A Critical Review of Sean Esbörn-Hargens and Michael Zimmerman's Book Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World

By Don Cameron

How can it be that a book with the title and scope of Integral Ecology does not have multiple index entries for wilderness directing the reader to crucial parts of the book? The word only appears in the index as part of the terms 'wilderness skills' and 'wilderness treatment programs'. I am a wilderness activist who lives adjacent to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area in Australia, and this area includes 650,000 Ha of declared wilderness.  Wilderness provides the best intellectual framework that I have encountered to understand large natural areas with high ecological integrity - wilderness areas – and to limit ecological degradation in them.

A major strength of the wilderness perspective is that it is ecocentric and therefore hones in on the biophysical world: biotic and abiotic processes, weather and climate, and hydrology etc. In stark contrast, most  of the perspectives presented in Integral Ecology are anthropocentric. They hone in on the human mind and ascribe supreme importance to the human experience of the biophysical world, rather than the biophysical world per se. While some degree of anthropocentrism is unavoidable for any human and not necessarily a bad thing, it is excessive in society at large as evidenced by the multiple ecological crises globally. I think that a major reason for anthropocentrism persisting so strongly when clearly there needs to be a tremendous shift towards ecocentrism is prevalent in Integral Ecology. It is postmodernism, a movement that I cherish for what it has taught me but one that is open to abuse. A classic example is the nonsensical claim by many postmodernism scholars that wilderness is a cultural construct. For all but a blink in geological time the wilderness that is the universe has existed in the absence of humans and will continue to do so long after the linguistic gymnastics of postmodern scholars ceases.

I am anticipating the usual barrage of criticisms about the perceived impacts of the wilderness perspective on Aboriginal peoples. Well here is food for thought. I have had the wonderful privilege of looking at numerous Aboriginal art sites in remote wilderness country while experiencing almost the same biophysical context as the artists themselves. Believe me, this is an indescribably richer experience than experiencing  equivalent art as an attraction at a tourist site or an exhibit in a museum.

In summary, Integral Ecology provides a timely discussion of the maze of multiple perspectives on ecology. The book is seriously flawed, however, by the omission of    comprehensive and balanced discussion of the wilderness perspective.  This omission is equivalent to an anatomy book of the whole body that does not include the heart. I hope that the omission of wilderness is rigorously addressed in reviews of Integral Ecology and in ongoing discussions about the book.

-----------------------------------------

Don Cameron is an Australian conservationist.