The Shores of Saint-Pierre: Rousseau, Deep Ecology, and the Reconstitution of Humanity.

Deep ecologists never seem to explicitly invoke the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but their philosophy nonetheless mirrors his with striking fidelity. Both rely on pseudo-historical states of nature, in which humanity existed in state of perfect freedom, as the basis of their theories. They both blame intellectual and technological progress, indeed Reason itself, for disintegrating the state of nature and chaining a corrupted humanity to the evils of society. Both find modern politics eminently unnatural, and yearn for a return to lost innocence. Knowing full well that the conditioning of the modern psyche precludes such a return, both set to work on a radical paradigm shift that would make the return somewhat more plausible. These parallels are so conspicuous that one wonders why deep ecologists have not harnessed Rousseau’s infamous skills as a wordsmith to promote their agenda. Indeed, one could not blame them for directly co-opting The Second Discourse, or Emile, or Reveries of the Solitary Walker, or many of Rousseau’s other writings as comprising the development of a proto-deep ecology. Rousseau even records an experience of oneness with nature on the shores of Saint-Pierre that reflects profound ecocentric sentiment. Rousseau is hardly an obscure philosophical figure; the lack of Rousseauean imagery in deep ecological thought cannot be attributed to ignorance. I argue instead this curious omission reveals an apprehension among deep ecologists, concerning both how they wish to be perceived politically, and how they think about their own political agenda. While they might welcome a connection to the Rousseau of The Second Discourse, deep ecologists fear taking the next step, which brings them to the Rousseau of The Social Contract. To put it differently, while deep ecologists should endorse Rousseau’s analysis of the human relationship with nature and his excoriation of modern politics, they would prefer to avoid the accusations of totalitarianism that would accompany accepting the whole Rousseauean package. But there is more to this story. I argue that this reticence reveals that deep ecologists face the very same tensions between natural living and political tyranny that plagued Rousseau throughout his career. Rousseau knew the state of nature was irrevocably lost, and he therefore aimed to recreate as much of its happiness as he could. Yet this was impossible without the political sea change of The Social Contract; we couldn’t be happy again unless we were forced to be free. For the sake of natural, self-sufficient individuality we must legitimize the unlimited, conformist state. There is much inconsistent in Rousseau’s writings, but the connection between The Second Discourse and The Social Contract is sound. If this is true, deep ecologists must come to realize the disquieting implications of their own philosophy. If they wish to avoid incoherent anarchy on one hand and radical despotism on the other, deep ecologists would do well to engage Rousseau as clarifying their central political problem, and take up his cross of looking for solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]