ABSTRACT
This chapter begins with an analysis of deep questioning. Deep questioning explains the failure on the part of deep ecologists, to define key environmental terms for a specific deep ecological way of looking at the world. Arne Naess advocated that ‘a certain vagueness and ambiguity’ is necessary if people are to question their relationship to nature, including the nature of the self, so vagueness is not a criticism that can be made of deep ecology. This has led to a spate of articles questioning the depth of deep ecology, with commentators accusing deep ecologists of being patronizing.1 If philosophers of ecology claim to be deep, the argument goes, then everyone else concerned with the environmental crisis or with ecological issues must be shallow. In defence, deep ecologists remark that the ‘deep’ in deep ecology refers to ‘deep questioning’: questions which relate to our place in nature and the nature of the self. Deep questioning begins with a deconstruction of the dominant worldview which has plagued our lives since the birth of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and ends with the establishment of ecological harmony. Rather than being ‘patronizing’, deep ecologists claim to be doing just the opposite. They use the term ‘deep questioning’ to appeal to a nonphilosophical audience, discerning that philosophy presupposes questions which attempt to elucidate the meaning of life. These questions concern oikos – the ‘home’ or heartland of philosophy, its environment, if you like.
