I’m a graduate of the ISE’s MA program in Social Ecology (in association with Prescott College) and current ISE Board member. I have engaged in close study of Bookchin’s work and the history of projects, movements, and organizations rooted in his ideas. As such, I feel a strong need to be respectful and accountable to the generous support, encouragement, and stimulation I’ve received from the ISE community over the past few years. Furthermore, the influence of Bookchin’s work on the development of my own perspective is undeniable.

It is for those reasons that I sought to provoke an open, critical discussion in posing two primary questions:

Which aspects of Bookchin’s social ecology are essential and what elements might, at least for some self-identifying social ecologists, deserve critique and revision?

Can there be social ecologies—that is, varying interpretations, philosophies, and modes of praxis that differ in some ways but remain in solidarity with one another and identified with the social ecology tradition?

By way of inspiring furthering discussion on these points, here’s some brief ideas:

First, we ought to always be striving to create an open and critical culture around a social ecology community or network such that there isn’t a continuation of the nearly exclusive focus on Murray Bookchin or a reproduction of the positioning of a single person (or a few persons with little or no publicly dissenting views) as responsible for defending the “integrity” of social ecology. For social ecology to be dynamic rather than static, public, critical discussion should be encouraged–not ignored, trivialized, or evaded.

Second, I want to say to other people who identify or associate with Bookchin’s social ecology  that my intention is to contribute to a critical reconstruction of the social ecology tradition that Bookchin inspired, identifying both the enduringly valuable aspects of his work as well as that which is deserving of critique and transcendence. I believe we will inevitably have substantive disagreements. My feeling is that we agree on much more than we disagree and that I hope that whatever dialogue or debate that comes from this will proceed with a shared acknowledgement and respect of the substantial common ground that does exist.

Third, this whole post is a sketch, written in a couple of hours, by a graduate student who is very much in the midst of intense study and various other personal commitments. As such, I ask that you approach this text with some generosity: please ask for clarification if something is unclear. I’m planning something significantly more specific, well-cited, and so forth for submission to the 2011 ISE Colloquium. I hope that a focus on my particular point of view will not forestall a public dialogue on any aspect of social ecology among any people who identify with Bookchin’s social ecology.

My primary concerns with Bookchin’s work and, thus, the conception of “social ecology” that has animated the ISE, Communalism/New Compass Press, etc. generally stem from his clear and definitive defense of the Enlightenment project and the polemical situation of his work within that tradition. Bookchin’s work demonstrates a polemical unwillingness to recognize the value and, perhaps, inevitability of a variety of epistemologies and cultural value systems (cosmologies, perhaps, is a useful word here?) and instead proclaims his work a part of The Single Enlightened Tradition capable of bringing about The Third Revolution which would usher in Utopia. Accordingly, Bookchin’s vision of The Third Revolution will be brought about by Libertarian Municipalists, who are characterized as Rational Humanist Citizens in opposition to the, generally speaking, incoherence, irrationality, and/or misanthropy (Bookchin’s characterizations) of those who orient by any tradition other than The Single Enlightened Tradition. Similarly, those who fail to orient in the Most (Only?) Enlightened Way–i.e Bookchin’s social ecology–to the The Single Enlightened Tradition (for example, some marxists or anarchists), are also subject to polemic and denigrations.

There are many compelling critiques of notions of the supremacy of the Enlightenment project that have been developed by (in alphabetical order, no intended privileging) anarchists, anti/post-colonialists of varying positionalities including indigenous and other land-based peoples, feminists, radical ecologists, and queer theorists. That list is certainly not exhaustive. Briefly, to take one critique I find especially compelling given my position as a settler in North America, the insistence upon a singular or hegemonic Enlightenment cosmology is indicative of and perpetuates the ongoing colonial violence being experienced by indigenous peoples whose knowledges and practices do not fall within the Enlightenment project. Following the trajectory of Bookchin’s work, those traditional knowledges and practices ought be polemicized against for their “incoherence, irrationality, and/or misanthropy.” Ultimately, for Bookchin, all of Humanity ought Rationally unite under the aegis of “universal humanitas” and adopt The Single Enlightened Tradition as a universal cosmology. Here I believe that Bookchin reproduced the logic of domination he so fully dedicated himself to unravelling throughout his long and prolific life.

