Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism: Social Work to Address Global Environmental Crisis

Abstract

There is emerging global agreement that environmental change is one of the greatest threats to ecosystems, culture, health, and economies of humankind. In response to these environmental changes and the expected human vulnerability they will continue to produce, the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare has highlighted intervention to address the human impacts of the changing climate as one of the profession’s grand challenges. This article troubles the often anthropocentric worldview from which such responses emerge and proposes a framework informed by the wisdom of deep ecology and ecofeminism. Born from critical methodologies that question the rigid bifurcation and valuation of male/female and human/nonhuman, these perspectives invite social workers to think in novel ways about environmental challenges. We argue that the social work profession, which has historically sought to disturb power dynamics and reprioritize society’s needs, is uniquely situated to think holistically about responding to this crisis. By honoring the interrelated nature of human and nonhumankind, social workers can more mindfully lead the social planning and advocacy efforts necessary to meet this grand challenge.

Climate change has led to an increase in ever more severe hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, sea level rise, and drought that have caused large-scale human catastrophe and social dislocation (Alston, 2013; Drolet, 2012; Kemp & Palinkas, 2015). Communities with the least capital and resources suffer the worst effects from climate change, and social workers will have to address the severe impact of these developments on human health and well-being (Kemp & Palinkas, 2015; Mason & Rigg, 2018). While the social work field’s response to climate change typically focuses on topics such as disaster risk reduction, environmentally displaced populations, and community adaptation and resilience to environmental change (Kemp, Palinkas, & Mason, 2018), a broader perspective is possible (Bhuyan, Wahab, & Park, 2019). We begin by providing a historical overview, key concepts, and explicit examples of the theories of deep ecology and ecofeminism in social work practice. Then, we discuss the social work grand challenges and call for greater use of ecofeminist and deep ecological modes of practice such that we can earnestly address this crisis. Ultimately, this article argues that social work’s current parochial responses to the climate crisis further the problematic domination of humans over the earth and that a paradigm allowing for the pursuit of deep social and ecological justice is possible.

Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism: The Historical Origins

Origins of Ecological Thinking

The term “ecology” was first used by naturalist Ernst Haeckel in 1866 to refer to interdependencies among organisms in the natural world (Haeckel, 1866). Ecology has come to be understood as “the interdisciplinary scientific study of the living conditions of organisms in interaction with each other and with the surroundings, organic as well as inorganic” (Naess, 1989, p. 36). The earliest iterations of ecological theory in social work however have not held true to this definition, and the theoretical conceptualization of the environment in social work has not held the same connotations as in the natural sciences.

Traditional ecological theory, and psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) associated ecological model, purport that individual and community problems emerge from an inadequate fit between the individual and/or community with their social environment (Alston, 2013; Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Ungar, 2002). Termed person-in-environment, this perspective veered from the prevailing psychodynamic framework, which was unable to account for systemic and structural factors leading to individuals’ problems (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Germain, 1987; Germain, 1994).

Systems theory

In social work, the adaptation and goodness of fit of individuals to their surrounding ecological systems have predominately been regarded as social address and interaction and not in relation to natural physical place (Alston, 2013; Ungar, 2002). Ecological theory gained more prominence in the profession in the 1970s with the integration of systems theory such as that of family therapist Salvador Minuchin (1974). Systems theory allowed for a more in-depth understanding of the interactions of various systems. As stated by Gitterman and Germain (1976): “Within the ecological perspective, human beings are conceived as evolving and adapting through transactions with all elements of their environments…they reciprocally shape each other” (p. 602). While these systems were originally applied to the interactional nature of families alone, the application of systems theory ideas to the ecological realm allowed for development of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory and his corresponding model so important to the social work profession (Ungar, 2002).

Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology

Many scholars of postmodern, critical, and feminist movements have deemed Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory inadequate. The transactions among different levels of systems and individuals in ecological theory and the ecological model of social work have not historically been subject to large-scale critical analysis of the implicit influence of power and privilege. Instead, it is limited to individuals, groups, and organizations and emphasizes simple transactions between them, while excluding the natural environment and the spiritual/sacred connection between the two (Besthorn, 2012; Stephens, Jacobson, & King, 2009; Ungar, 2002). Ecofeminism and deep ecology have applied critical dialectics and expanded social ecological theory to be “deep,” critical, and spiritual.

