Deep Ecology and Education - A Conversation with Arne Næss

Oct 15, 2026

Employing a dialogical approach, the paper examines how Arne Næss’s deep ecology perspective intersects with education and environmental thinking. It analyzes how “deep” questioning relates to core premises, the emergence of key principles, and the possibility of drawing unsound or ecologically harmful conclusions. The discussion further explores emotions and feelings in understanding experience, and links education with action, activism, and careful, non-imposing dialogue.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Dialogical discussion: deep questioning, premises, and outcomes

Teacher roles: clarifying thinking and managing disagreement

Emotions, education, action, and activism

Relationships with other environmental formulations

Deep Ecology and Education: A Conversation with Arne Næss1 Arne Næss, Centre for Development and the Environment, Norway with Bob Jickling, Editor, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education Abstract This paper employs a dialogical style to explore the interface between Arne Næss’s views about deep ecology and education. Themes examined include the educational implications of the“deep” questioning process and relationships between deep ecology and other formulations of environmental thought. Also explored are the roles of feelings and emotions in understanding one’s experiences as part of ever more comprehensive wholes, or gestalts. Finally, relations between education, action, and activism are probed. Résumé Cet article emploie un style dialogique pour explorer l’interface entre les vues d’Arne Næss sur l’écologisme radical et l’éducation. Les thèmes examinés comprennent les implications éducationnelles du processus de questionnement « radical » et les relations entre l’écologisme radical et d’autres formulations de la pensée environnementale. L’article approfondit également le rôle des sentiments et des émotions dans la compréhension deses propres expériences comme une partie d’ensembles ou deformes toujours plus complets. Enfin, il sonde aussi les relations entre l’éducation, l’action et l’activisme. Is Deep Ecology primarily about asking philosophically “deeper” questions, questions about one’s most fundamental beliefs, or is it about achieving ecocentrism, or some other ecological goals? Arne Næss: To ask deep questions is evidently not enough. As a supporter of the deep ecology movement you have to go deep in your questioning, to what for you are the deepest beliefs. That is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of being a supporter of the deep ecology movement. What we see 48 Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, Spring 2000 is that from the deepest premises some people derive the eight points, or key principles, of the movement. Others derive unecological consequences. We have seen through the history of philosophy very deep questioning that, in my opinion, goes in the wrong direction. Thomas Hobbes, the great British philosopher, for instance, did very deep questioning which led, from a deep ecology point of view, to very bad conclusions—consistent materialism and authoritarian political views. So there is no problem in the deep ecology movement about this. You have to ask a supporter to have some kind of “life lust,” some kind of philosophical or religious premises. So that’s clear—go deep, but that’s not enough. If our task as philosophers and/or educators is to help people develop an environmental philosophy of their own, then must we accept the risk that they might come to conclusions we may regard as unsound? Arne Næss: Sure. We may say: “All right these are your basic premises, these are your highest priorities, and from these you draw such and such consequences, but I’m afraid some of these consequences are not good, I strongly object.” In spite of the disagreement, there are two different ways of going on with the dialogue. One is to question whether we have really derived consequences we ought to derive from our premises. The other is to see what can be modified: “Could you modify the formulation of your basic views?” And then you make a suggestion about the basic premise: “could you accept to formulate the premise a little differently?” Then you try tobe helpful in seeing different possibilities of interpretation of what he or she is saying. Before you simply say “we disagree fundamentally” or “we disagree about the consequences,” go on with the dialogue. So your emphasis as a teacher would then be in helping the students examine their premises and subsequent consequences—helping the students to clarify their thinking at each level? Arne Næss: Exactly. That’s right, to help these students articulate how they feel. There is a kind of endless process going on wit

FAQs

What role does “deep questioning” play in supporting deep ecology?

The paper argues that going deep into one’s deepest beliefs is a necessary but not sufficient condition for supporting deep ecology, because different people can derive different principles or unsound consequences from the same premises.

How should educators handle disagreements about conclusions derived from shared premises?

The dialogue suggests continuing the conversation by testing whether consequences follow from premises and by modifying formulations of basic views, rather than immediately declaring fundamental disagreement.

What emphasis does Arne Næss place on education as a teacher?

He emphasizes helping students articulate their feelings and clarifying their thinking at each level, including finding a basis for peaceful coexistence despite persistent disagreement.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Rainbow Cat