Value Coherence and Choice

G reens typically argue th at ecological an d p a rtic ip a to ry them es are intricately intertw ined. This has significant effects upon the deploym ent of green norm ative rhetoric. Principles pertaining to social organisation are regarded as having a close affinity to ecological precepts. An example of this connectedness, according to Bookchin, can be fo u n d in the re la tio n sh ip b etw een ecology and e q u ality . Because an ecological perspective stresses the interdependence of all living things, Bookchin claims that ecosystem s 'cannot be m eaningfully described in hierarchical term s' (B ookchin 1982: 26).6 He co n ten d s th a t because n a tu re is c h a ra c te rise d by non-hierarchical, egalitarian re la tio n s h ip s , such relationships are also natural in hum an societies.7

By a sim ilar route, Dobson outlines the com patibility betw een ecology and tolerance. According to accepted ecological know ledge, ecosystem stability is a fu n ctio n of ecological d iv ersity w hich p ro v id e s resilience to environm ental fluctuation. For Dobson this m eans that a healthy society 'is one in which a range of opinions is not only tolerated b u t celebrated, in

5 Both refer to the 'unholy trinity' of Descartes, Bacon and Newton.

6 The object of his critique, is the claim that relations of domination and exploitation can be considered to be 'natural' in human societies. Bookchin's claims regarding the relationship between biodiversity and equality are directed at social Darwinist suggestions that hierarchy is natural. But in making such a claim, Bookchin is not disputing the utility of the terms 'nature' and 'natural' in describing social relationships.

7 Bookchin's view of nature involves the definition of 'natural' as the opposite of 'artificial', i.e. something to be left to its own devices and not tampered with. In this sense, hierarchy is an artificial imposition on the natural state of equality.

that this provides for a repository of ideas and form s of behaviour from which to draw w hen confronted with political or social problem s' (Dobson 1990: 25). This connection is also used to su p p o rt ideological pluralism w ithin the greens. Parkin asserts that '(c)elebrating the diversity of hum an culture is, after all, m uch m ore in tune w ith the im m ense variety to be found in nature than is trying to hom ogenise and then fossilise it into any ideology' (Parkin 1989: 18-9).

Such links are m etaphorical, and Bookchin, D obson and Parkin are engaged in the sam e sort of exercise as social D arw inist, sociobiological an d fu n c tio n a lis t social th eo ry . F u rth e rm o re , th ese a lte rn a tiv e s dem onstrate that biological analogies invoking 'nature' can be harnessed to argue w idely divergent claims about the nature of social relationships. N evertheless, the new ecological use of the biological m etap h o r has become a central feature in the presentation of green politics as a coherent norm ative package. In this context, these argum ents are significant in that they co n trib u te to an d reflect the rhetorical cu rren cy of the green m o v e m e n t.

M any green w riters suggest that it is the totality of the value package, rath er than p articu lar elem ents, that defines green identity. From this s ta n d p o in t, the coherence of green politics is axiom atic and self- referential. A com m on device for illustrating coherence is to reduce the totality of perceived crises to a single crisis w ith a single solution. In rather ap o caly p tic to n es, R u d o lf Bahro d escrib es 'ex te rm in ism ' (the old paradigm ) as 'the sum of the interconnected dangers to m ake one single challenge’ (Bahro 1986: 143). He stresses that the ecological crisis, the prospect of nuclear annihilation and the persistence of patriarchy are all sym p to m s of a u n ified and com prehensive p ath o lo g y rooted in the hum an condition.

Wherever we look, disaster seems to be looming. And the thought imposes itself spontaneously that these are not plagues which are independent of each other and by chance simultaneous. In them there is a law, a force which is working against us (Bahro 1986: 143).

Here, the sickness is reduced to a single force. The rem edy for this sickness can also be reduced to a single, unified essence. Bookchin identifies holism as a basic and distinctive feature of ecological politics. As such, he

argues th at the green political project m ust be treated holistically, that it cannot be dism antled and retain its integrity.8 Furtherm ore, green politics is only viable in this coherent form.

It has become clear to me that it was the unity of my views - their ecological holism, not merely their individual components - that gave them a radical thrust. That a society is decentralized, that it uses solar or wind energy, that it is farmed organically, or that it reduces pollution - none of these measures by itself or even in limited combination with others makes an ecological society (Bookchin 1982: 3).

Green politics also parallels value identity approaches in postulating that value choice is a basic feature of social analysis. H ow ever, there are right and w rong choices, as Parkin clearly asserts.

My own diagnosis is that this regime has been constructed out of a series of wrong decisions - large and small, individual and collective - made over a considerable period of time. Building bombs instead of convivial life-sustaining communities, and failing to make spirituality and our personal potential the real challenges of our life on Earth, are examples of how the human species has tended to gravitate towards the easier option at moments of choice and decision, whether it be practical or intellectual....In short, we are living the consequences of a compound error (Parkin 1989:18).

This is an exam ple in green literature of a 'litm us test' of green-ness that can be applied in particular circum stances which offer choices betw een green and non-green alternatives. Specific choices in specific situations can be regarded as m anifestations of a m ore general orientation. Parkin a d o p ts the fo llo w in g o v erarch in g fo rm u la to d istin g u is h b etw een paradigm s.

Perhaps the most relevant test of Green-ness of a political party (or indeed any person or organisation) should be its approach to a decision, a choice, a problem or an issue. How well has it understood the central

8 In the light of these approaches, holistic social theory based on biological metaphors is hardly a new enterprise, as many greens are apt to claim. Capra and Spretnak link the concept of 'social ecology' (a term also widely used by Bookchin) to the development of systems theory involving cybernetics, notions of system dynamics and positive and negative feedback, which they suggest is distinct from the 'conceptualisation of our bodies, the body politic, and the natural world as hierarchically arranged aggregates of discrete components' (Capra «Sc Spretnak 1984: 31). Yet Talcott Parsons, drawing upon the same sources, assimilated elements of cybernetic theory into his own language of 'hierarchies of control'.

role of the Earth in resolving the predicament of humankind? (Parkin 1989: 19).

The consistent them e of all these articulations of green politics is that being green requires a conscious choice and su b seq u en t com m itm ent to green values. In contrast to m any other political identities, one is not 'born' green, it is an achieved, not an ascribed id en tity .9 Self-conscious actors m u st choose to be green. The c en trality of p e rso n al m oral responsibility is readily apparent in the follow ing extract from the British Green P arty’s 1989 election manifesto.

The Green Party stands for a new kind of politics. We must take control of our own lives and learn to work together for a better future. We cannot allow ourselves to be ruled by remote control government, the power of big business and the media, and the lottery of market forces. We must begin by taking personal responsibility for the state of the planet and for the job of changing it. We can only do it by choosing what we know is right. We can begin by voting Green, but that is only the beginning (British Green Party 1989).

Such ’decisionism ’ helps to account for the prom inence in green political rhetoric of references to lifestyle choices, and to the num erous contexts in which choices are m ade in industrial society such as voting, consum ption, and decisions to have children. These 'sm all' choices can be treated as indicative of the 'big' choice of w h eth er or not one subscribes to the values of the alternative paradigm .