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminist thinking arose from movements that critique modernity using historical and sociopolitical theory (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). Ecofeminism was first identified by feminist thinker Francoise d’Eaubonne (1974) and has since been discussed by numerous feminist theorists (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Mies & Shiva, 2014; Stephens et al., 2009). The historical origin of ecofeminist thinking can be partially traced to constructionist theorists such as Michel Foucault (1965, 1969, 1970, 1980), Martin Heidegger (1961, 1966, 1971), and other postmodernists. These theoreticians produced the tools of deconstruction, which feminists have used to critically analyze dominating social discourses around power, privilege, modernity, and accepted notions of authority and knowledge. Major progenitors of ecofeminist thinking also include Marxist thinkers, especially that of the Frankfurt school, that offered a critical neo-Marxian perspective (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). Ecofeminism ultimately came into being mainly through deconstruction of grand narratives of oppression seen as rooted in market economies with the combination of natural ecological theory: “a feminist/ecological dominance theory rooted in the destructive ethos of patriarchy” (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002, p. 224).

While historically unacknowledged in the literature, ecofeminist thinkers were also deeply influenced by indigenous knowledge (Fox-Smith, 2017; Nixon, 2015). Indigenous worldviews have acknowledged the interrelated nature of the physical environment and humans for millennia (Billiot, Beltrán, Brown, Mitchell, & Fernandez, 2019; Fox-Smith, 2017; Nixon, 2015). Billiot and colleagues (2019) note the many ways that indigenous communities have been fervent protectors of the natural world and are now uniquely vulnerable to environmental changes stemming from climate change. Recent literature highlights the fit between ecofeminism and indigenous ways of knowing and makes headway in acknowledging the fundamental role of indigenous peoples as caretakers of the land and holders of essential ecofeminist wisdom (Bhuyan et al., 2019).

Additionally, some spiritualities of antiquity, while not necessarily matriarchal, valued femininity and the interconnectedness of the individual with the self, others, and the natural environment (Eisler, 1987; Warren, 2000). For example, social scientist Riane Eisler (1987) describes objects of fertility discovered in Europe as belonging to an egalitarian goddess-oriented society that was later overturned by oppressive and dominance-oriented societies. Eisler argues, as do ecofeminists, that a key to end oppressive systems of dominance of women and nature is rooted in a reemergence of this form of spirituality. Thus, ecofeminism arose from the application of constructivist thought, indigenous knowledge, and femininity-oriented spirituality to an ecological theory seen as too limited.

Deep ecology

The origin of deep ecology has similar roots in critical, postmodern, and Marxist dialectics. The emergence of deep ecological thinking in social work arose as an alternative critical voice to ecological theory’s shallow, limited, overly descriptive, and anthropocentric view that is unable to guide intervention (Ungar, 2002). The philosophy of deep ecology was created by philosopher Arne Naess (1973). One of the key concepts of deep ecological thinking is that ecological theory and Western society has become alienated from nature and due to false ideas about humanity’s place in the order of things (i.e., nature) that we must amend by recognizing our “ecological Self” which will catalyze an “existential affirmation of our embeddedness in and belonging to the natural environment” (Diehm, 2014, p. 81). The theoretical origin of this idea is rooted in seminal philosophical texts on nature and spirituality as well as with the more recent movements of transcendentalism and social political movements for peace and civil rights (Emerson, 1836/2010; Thoreau, 1854/2011).

The transcendental movement of Ralph Waldo Emerson (1836/2010) and Henry David Thoreau (1854/2011) provided foundational ideas to philosopher Arne Naess’ Deep Ecological Theory (1973; Besthorn, 2012). In their 19th-century literature, these classic authors described retreat into the wilderness, and the building of communion with self and the natural environment, as intrinsically linked. Retreat into wild natural spaces, it is posited in transcendental thought, increases for an individual the value given to all elements of the environment, both social and physical (Besthorn, 2012). Emerson (1836/2010) advocated a communing with nature such that it “becomes part of [one’s] daily food” (chapter 1). The ideas of this movement were more humanistic and metaphysical in nature than academic. Nonetheless, this movement’s ideas co-emerged with Marxist thought that market-based principles are inherently flawed and diminish the ability of nature-based retreat as emphasized in the transcendental movement (Besthorn, 2012).

