-
Biocentric, Homocentric, and theocentric Environmentalism in O Pioneers
- University of Nebraska Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Biocentric, Homocentric, and Theocentric Environmentalism in O Pioneers!, My Ántonia, and Death Comes for the Archbishop P A T R I C K K . D O O L E Y The classical statement of ecological ethics is Aldo Leopold ’s “The Land Ethic,” published posthumously in 1949 as the last part of A Sand County Almanac. Leopold observed that human ethical sensitivity can be seen as a gradually widening circle of beings respected as possessing intrinsic worth. That is, beings within “the magic circle” should not be regarded as mere things to be used as a matter of expediency. Leopold noted that, in the distant past, the circle has expanded from self to family, to clan, then to tribe, nation, and race and on to the entire human race. More recently, some animals (dolphins, porpoises, whales, and primates) were considered worthy of respect. Leopold’s proposal is that we enlarge our sense of community to include all animals, then all living things and eventually, to the land itself: All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. . . . The land ethic simply enlarged the boundaries of the community to include soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land. In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from a conqueror of the land-community to a plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such. (203–04) 64 65 Biocentric, Homocentric, Theocentric Environmentalism In two areas, Leopold’s position is problematic. First, does that land have intrinsic as opposed to instrumental value and second, what is entailed by “respect”? Leopold’s ambiguity is critical at both points. In the first, Leopold is unclear whether we ought to acknowledge that the land actually possesses intrinsic value or that we ought to confer upon it a quasi-intrinsic value. In his second ambiguity, he sometimes translates respect into a wise use of the land, an imperative requiring careful conservation practices; at other times, he shifts his position and urges hands-off preservationist policies. Leopold’s ambiguities are clearly connected—if the land possesses intrinsic value, an ethical stance of noninterference seems warranted. He states, for example, “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (224– 25). On the other hand, if the land ought to be valued as if it has intrinsic value, another sort of ethical position is dictated. In this second case, because the land has value for us humans, a moderate, wise-use conservation morality is appropriate, “a land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, the use of these ‘resources’ [soil, water, plants and animals] but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state” (204). Philosophically speaking, the “hands-off” versus “wise-use” debate hinges upon a more basic, metaphysical disagreement—a clash of homocentric versus biocentric world-views. In what follows I will explore Cather’s divided alliance: While her deepest environmental impulse, it seems to me, is in favor of a homocentric position of conservation, she also, though less often and with less fervor, sides with a biocentric position of preservation. My examination looks at My Ántonia, O Pioneers! and Death Comes for the Archbishop. C A T H E R A S A W I S E - U S E C O N S E R V A T I O N I S T Cather assumes as obvious and not requiring argument or justification that the natural world exists to serve human welfare and to satisfy human desires. It is, however, a pristine world [54.224.52.210] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 23:52 GMT) 66 patrick k. dooley that must be humanized, for in its original, natural state, it can be an alien, hostile place where settlers, native as well as emigrants, are unwelcome foreigners: The little town behind them had vanished as if it had never been, had fallen behind the swell of the prairie, and the stern frozen country received them into its bosom. The homesteads were few and far apart; here and there a windmill gaunt against the sky, a sod house crouching in a hollow. But the great fact was the land itself, which seemed to overwhelm...