Ecopsychology: Science, Totems, and the Technological Species

3. What Is Ecopsychology? A Radical View

3 What Is Ecopsychology? A Radical View Andy Fisher The problem of legitimacy has haunted ecopsychology from its beginnings . Although often respectful of ecopsychology’s passion and intuitions , environmental and conservation psychologists have consistently expressed reservations about the field, particularly its scientific status (Clayton & Myers, 2009; Reser, 1995, 2003). A second-generation ecopsychology has recently been proposed that would address these concerns by balancing the holism and counterculturalism of first-generation ecopsychology with empirical research and a willingness to work within the system (Doherty, 2009). Despite the merits of this inclusive approach, it is not my own—not because I oppose science or all things status quo but because I think it puts the cart before the horse.1 I believe that ecopsychology needs first to characterize itself as a field more adequately than it has to date and to let this clearer definition shape its praxis, whether or not that involves being conventionally scientific. In other words, I suggest that ontological clarification should precede questions of method. My own view is that ecopsychology is an inherently radical project and cannot be itself if conceived otherwise. Part of my confidence in saying this comes from the way that a radical perspective helps illuminate and resolve the tensions between ecopsychology and more mainstream psychologies. By getting clearer about our philosophical and political commitments, we can all simply get on with our respective undertakings, joining forces and dialoguing where possible but otherwise walking our different paths. I suggest, in this respect, that there is sense in maintaining the distinction between ecopsychology and environmental or conservation psychology.2 Differentiating these fields does not split them apart as if they have no common ground but recognizes the distance between their centers of gravity and helps define terms and efforts. In this chapter, I use radicalism as a theme to discuss the character of ecopsychology, the challenges that the terrain of ecopsychology poses (to 80 Andy Fisher ecopsychologists, conventional psychologists, and society at large), the question of method, and my responses to various criticisms of ecopsychology . I wish throughout to counter two impressions. The first is that radicalism implies dangerous extremism. To the contrary, I aim to highlight the irrationality in the status quo, in our received modes of thought and practice, and thus to present the radical view as deeply sensible and essentially human. Communicating this reasonableness to a mainstream audience is part of the challenge of ecopsychology. The second impression that I wish to counter is that ecopsychology is an intellectual lightweight or merely therapeutic form of psychology. Again, I argue the opposite—that it demands the highest degree of scholarly sophistication. If ecopsychologists have yet to produce the kind of scholarship that would convincingly establish their field, then this means only that much work still is to be done and not that the radical territory of ecopsychology should be abandoned. An exercise such as this admittedly requires that I present my material in a compact and highly selective manner. I believe, however, that there is value in advancing the radical view in a relatively short space. The ecopsychology that I outline here operates outside the bounds of normal psychology and yet retains a focus on subjectivity or interiority. It follows the defining gestures of ecopsychology to their radical conclusions. It does not limit itself methodologically to the model of natural science. It conceptualizes reality in the nondual spirit of ecology. And it deals with the whole of our historical situation, this precarious moment on earth, committing itself not just to pro-environmental behavior or policy reform but to a different society altogether. On Being Radical What does it mean to be radical? Etymologically, the word radical refers to roots (as in a radish). This meaning gives us the most straightforward sense of radicalism, which holds that the problems of the world are best addressed at the root, base, or ground level. Mainstream approaches may be useful or revealing in some respects, but they do not get to the bottom of things and in this sense are misleading. Radicals seek change in social institutions and practices, psychological structures (such as personality, identity, consciousness, and needs), root metaphors, philosophical premises , worldviews, and so on. When change occurs on this level, we call it revolutionary. Although this word may alarm some people, not all revolutions involve armed uprisings. The revolution that ecopsychology is What Is Ecopsychology? 81 participating in is the ecological revolution that...