Naess (1995) also explicitly cited Gandhi and his peaceful, nonviolent social protest against British imperialism as grounds for a deep ecological practice. Naess wrote that Gandhi’s movement for peace in India did not have as a central aim to liberate the Indian nation. Its aim instead was to eliminate caste, alleviate poverty, and ultimately to allow for the utmost self-realization of all beings outside of constructs of nation, state, or religion; paraphrased, Gandhi’s supreme belief was “In achieving wider self-realization, one must recognize every non-human entity as intimately connected and thus intrinsically valuable” (Besthorn, 2012, p. 251; Naess, 1995). Naess (1973) described this form of political action as essential to his deep ecological philosophy, which he hoped would first and foremost become a social and political movement instead of a theory confined to academia, stating that this movement must flexibly take into account “the vast scope of relevant ecological and normative (social, political, ethical) material” (p. 100).

The once controversial and exiled Jewish Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1677) offered perhaps the most important contributions to deep ecological theorizing (Besthorn, 2012; Kober, 2013). In Spinoza’s Ethics, first published in 1677, a pantheistic ideal is elaborated whereby “nature” and “God” are one and the same; ethicist Gal Kober (2013) reported on Spinoza (1677) “man is a part of nature, a subject of the same domain—not a domain separate from it, nor a domain within that of nature” (p. 43). The pantheistic view of divinity expounded by Spinoza was adopted by Naess to show that all things are divine, interconnected, and possessing of intrinsic value due to this interconnectedness. Political and social movements for a deep ecology, Naess argues, rely on one reaching their highest self-realization. He defines this as coming to an understanding that the body, the mind, and the whole of nature are but one and the same (Besthorn, 2012; Naess, 1989). For Spinoza, societies that have not reached this realization rationalize the dominion of parts that they do not see as interrelated: oppression of other humans, of women, and the natural environment (Kober, 2013). This philosophy also demonstrates that humankind, being itself interrelated to nature, harms the self when harming nature.

Natural Ecological Theories: The Key Concepts

Theorists of the deep ecological and ecofeminist movements in social work have attempted to develop and find affirmation for frameworks that integrate person and natural environment transactions (Drolet, 2012). These frameworks view traditional ecological theory as too conservative sociopolitically, and too detached from nature, spirituality and critiques of power relations in the systems of human interaction (Besthorn, 2012; Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Stephens et al., 2009). These theorists posit that the ways in which the social work field has framed its response to the climate crisis using a traditional ecological systems approach have perpetuated a person on the environment as opposed to a person in the environment worldview. In this way, the field supports the conceptualization that humanity is detached from and superior to the natural environment and misses an opportunity to advocate for the underserved and undervalued, in this case: nonhumankind (Besthorn, 2012; Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Ungar, 2002). The main constructs of deep ecology and ecofeminism can be used to right these missteps.

Three central ideas of ecofeminist thought have been solidified by Besthorn and McMillen (2002). The first is that there is currently an uneven and exploitative power dynamic between masculinity and femininity that equally mirrors the split between humankind and nature. Similarly, all things demarcated by humankind fall either within nature or that which is outside and superior to nature (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). These demarcations are oppressive, are hierarchical, and are presupposed and unquestioned by all institutions of modernity. From an ecofeminist lens, the “twin oppressions” (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002, p. 224) of patriarchy and anthropocentrism are conjoined in their preponderance and could be mutually destroyed. In other words, to dismantle one of these hierarchical, oppressive structures would lead to equal disability of the other: “issues of environmental degradation and concerns for a reanimated person/nature consciousness cannot be separated from all forms of injustice, whether toward nature or other human beings” (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002, p. 223). This critical perspective that troubles the concept of dominant and passive sides of a coin leads logically to the question of whether such binaries can and should be eradicated entirely.

