Deep Ecology and the Study of Western Esotericism

Deep Ecology’s most enduring problem outside of the planetary ecological situation itself concerns its definition. In short, the multiplicity of competing interpretations of Deep Ecology has manifested a crippling amount of philosophical infighting, while at the same time providing its critics with the evidence needed to claim that the eco-philosophy is incoherent. Moreover, the dizzying array of interpretations has led astray scholars looking to account for Deep Ecology within overarching thematic rubrics like religion or esotericism. Scholars looking to place Deep Ecology within larger analytic categories more often than not fail to recognize the polyvalence of the term, and, thus, their usage of it is often superficial or distorted. ¹ The intention of this chapter is not to solve this identity crisis; on the contrary, instead of validating any one interpretation of Deep Ecology, focus will be placed on unpacking the three most prominent interpretations of the eco-philosophy. In surveying these contents it shall become clear that, far from being a singular ideology, Deep Ecology is a hotly debated discursive field, and as such, lacks an essence beyond the assertions, polemics, practices and identities that compose it. That said, the analytic construct of “esotericism” shall orient the foregoing analysis for the simple reason that the three main interpretations of Deep Ecology all claim access to higher knowledge, despite their differences. As a point of orientation, the esoteric truth claims of each definition will be analysed in a manner that illustrates the distinct and conflicting parameters each interpretation establishes for what is to be considered definitive for “Deep Ecology”