Ecopsychology at the Crossroads: Contesting the Nature of a Field

Abstract

Abstract

The introduction of second-generation ecopsychology has prompted a debate about which way the field should go. In this article I suggest that the choice is actually not between first-generation and second-generation paths but rather between radical and mainstream ones. By the term radical I do not mean extremist politics; I refer merely to the perception that our collective problems are of a deeply rooted or thoroughgoing nature and to the corresponding conviction that these will not be solved without significantly altering our thought and action. That ecopsychology is best understood as a radical ecological transformation of psychology can be seen by considering the various meanings of ecology, the implications of conceptualizing the psyche ecologically, and the challenges of being truly holistic. This understanding of the field reveals the first generation as a largely unrealized, inherently radical ecopsychology, the second generation as a largely denatured, mainstreamed ecopsychology. My position, then, is that ecopsychology will find good form, and resolve the first-generation/second-generation impasse, only if developed in a manner faithful to its radical nature. This will include directing ecopsychology away from psychology's historically individualistic praxis to the collective level of cultural and social engagement. I conclude this article with the idea that as a critical dialogue between ecology and psychology, ecopsychology shows the latter's anthropocentric, philosophical, methodological, and political economic biases. With this idea in mind, I offer some responses to the second-generation authors in the interest of furthering the dialogue about the development of the field.