Beautiful. Nearly a decade later, and still radical after all these years. As needed, too, given it seems society is still marching down the same path (of capitalist domination and dualistic splitting) Let this wisdom from Fisher and those before him continue to shine through. We, too, are nature. As a scientist on my way to becoming I'm-not-so-sure what (Fisher, 2013), Ecopsychology has provided me words for the lessons that life guides me toward. Thank you Andy, and all others for your timely, important message. In service of the unfolding of life. Love love love. 💚🙏
Rona Trotter. from books.google.ca/books?id=UNDpBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Replacing+therapists+with+elders+Rona+Trotter&source=bl&ots=IfUmgNaE9I&sig=ACfU3U0N5sR1XH84-0daMQBR5P0uQ6uYSw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju-dqqvezkAhVqTt8KHcOkAH4Q6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Replacing%20therapists%20with%20elders%20Rona%20Trotter&f=false Andy's piece in this collection.
I wonder what, after being used to react to the modern ecological mutation in a helpful way, this new psychology would be used for. Part of why mainstream psychology has become hegemonic is because it is useful not only for relieving psychic malaise on an individual level, but also for effectivization of all things related to bureaucracy, population control and the accumulation of capital. The truth value or moral superiority of a field of study is not directly related to its prominence. It’s no coincidence that economics is called the king (or queen) of the social sciences even when everybody knows-even economists!-that its basic assumptions about humans are simply false; Economics as a field is extremely useful for the mainainance and development of the current social order. So is mainstream psychology. But I don’t think the same can be said of radical ecopsychology. Not that I don’t believe in the value of basic science/social theory or that this other kind of psychology could be better in many areas-such as for «saving» the ecology-but I fear that it might not catch on unless it becomes a necessary tool for a new type of social order. I both fear and hope that changing psychology can only be done if everything else changes with it. I also fear and hope that changing psychology is necessary, or at least helpful, for everything else to change. Good thing, then, that we are in need of drastic change.
Adam Smith, the founder of Capitalism, wrote two books. One was about Capitalism, the other one was about The Ethics that need to be in place for Capitalism to work. Neoliberals have ignored The Ethics. That's why we're in a mess. It's not that Marx was just a genius and Smith an evil capitalist. You gotta dig a bit deeper here. I think we should start using the word Consumerism instead of Capitalism.