Bookchin’s philosophy (“dialectical naturalism”) is, in many ways, an elegant system for deriving a valuable ethics. Bookchin’s politics (“libertarian municipalism”) is, in many ways, a compelling articulation of valuable political praxis. However, these are not and should not be conceived of as the singular basis for bringing about “… the unfolding of a decentralized, truly democratic, non-hierarchical, ecological society.” (from A Statement from the ISE Board) What I am arguing for is a recognition of the value of what some feminists and anti/post-colonialists (among others) sometimes refer to as standpoint theory and situated knowledges. That is, the need for a recognition and appreciation of complexity, difference, and multiplicity commensurate with the unique time/space circumstances each person faces. To head off the likely charges of a “collapse into relativism,” let me emphasize that, in my view, a recognition of standpoint and situated knowledges obliges a similar recognition of the inevitability of complexity, difference, and multiplicity but does not oblige an uncritical acceptance of all cosmologies or forms of political praxis. But rather than reproduce the problematic masculinist “soapbox” polemic culture that Bookchin emerged from and, clearly perpetuated, I would suggest (and, yes, I know this is broad language) principles of solidarity, affinity, and generosity as the basis of the culture of the ISE, in particular, and social ecologies, plural, generally.

In terms of the basis for “solidarity, affinity, and generosity,” following the language articulated by the ISE Board, those who hold a commitment to a “decentralized, truly democratic, non-hierarchical, ecological society” ought be recognized as sharing sufficient affinity to be approached with generosity and in the spirit of solidarity. But I’d suggest that the basis of affinity, solidarity, generosity is enduringly dynamic–it’s emergent and ought be seen as an ongoing collective and processual project of whomever would identify with social ecology. As such, I see Communalists, and those who draw on Bookchin’s dialectical naturalism as a basis for an ethics, as allies, comrades, and friends. I’m curious and excited to continue this dialogue.

[from a comment left in response to the "Social ecology needs..." article] Marcus Melder said:
I want to suggest a formal debate between a Communalist social ecologist and a social ecologist who does not support libertarian municipalism as a transformative praxis. This could provide a published critique b/w social ecologists and could be done as a youtube video or as was done b/w P. Staudenmaier and M. Albert (but this time allowing for a comments thread). 

[Karl Hardy comment in response]@ Marcus, of course. Though… I am not comfortable with the way you have framed the ‘opposing’ views. I’d also insist that such a debate be public.

[Karl Hardy to those who have access to the Communalism.net forum] Is anyone interested in participating in such a “debate?”

Unfortunately, while Bookchin’s social ecology is recognized to have played a significant role in the ongoing worldwide resurgence of anarchist social movements and social theory in addition to having had major influence on the emergence of the “Green” movement in Germany and, later, the US, Bookchin’s social ecology is not currently widely consulted in radical circles.

There are many complex reasons for this and the contemporary status of Bookchin’s social ecology is a topic that demands a fuller discussion than appropriate for a blog post.

While I know there are some who are understandably concerned about the “watering-down” or otherwise distorting of Bookchin’s ideas, I feel it necessary to call for a critical evaluation of Bookchin’s social ecology by those who identify with social ecology.

My interest in doing so is certainly partially selfish; over the past several years I’ve learned a great deal from studying Bookchin’s work alongside that of other social ecologists such as Ben Grosscup, Brian Tokar, Chaia Heller, Dan Chodorkoff, Eirik Eiglad, Grace Gershuny, Janet Biehl, Matt Hern, and Peter Staudenmaier, while being inspired by the activism of Brooke Lehman, Hilary Moore, and Samantha Gorelick, among others. In short, I value the community of people associated with Bookchin’s social ecology and the Institute for Social Ecology (ISE) and I want to see both the ISE and the social ecology tradition grow.

But my reasons are not solely selfish. I do believe there is much in the social ecology tradition that has vital insights to contribute to our efforts at overcoming the crises we face.

(In referring to the social ecology tradition, I mean not only Bookchin’s work and those clearly identified with it, but the many historical lineages and contemporary endeavors of theory and action which are complementary to a social-ecological perspective, including but not limited to the anarchist, anti-colonial, anti-racist, feminist, indigenous, libertarian socialist, queer, and radical ecology milieus.)

However, with Bookchin’s passing in July 2006  and the only tangentially-related scaling back of the ISE’s educational programming, there is a definite need for those of us associated with social ecology to be reflexive about where the social ecology tradition has been and where it might go:

Which aspects of Bookchin’s social ecology are essential and what elements might, at least for some self-identifying social ecologists, deserve critique and revision?

I believe this question demands robust and respectful public discussion.

Can there be social ecologies—that is, varying interpretations, philosophies, and modes of praxis that differ in some ways but remain in solidarity with one another and identified with the social ecology tradition?

