Anthropocentric vs Ecocentric & The Effect of Environmental Ideologies
Prior to reading this entire post, it is a tad important for you to know what exactly anthropocentric and ecocentric ideologies are. Anthropocentric is an ideology that is centered around the human. Humans are viewed to be the “top dog” and everything in the world is for their taking. If a pyramid were to be constructed, humans would be at the peak and everything else (natural resources, animals, products, etc.) would fall beneath them.
To the contrary, an ecocentric ideology is one that isn’t centered around any species. As Julia B. Corbett intellectually states in her book, Communicating Nature, an ecocentric view is a “nonhierarchical mix of interdependent relationships or a web of all life… all living and nonliving elements of the nonhuman world… are intrinsically valuable and important” (Corbett 27). Everything on the Earth has value and purpose, not only humans.
I am sure that you know of one person who is quite anthropocentric and someone else that is more ecocentric. However, not everyone classifies their beliefs as solely being one or the other. In fact, there exists a wide spectrum of environmental ideologies. Within this spectrum, there is unrestrained instrumentalism, conservationism, preservationism, ethics and values-driven ideologies, and transformative ideologies. Today, I am focusing on unrestrained instrumentalism, conservationism, and preservationism.
The Spectrum
The most human-centered view about how to use resources is unrestrained instrumentalism. This is the idea that all the resources that humans are capable of utilizing to better their lives are available for unlimited use. This ideology is immensely concerning to anyone who cares about the state of the environment and natural resources. People who adopt this ideology tend to use machines and methods that damage the environment, whether it be through pollution of the air, waters, and land or by being careless with the diminishing food and fresh water supply. While most Americans may deny this fact, the United States is a very anthropocentric country, since it tends to not feel the negative effects of its actions. At least, not directly. Personally, I am apprehensive about global warming and the deteriorating of Earth’s natural resources, so living in a country with a president and citizens that do not practice environmentally-conscious ways of living gives me anxiety. I cannot help but feel useless in my efforts to “protect” the environment, since many of those around me could care less, as long as they get their Starbucks coffee in the morning and can drive their diesel car to work.
When people hear conservation and preservation, they tend to think that the two mean the same. I know that there was one point in time where I definitely thought that both meant to save resources and ensure they remain in a healthy state. While both ideologies tend to be more anthropocentric than ecocentric, there is actually a significant difference between them. First off, conservationism believes that “there should be some restraints on humans’ use of natural resources”except it “holds that nonhuman entities have only utilitarian value and are valuable only in their use-potential as resources for humans” (Corbett 32). A key focus of conservationism is that resources need to be used wisely in order to ensure a supply that can be used in the future. On the other hand, preservationism “supports conserving resources for humans to use and enjoy in the present and future, but it also believes in preserving resources for reasons that go beyond their purely instrumental value” (Corbett 35). People wish to preserve the environment for their pleasures, but not necessarily their use. For example, if a preservationists sees a beautiful forest full of trees, they do not (usually) want to save the trees for future generations to use as lumber, but to save it for the visual appeal. While this sounds ecocentric, it is still human focused because the value is established by humans themselves. Hence why forests and oceans tend to receive more support in conservation endeavors than deserts; people find them more enjoyable to the eye.
The Problem With These Ideologies
As with most belief systems, there are some issues that occur when people begin to express their ideologies. You may be thinking about people arguing over whether to save a forest or to cut down the trees to use as firewood. Or maybe you are imagining a group of “hippies” hugging trees to promote a sustainable life. In fact, most people will probably think of an example along these lines. However, one prominent matter that is often overlooked is Environmental Racism. I know, this seems odd, since the environment does not have the capabilities of being racist, like humans. However, it is an issue that must be discussed. In case you didn’t know (like I didn’t), the Civil Rights Movement was actually a foundation for the Environmental Justice Movement. In their book, “From the Ground Up”, Luke Cole and Sheila Foster analyze the existence of racism in the environment during the 1900’s in the United States. Some examples of environmental racism given in the book are dangerous pesticides that poor farmers use, the dumping of garbage in run-down Black neighborhoods, and the development of towns on toxic waste grounds. A more recent example of environmental racism and ignorance is the water situation in Flint, Michigan. Flint Michigan is a primarily Black town that found large amounts of lead present in their water. This occurred after the town had decided to change its source of water from a more expensive option to water from a river. Well, the pipes used to transport the water were corroding, the proper distilling materials were not used, and people were still being provided this toxic water. What did the government do about it? Not much. Even a year after lead was found in the water, a proper solution had yet to be reached. Now, let me ask you this question: if that city had been Beverly Hills, would this have been an issue in the first place?
Now, there are not only negatives when people express their ideologies. In fact, many solutions can be reached once people begin to talk to one another. In 2013, conservatives in Georgia voted to increase the amount of solar energy that the state will use in place of their prior source of energy. While in this specific case, the legislatures primarily care about money, they have demonstrated that they are not as anthropocentric as everyone thought them to be. In fact, they are providing benefits to the environment and the citizens of Georgia. This emphasizes the fact that people do not always practice their beliefs. Even if all the legislatures believe that they are completely human-centered, they demonstrated that these specific values do not exceed their conservative value of investment.
After I conducted a little research of my own on the anthropocentric and ecocentric ideologies, I learned more about others, but also myself. I always thought that I was very strong willed with my beliefs about protecting the environment in every way possible, however, the place in which I live has prevented me from doing so. I still consume meat, drive a car, and eat fruits and vegetables that farmers have grown for my consumption. All of these are actions that suggest that I am more human-centered than I thought, which is very eye-opening. In fact, I now believe that it is nearly impossible to be completely ecocentric, especially for those that live in the United States. However, as long as we fight against environmental racism, challenge those who are 100% anthropocentric, and inform others on more sustainable ways of living, our somewhat human-centered world can still thrive. (1280)
Article about the conservatives in Georgia: https://www.salon.com/2013/08/09/conservatives_are_starting_to_get_behind_solar_power/