get 20 % off the regular price of $8.00 per copy (plus GST and S + H) Canadian Forestry Association 185 Somerset St. W., Suite 203 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0J2 Tel: (613) 232-1815 Fax:(819)232-4210 26 Alternatives Journal 22:3 July/August 1996