I believe this answer definitive “yes” not as a cynical strategy for over-extending the relevance of the social ecology tradition, nor as a means for avoiding critical, direct disagreement, but as means of renewing an important community of activists and thinkers who can do the crucial work of developing social-ecological theory and putting it into practice. Dissent is not only inevitable, it is healthy and necessary and we who draw support and energy from the social ecology tradition should not shrink from disagreeing anymore than we ought be quick to alienate those with dissenting opinions.

For its part, the ISE has had literally thousands of students participate in its educational programs over the course of its more than 35 years.  The Institute remains a vehicle for radical education and action notwithstanding the relatively modest level of activity over the past few years. For the ISE to be revitalized the social ecology tradition must be revitalized. And the ISE faces the challenges of evolving and developing new educational programming and strategies in a context that is rapidly developing distance-learning tools while the economic and ecological costs of face-to-face meeting increase.

But these are not insurmountable obstacles—not even remotely. The only question is how they will be overcome. The several thousand ISE alumni and countless others who’ve been influenced by the social ecology tradition are already at work right now, developing ideas and staging actions, building movements, and agitating for a sustainable social-ecological future.

There are no specific requirements in terms of style, length, and topic of an ISE blog post, however, all submissions are subject to prior review before publication. Submissions should be emailed to 
admin@social-ecology.org along with a note of introduction, if appropriate.

Special thanks to Gregg Osofsky and Josh Telson for your technical assistance.

The question, yet again, is whether or not to hold your nose and vote for the “lesser of two evils” (or, if you will, against the Republican Party) OR vote your conscience in support of a true progressive. Casting such a ballot in 2008 for a candidate with almost no chance of winning after the 2000 election fiasco is a tall order, especially when recognizing the substantial differences between McCain and Obama/Clinton on many, though certainly not all, important issues.

Ralph Nader’s 2000 Green Party presidential run is well documented. Charges of “spoiling” aside, his 2.7% — despite appearing on only 44 state ballots and not being included in presidential debates — represented a significant and promising development for progressives. Unfortunately, as many journalists have documented, Bush won Florida — and thus the presidency — through a combination of illegal voter disenfranchisement and legal fiat thanks to a 5 to 4 US Supreme Court decision. The momentum created by Nader’s candidacy was blunted considerably by the resulting anger and frustration over Bush’s installation as president and what remaining energy was effectively silenced in the disturbingly reactionary ‘patriotic” fervor immediately following 9-11. The combination of 9-11 and fallout over the 2000 election was disastrous, in many respects, for the Greens, specifically, and progressives, generally.

What may have been, however, is now a moot point.

In 2004, while Dean’s presidential candidacy prospects rose rapidly only to crash with equal speed, Nader decided not to seek the Greens’ nomination, instead declaring an independent candidacy. Acrimony over both the result of the 2000 election and Nader’s distant relationship to the Greens (more on that later) led to divisions within the Green Party that eventually resulted in a something of a split. Unknown Green Party member David Cobb campaigned nationally for the nomination and articulated what became known as a “safe state strategy” that involved largely staying away from contested swing states that were likely to determine the next president. (Of course, now some controversy exists as to whether this was, in fact, Cobb’s campaign plan but I personally attended a meeting in San Antonio, Texas where Cobb clearly stated just such an approach.)

Nader, for his part, never joined the Green Party and refused to share donor/volunteer lists from his 2000 campaign with the Greens — this despite his oft-repeated campaign goal of building the party infrastructure and triggering federal matching funds with at least 5% of the national vote. Nonetheless, he did select a prominent California Green politician, Peter Camejo, as his vice-presidential running mate and asked the Greens for an “endorsement” of their ticket. At a contentious 2004 national convention, Nader’s appeal was rejected and Cobb became the party’s nominee.

Although Nader was on 44 ballots in 2000, both he and Cobb managed only a fraction of that total for the 2004 general election. Unsurprisingly, several states reacted to Nader’s previous candidacy by raising already unreasonable ballot access standards even higher. The Democrats, fearing a repeat of 2000, contested the Nader campaign through a series of lawsuits designed to drain precious time, resources, and, ultimately, deny him ballot access.

Many Greens, especially those in the relative stronghold of California, went outside the party to support Nader leaving the Green candidate, Cobb, with only 118,000 votes nationwide — good for just 6th place behind Bush, Kerry, Nader and both the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates. Nader’s support fell drastically to less than 0.4%.

