Green political philosophy

3. Green political agency

If the green theory of value sets the ends, the green theory of political agency offers an account of the means to achieve those ends. A theory of agency operates at two levels. The first, and more fundamental, level is individual agency, which specifies the characteristics of individual agents; the second, and derivative, level is that of collective agency, which describes the main features of organizations and institutions within which individual agents work. Taken together, these two features of a theory of agency supply an account of the kinds of actors and institutions that would be required to achieve the ends stipulated by a green theory of value (Goodin 1992, ch. 4). Two questions are particularly pertinent. The first is: what kinds of agents – that is, political actors or citizens, consumers and so on – are best suited for realizing green ends? The second is: what kinds of political organizations or institutions, what form of government, and what strategies and tactics are most likely to implement green values?

First, at the individual level: green agents or political actors must be motivated by a love of and respect for the natural world, of which they are a small but important and morally responsible part; their satisfactions and pleasures will not, in the main, be materialistic; their wants will be satisfiable in sustainable ways; they will act in nonviolent ways; their time horizon will typically extend further than their own and one or two adjoining generations.

There is, as some have noted, nothing all that new or novel in this picture of green political agency. It is a picture painted, with many minor variations, by philosophers from Plato onward, of the good man and the good citizen motivated by a vision of the good life (O’Neill 1993, ch. 1). The good life for humans consists of appreciating the superiority of spiritual and intellectual satisfactions over material ones, of getting outside ourselves, as it were, to care about something larger and longer-lived than our own mortal selves. And how better to do this, greens ask, than recognizing our place in, and responsibility to care for, the natural world? (Passmore 1980).

A second set of questions concerns collective agency. What kinds of political organizations, institutions and strategies might best achieve green goals? Here again green thinkers differ amongst themselves. Most greens tend to believe that the most desirable and effective institutions are broadly democratic, decentralized and participatory (see for example Porritt 1984; Dobson 1990). Others are more sceptical, suggesting that solutions to environmental problems require the kind of coordination that can come only through the modern state, its allied agencies and cooperation between states (for example, Ostrom 1991; Goodin 1992). Others are more sceptical and despairing still, arguing that environmental crises are apt to be so numerous, so pervasive and so severe as to require the harsh interventions of an authoritarian, hierarchical, and not necessarily democratic, state (for example Heilbroner 1975; Ophuls 1977; Catton 1980). Such dire predictions and prescriptions, in combination with the radical beliefs of some militant environmentalists, have led some critics to suggest that there is a historical, if not a logical, link between green political thought and fascist or Nazi-like political practice (Bramwell 1989; Pois 1986).

This last criticism relies for its force on a single historical case. Certainly it is true that some Nazis did indeed embrace green themes, values, beliefs and attitudes not unlike those held by some amongst the more militant and mystical greens (nature goddess worship, a marked hostility toward the natural sciences and so on). And this fact should give self-critical and reflective greens some pause. But it does not follow, of course, that anyone who subscribes to green values is a Nazi. To claim otherwise is analogous to arguing that: ‘Nazis loved dogs; therefore dog-lovers are Nazis.’

A more serious set of questions concerns the shape and structure of green political institutions. For example, are the interest-group politics of Western liberal democracy well-suited to achieving environmental ends? Ought greens to organize themselves into parties and pressure groups? If so, should they nominate candidates for election to public office and lobby on behalf of their green agenda? Or should greens remain a broad-based movement, aloof from party politics and pressure-group tactics?

Such questions admit of no easy answers and are hotly debated amongst greens. In two-party systems such as the USA, third parties have little hope of success, and the best bet might be to try to influence the platforms and policies of the major parties. In multi-party parliamentary systems, by contrast, it might be more rational to organize green political parties – as has been done in the UK and Germany, for example, albeit without notable electoral success.

Some of the more militant greens hold that conventional party politics will not suffice and that direct action – civil disobedience, protest marches and demonstrations, even ‘ecotage’ or ‘monkey-wrenching’ – is required (see Civil disobedience §2). Such action is politically and morally justifiable, its defenders say, if it is nonviolent. Thus, for example, motorway construction and the destruction of wildlife habitat may be slowed or stopped by nonviolent civil disobedience. By drawing public attention to such issues, protestors hope to educate or ‘raise the consciousness’ of their fellow citizens so as to put pressure on their political representatives, planners and policy makers. Some more militant green activists advocate such tactics as monkey-wrenching (the disabling of machinery), the destruction of surveyors’ stakes, the ‘spiking’ of old-growth trees to prevent their being cut. The arguments for and against such measures have been a lively topic of political and philosophical debate amongst environmentalists (Goodin 1992: 133–5).

Arguments about strategies, tactics, and institutions are arguments about agency, both individual and collective, and constitute an important aspect of green political philosophy.