Murray Bookchin’s Social Ecology
On the Dialectic Between Society and Nature
The established culture of human domination has been transferred to the domineering of nature; the human view of nature functions as an extension of a societal lens, whereby the relationships of power have led to the hoarding of resources and the arrangement of private land. Whenever we deal with nature, we are dealing with it through our interaction with each other. If we live in a society of domination then our attitude toward nature is going to be a domineering attitude and thereby emerges the supposition that nature itself is an object of manipulation.
The ecological crisis originates in maladaptive social behaviours and the idea of dominance.
To argue this point, philosopher, Murray Bookchin, explained in his socioecological theory, a dialectical naturalism, clarifying how society developed out of nature. By introducing the terms first nature, the biological world, second nature, social organisational behaviour and third nature, a symbiosis between first and second nature, we can come to understand how our social structures interfere with the ecological state of the world.
First nature is the natural biological world, in which evolution is a driving factor and out of its processes, humans emerge as conscious beings to create a social world, in which second nature materialises as an institutionalised community or civilisation. Ants’ organisational behaviours are preceded by natural instinctive tendencies, and therefore the ants’ society is not considered second nature, but first nature. First nature is thus our natural biological tendencies, whereas second nature is a unique form of human social interaction, which emerges out of first nature’s evolutionary processes.
To solve the ecological crisis, it is necessary to bring our second nature into synthesis with first nature, merging into a third or free nature, in which human-defined second nature is incorporated with first nature so that humans participate in the differentiation and evolution of life. Bookchin critiques the general public’s interpretation of first nature, in which they perceive nature as an animal kingdom, and apply predator and prey analogies to justify second nature hierarchies in society — this is confirmation bias.
First of all, it is obvious that the lion, bear or deer do not possess the mental faculties to philosophically organise societal structures like humans, they only follow their impulses wired from birth or taught at an early age. By this logic, Bookchin argues that human hierarchical structures could not be reasonably equated with the pecking orders of birds or the dominance of wolf packs. In fact, the ruling classes of history have used those analogies to maintain the status quo, and reel an unquestionable authority.
Bookchin argues that human nature is not some essentially fixed form or set of hierarchies, but a highly adaptable conscious thing, even though biology plays a crucial factor, our cognition by biological nature can pull us out of simple first nature impulses. When discussing human nature today, many presume that competition and self-interest are the defining elements of mankind, and by this logic capitalism naturally extends our innate tendencies.
Contemporary society usually contorts Charles Darwin’s discoveries, emphasising the brute force it takes to survive, and thereby loses sight of the concerted and collective efforts that have enabled the survival of the human race.
Through anthropological findings from early tribal societies, the data consistently suggests that human nature is predicated upon empathy and cooperation. Evolutionary and anthropological research thus seems to favour compassion as a survival mechanism.
A 75-year longitudinal Harvard study also concludes that the most significant predictor of human happiness is social connection, which infers that our psychological design by evolutionary processes is geared towards the community. Darwin’s book, The Descent of Man, mentioned only twice the “survival of the fittest” whilst using the word “love” ninety-five times. The tribe in the state of nature thereby integrates notions of communal living, and regards the natural world as something equal to them, not a thing which is under their dominion — nature is for and belongs to everyone, resources are extracted as needed.
That does not go without saying that there has been a continuous struggle for survival, and indeed it is a historical fact that humans have endeavoured to surpass the harsh state of nature through the establishment of civilisation. However, following the development of metropolis areas such as ancient Athens or Rome, a dualism emerged, whereby binary distinctions were made between master and slave, emperor and citizen or nature and civilisation.
The dualistic worldview diverged from the idea of being one with nature as civilised societies projected separation from nature. It was a distinction between the chaotic and orderly or the cultivated and wild; nature was a beast to be tamed and utilised for material gain. Soon, animal life was viewed in terms of ranks and status, we called it the animal kingdom. The lion was the king of the beasts while the ants crawled at the bottom of the ladder as working peasantry.
The way in which mankind began to modify the semantics of nature was a product of our second nature, conforming nature to the standards of ancient empires, mediaeval monarchies or neoliberal capitalism.
With the emergence of industrialisation and market economies, clans and tribes dissolved, even extended family ties. The new economical system viewed human beings as fragmented individuals who operated in self-pursuit as free-market actors, whereby only the strongest would survive in the competitive marketplace. Nature thereby became the ultimate representation of the survival of the fittest principle.
In actuality the state of nature is far more complex, showing that prosocial traits can increase the probability of survival, or that being the pack leader can imply a vulnerable position. Darwin did indeed argue that the advancement of organic beings was consistent with “natural selection acts by life and death, by the survival of the fittest, and by the destruction of the less well-fitted individuals”, but he also noted that “we should, however, bear in mind that an animal possessing great size, strength, and ferocity, and which, like the gorilla, could defend itself from all enemies, would not perhaps have become social […] Hence it might have been an immense advantage to man to have sprung from some comparatively weak creature.”
As such, the notion that human beings are supposed to engage in brutal competition against each other implies, at best, a half-truth. What has granted mankind the ultimate conditions for survival have been pro-social behaviours, but the market view of nature allows no room for complexity, only that the fittest dominate; it is a dog-eat-dog world. These pseudo-naturalistic arguments are used to justify the market system, by which there are many losers left behind.
Science and technology also influence our worldview as nature is increasingly converted into quantitative measurements, wherein charts depict the amounts of CO2 emissions and spreadsheets list the yearly rise in global temperatures. We have constructed a quantifiable nature, it is now itself a form of entity, in which individuals seek to extract the maximal amount of resources and avoid the catastrophe of ecological disaster. Even though nature presents the phenomenon of animals guarding their territory, nature does not infer the same type of generational transfer of property. Private land ownership is a human construction, and indeed the idea of land belonging to an individual or family instigates asymmetrical relationships of power, whereby systems of domination transpire.
From the tribal community to the bustling metropolis, humans determine what nature is through their eyes; whether part of us, a distinct divide or a quantifiable figure. In order to solve the ecological crisis, mankind must find harmony between first and second nature. Human beings are rooted in their biological evolutionary history and human social nature, and must therefrom arrive at a third nature as a synthesis between first nature (bio-physical) and second nature (human social) so that humans cooperate and directly participate in the evolution of life. The objective is therefore to position first and second nature in harmony with each other to reinstall ecological balance.
Originally published at https://resonanz.substack.com.
