Conversations with Robyn Eckersley

My political theory class was lucky enough to have Distinguished Professor Robyn Eckersley speak after our lecture on green political theory. Professor Eckersley is a foundational theorist in environmental and ecological political theory, starting with her book Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach in 1992. There was an hour-long Q&A session with attendees of the lecture – this post is based on my notes and the recording taken, not a transcript. Please consider all the good ideas following as belonging to her, and any mistakes or incorrectness as my own. All quotes are Professor Eckersley directly.

The concept of the "Anthropocene" has changed the conversation about humanity's relationship with the earth. We aren't just changing environments, we're changing planetary systems. Humanity is a geological agent – a greater power than we have ever had. The possibility of a sixth mass extinction is entirely our fault. As a result of this, we need to rethink what it means to be human, acknowledging our embodiment in the earth. Past political theorists have begun by defining what makes humans distinct, special, and worthy of membership in a political community. This is completely wrongheaded and it is unreasonable to exclude non-human animals for lacking a particular human trait. Really, this type of logic is analogous to racism.

An audience member asks: Is this a type of dualist thought?

Yes, in a way. It also legitimates the ecological crisis, by placing the more than human world in a subordinate position.

An audience member asks: What comes first: the "othering" of the more than human world, or observing other humans' treatment of the more than world?

The blame might go to the West's Judeo-Christian heritage – the idea that humans exist to rule over the earth. Reinforced by Aristotle's great chain of being, which was institutionalised in the feudal system. Science has gone a way to weaken this image, from Copernicus onward, including Darwin's theory of evolution.

Science is interesting: it has three roles in the ecological crisis. It is a culprit in as much as it results in technologies that allow humanity to further desecrate the earth. It is our informant when it alerts us to the extent of the crisis of global warming. And finally, it is our saviour when scientific paradigm shifts promote more holistic views on the earth, and creates technologies that can allow us to live within planetary bounds.

An audience member asks: If science has done so much, why are we still in this ecological predicament?

The problem is more with the political economy than the science. The two most powerful forces on earth are states and the market. States provide the laws and enforcement that formalise capitalism. They are also "fiscally parasitic" on markets – ie. they need the market to tax to function.

Liberal democracies are not fit to deal with the ecological crisis and the breaching of planetary boundaries. Representatives are only answerable to narrow electorates, not the world itself. All of the negative ecological effects are externalised. Gains are privatised, losses are socialised. An "iron fist" approach may be needed.

This is a structural problem, and climate injustice is a structural issue. We need collective mobilisation to build a post-growth society which is more concerned with human well-being, not economic growth.

An audience member asks: Some argue that need to replace our "Western patterns of thought" with more "Eastern" or "Indigenous patterns of thought". Is this needed?

It sure could help. But countries in the East, for example, still do ecological damage – their philosophies aren't the necessary factor. More important is the political economy. And we also shouldn't treat these intellectual traditions instrumentally. They are of philosophic interest, and they can bring individuals in. The issues are political ones.

An audience member asks: Should we give legal personhood or representation to non-human entities?

"Progressive extensionism" of rights to the more than human world is possible, but it has limits – nature always needs human representation in political systems. There's also the knowledge question: most important is human political action on ecological issues. This needs to be done in a careful way: with science guiding us, but not deciding for us. Technocracy is neither desirable nor strategic. Right-wing populism is already reacting to the existing technocratic management of the liberal state. Policies need to be understandable and acceptable to the democratic community so that they can take action.

There is a resonance dilemma in environmental activism, where NGOs are inner-city progressive suit-wearers, and have a lack of connection with the majority of citizens in the suburbs or regions. We need to find ways of bridging this difference – a huge challenge. Otherwise populists will make the most of citizens' disdain of elites and associate environmentalism with elite snobbery.

The moderator (Paul Muldoon) asks: How can we think about the "cost of our living" on the earth while everyone is focusing on the "cost of living"? Can democracy respond to the ecological necessity?

There's no other option. "Eco-authoritarianism" is a non-starter. Democracy is essential so we can correct political decisions and remove unpopular leaders.

"The civil and political rights that democracies guarantee are absolutely essential to building any other type of democracy. Because if they're taken away, we're in serious trouble."

Some environmentalists use the notion of "climate emergency" (less after COVID-19), though some political theorists are fearful of the invocation of emergency, which can overrule democratic norms and procedure. But emergency claims can be "weapons of the weak" as well. Political theory needs an "ethnographic sensibility" to realise that climate emergency, while using the word, is not authoritarian.

The boundary problem arises when considering the environment – where do you draw the line between one polity and another? A demos requires a boundary, and a boundary requires a demos – infinite regress. All borders are really arbitrary, but probably necessary. Perhaps a new principle is needed: not just all those governed having representation, but also all those affected by policies having a say. Because states' actions can have impacts far beyond their borders – like the sinking islands in the Pacific as a consequence of Western carbon emissions. We need to think about our membership in ecological systems at a variety of levels – including global. This way we can (maybe) minimise the problem of externalisation.

States are currently experiencing a fiscal crisis as a result of COVID-19 – ballooning debt, etc. But no state considers the future ecological expense, such as having to provide insurance.

An audience member asks: Should we build on existing political structures and concepts, or go back to (Australian) Indigenous political ideas?

There's an incredible amount of knowledge in Indigenous traditions. They cared for this land for thousands upon thousands of years. Australians have voted against structural implementation of Indigenous traditions in government. Perhaps we need both.

There's also a movement called "new materialism" – materialist as in concerning stuff. It's largely been replaced by one called "sustainable materialism" – thinking about where our possessions and food is coming from.

The moderator (Paul Muldoon) asks: Are we stuck between an authoritarian technocratic administration and an individualistic, de-polisticised focus on living sustainably, buying organic, etc.?

The new materialists keep themselves "locked away" from political organisation – this makes them fleeting. A middle layer might be more effective at taking environmental action – states in federal governments have often done more than national governments. Local governments are too impoverished, even though they are closest to the people and have the most potential for democratic innovation. Federations often have issues of vertical fiscal imbalance.

Or there are other approaches – perhaps a new alternative corporate legal structure that is accountable to a stakeholder board of workers, locals, Indigenous people, and environmentalists. That way, new, genuinely responsible corporations would be able to compete. There could be experimental improvements, and eventually, hopefully, socially-conscious investors and workers could move economic resources towards this structural reform.

An audience member asks: Back to the ethnographic point, can the average person int he West ever except degrowth?

That's a difficult debate. Degrowth may not be the right word. In English, growth is a good word, so degrowth is a bad one. Perhaps we need an adjective before growth, like "quality growth" to represent what we actually want. That's a conversation starter, and can promote questions like "what kind of growth do we want", and that's a progressive thought. Currently we only measure growth quantitatively by GDP, which is a very insufficient measurement – cleaning up of oil spills increases GDP, but leisure time and non-monetised work (like care work) doesn't formally count as "growth".