In this 2008 election cycle, Nader has offered praise for some of the positions of John Edwards — Kerry’s vice-presidential running mate turned populist progressive 2008 presidential candidate — as well as those of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, all of whom ran unsuccessfully for the 2008 Democratic nomination. He also has had kind words for Cynthia McKinney, former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia who recently joined the Green Party and declared her candidacy for the Greens’ presidential nomination. But, for better or worse, Nader has decided on another independent candidacy opting not to support McKinney or any of the other Green candidates.

Progressives, by definition, must be concerned with the future. Many thoughtful progressives, with this in mind, have long understood the absolute necessity of building social movements as the basis of transformative social change. The German Green Party evolved as an extension of environmental, peace, and other activist currents in recognition of the need for an electoral arm to social movements. The American Green movement began similarly as a coalition of anti-nuclear activists, feminists, and both those connected to ecology and social justice movements.

The development of the American Green movement was also helped, in part, by Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 Democratic presidential candidacies. Many of the elements of the “Rainbow Coalition” brought together in support of Jackson’s ultimately unsuccessful candidacies subsequently rallied to the Green movement. Jackson’s failure to capture the Democrat’s nomination — and the similar letdowns of subsequent progressive efforts — suggests the considerable obstacles to building substantive progressive movements inside the Democratic Party.

But the unique realities of the US “winner take all” system combined with the entrenchment of the two-party system — both institutionally and in the hearts and minds of the American public — require an especially nuanced approach to progressive electoral activity. The struggle over “party” vs. “movement” has already caused a major split as the current electoral-focused Green Party US diverged from the original — and much more movement-oriented — Greens/Green Party USA.

Ralph Nader’s unwillingness to work within the Green Party coupled with his inability, thus far, to build any sort of movement since 2000, raises serious questions about the value of his 2008 candidacy. While Nader’s tireless, lifelong efforts will doubtless serve to ensure his very positive legacy to history, his independent candidacy can aspire to little more than raising issues in the short term. Furthermore, his choice of another high profile California Green, Matt Gonzalez, as his vice-presidential running mate is particularly troubling for the Green Party.

Gonzalez, running as a Green, was nearly elected mayor of San Francisco in an election that received nationwide attention. Gonzalez was so close to besting Democrat Gavin Newsom that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson campaigned on Newsom’s behalf. As result of this race and his stature as president of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors (similar to a city council) Gonzalez appeared to be a promising asset to the Green Party. However, Gonzalez has announced his decision to change his registration from Green to independent, explaining this as consequence of his part of the independent Nader ticket.

What this means for the Green Party remains to be seen. Nader handily won the California Green Party presidential primary vote over McKinney even as he steadfastly pronounced he was not a candidate. (He declined, however, to have his name removed from the primary ballot.) Perhaps the Nader/Gonzalez ticket will be successful in their stated desire to raise the issue of third party and independent candidates’ ballot access as a major civil rights issue. This is certainly an important matter that deserves public attention, as are Nader’s well-known critiques of corporate power.

McKinney, the likely 2008 Green nominee at this point, escapes what Katha Pollitt, writing in her weekly column in The Nation, referred to the “white populist error,” a notion expressed by Bill Fletcher in The Black Commentator. Edwards, much like Kucinich, fell prey to “(the idea) that unity will magically appear by building a campaign that attacks poverty and corporate abuse, supports unions and focuses on the challenges facing the working class, BUT IGNORES RACE AND GENDER” (Fletcher quoted by Pollitt with her emphasis).

But there is a real possibility that a McKinney candidacy will not have a united Green Party behind her. Though Nader has stated he will not actively seek the Green’s nomination, there is a chance that individual states could break from the national party to give Nader their ballot lines. Another national convention battle appears almost certain, though with declining numbers — in terms of both active supporters and ballot lines — there is, in some respects, less at stake than in 2004.

Green Party US’s almost singular focus on ballot access as well as electoral politics, generally, and presidential candidacies, specifically — as part of a “trickle down” strategy of party growth — is terribly misguided. Building a broad-based social movement, one that includes themes of economic justice, ecology, and social justice as well as a recognition of the importance of so-called “identity politics” to a comprehensive critique of the dominant order, around the idea of citizenship is an idea that was part of the beginnings of the American Green movement.

Though they were ultimately futile in their attempts to maintain a decidedly “bottom-up” movement focus within the Green Party, social ecologists and other forward thinking elements advocated just this position. They stressed the importance of education and historical perspective as part of engaging in movements oriented at everyday concerns and far-reaching, reconstructive visions of a liberatory, ecological human society.

Is it possible that progressives may have learned enough from the experiences of the recent election cycles to reconsider the hazards of an electoral, party-based focus? With economic recession and both global warming and an enduring “War on Terror” looming as momentous challenges for both near and short term, here’s to hoping.