The second construct posits that all forms of domination, either of humans or of nature, are feminist concerns (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). Ecological critiques are simply incomplete without an appraisal of unchecked power and the effect of its operation in society (Stephens et al., 2009). Without social critique of power, underlying misogyny and disdain of nature cannot be unveiled. As scholar and environmental activist Vandana Shiva (1997) put it, the rise of globalization and industrialism has ushered in the gendered construction of nature as “passive, inert, and valueless,” not dissimilar to the characterization of femininity (para. 38). To provide social critique and to promote positive change is one main aim of the ecofeminist social and political movement. This objective is closely aligned with the political and social objectives of deep ecology (Besthorn, 2012; Gray & Coates, 2013; Ungar, 2002).

The third main idea of ecofeminism is that humanity has lost consciousness of the sacred interconnectedness of all things (humankind and nonhumankind) due to the institutions of modernity (Besthorn, 2012; Ungar, 2002). Modernity, which is encapsulated by the ideas of enlightenment thinking, seeks continued progress as ultimate good. Here, progress is defined as the accumulation of scientific knowledge (Ferreira, 2010). This view is flawed according to ecofeminists and deep ecologists who see the accumulation of knowledge through positivism as the continued and increasing dominion of humankind over nature (Besthorn, 2012; Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Stephens et al., 2009). An objective of ecofeminist thought therefore is to reignite within social consciousness the idea that the whole of humanity is greater than the sum of its parts. Each of these parts shares a fundamental interconnectedness, a premise that also categorizes deep ecological thinking (Kober, 2013; Ungar, 2002). It therefore follows that commitment to political and social action is inherently spiritual, especially in relation to climate change (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Gray & Coates, 2013).

Deep ecology is closely aligned with ecofeminist theorizing and is the study of the mutual dependency found in all aspects of an ecosystem both social and natural/environmental (Alston, 2013; Diehm, 2014; Jones, 2010; Stephens et al., 2009; Ungar, 2002). Besthorn (2012) explains that, “rather than individual experience as separate from the environment, [in deep ecological theory] the environment exists in individuals as they cultivate awareness of being one with all that exists” (p. 252). Humankind, in their relationship with one another, is the embodiment of nature. Simply stated, there is an interconnectedness of all things, and the dominant behaviors of society have an effect on all things, human and nonhuman.

According to Gray and Coates (2013), there has been a shift throughout human history from that of an ecologically centered philosophy to that of an anthropocentric presumption. The shift from ecocentrism to anthropocentrism facilitates humankind to seek and legitimize dominion over nature. The reigning dominance of market-based systems and an overreliance on continuous scientific and economic growth have led to the overconsumption of natural resources and the current environmental crises, especially those problems caused by warming temperatures (Besthorn, 2012; Dominelli, 2011, 2013; Gray & Coates, 2013; Peeters, 2012). Both ecofeminist and deep ecological theorists posit that we need to change widely held ideology and political and economic structures that operate on the assumption that a valuable life is one rich in material possession and consumption (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Gray & Coates, 2013; Stephens et al., 2009). Deep ecology’s remedy to environmental crisis does not include the development of more sustainable technologies that would allow only for continued domination of the environment (Peeters, 2012). Instead, addressing climate change will not be possible without radical social change.

Deep ecologists posit that with the interconnectedness of all things, it follows that diversity and symbiosis are in the best interest of humankind, nonhumankind, and physical place (Alston, 2013; Ungar, 2002). The more complex and diverse an ecosystem may be, the less likely it is that it will be destroyed. Naess shows this proposition mathematically; the arrangement of three single-digit numbers can produce only six unique arrangements of numbers; the arrangement of four single-digit numbers can produce 24 unique arrangements (Ungar, 2002, p. 486). A deep ecological view thus suggests that human social ecology, when in symbiosis with a diverse natural ecology, is dually protected and strong. The political and social crusade of deep ecology is therefore to revive a once-vital consciousness on the importance of diverse human and natural ecosystems and to replace it with the currently reigning modern market-based principles of consumption (Alston, 2013). In sum, this movement advocates a shift in the social work field from fitting in with modernity by way of unquestioningly embracing analytic, scientific rationality to a more social justice–aligned approach in which environmental sustainability is viewed through an inclusive and holistic paradigm that centers indigenous perspectives and land and community stewardship (Bhuyan et al., 2019; Billiot et al., 2019; Ferreira, 2010).

Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism in the Social Work Field

The social work profession has developed deep ecological philosophy and ecofeminist ideals for purposes of informing clinical intervention. Many in social work have used the theories of ecofeminism and deep ecology to suggest an expanded ecological theory that is inclusive of both the natural physical environment and also the natural being of humankind and their interrelationships, community, and spirituality (Adger, 2000; Ferreira, 2010; Gray & Coates, 2013). These theories direct social work to move from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism, dualism to holism, individual to community, and progress to well-being (Gray & Coates, 2013). Deep and feminist ecology attempts to expand the methods of social science research and clinical intervention (Dominelli, 2011; Drolet, 2012), for example, by honoring the spiritual narratives of indigenous communities, more thoroughly defining constructs of sustainability, and by highlighting the importance of physical place to communities (Alston, 2013).

Deep ecology has been summarized into eight distinct principles. The principles adapted from Naess (1989) for social work professionals by Ungar (2002) are all individuals have intrinsic value outside of one’s usefulness for human consumption; diversity offers the potential for the emergence of unique solutions; structured alliances must be situated to increase diversity of resources; service delivery systems ought to be managed by community stakeholders; these systems should be kept small; public policy must allow communities the capacity to function on their own; that which benefits individuals and their communities is the benchmark of development; those who align with these points have an obligation to amend their methods and organizations to achieve these goals (p. 488).

Ultimately, such a manifesto calls on practitioners to view all entities, both human and nonhuman with a stance of equanimity, to ensure that a diversity of resources are channeled to communities so that they may “help them help themselves” (Besthorn, 2012; Gray & Coates, 2013), and to guide human service organizations to achieve these aims by remaining small, and seeking guidance from community stakeholders rather than boards or bureaucracies (Ungar, 2002). Finally, in practice, social workers must advocate for policies that situate the well-being of communities as the benchmark of social and economic developmental processes (Ungar, 2002).

The many ways in which these principles have been operationalized by social workers to meet the need of environmental crisis include educating on the issues associated with environmental degradation, promoting sustainable energy production and consumption, and mobilizing communities to protect their futures through local social work focusing on environmental problem-solving (Dominelli, 2011). Many examples of ecofeminist and deep ecological social work practices exist and include supporting prison abolitionists’ fight to decriminalize Indigenous and environmental protest; supporting youth environmental leaders globally, such as climate activist Greta Thunberg (2019); working in solidarity with undocumented farm workers; and advocating for comprehensive immigration reform and immigrant labor rights in order to green our food systems (Bhuyan et al., 2019, pp. 292–293).

Social workers at the microlevel and mezzolevel provide psychoeducation to ensure that groups and organizations understand environmental problems so that global-level knowledge can affect local action. Furthermore, on the macrolevel, social workers can bring people together to defend international policy such as the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCC, 1997). As stated by Dominelli (2011) “Social workers, with their skills in seeing the whole picture and mediating between conflicting groups, can facilitate implementation discussions at international policy and community levels” (p. 434). In all, these interventions are led by workers not bound within the confines of an agency but bring the decision-making process out of the bureaucratic boardroom and into the spiritual and communal spaces of those being serviced (Ungar, 2002).

Social worker Julie Drolet (2012) recounts an ecofeminist intervention whereby community-based participatory action research was used in British Columbia, Canada, to inform and guide potential interventions. The community-based participatory action research process lead to identification of desired interventions and needed policy advocacy. It was found that issues of environmental degradation and change were significant concerns of local community research participants and that local and national government action on these issues was desired. This intervention led to an identification of the problem as understood by the community as well as their desired changes, namely, advocating for further development of community-managed food gardens, and more autonomy in managing and identifying the use of natural ecological resources that were central to local economies (Drolet, 2012). Ecofeminist intervention develops agency, allows for reflection, and promotes community action (Drolet, 2012).

In another example, social worker Michael Ungar (2018) synthesized the literature on resilience, pointing out that research in this area has traditionally been anthropocentric. He highlights the adaptive and resilient ways in which plant and animal regimes have survived human-made disturbances and underscores the capacity-building possibilities that present themselves in the face of adversity (Ungar, 2018). Such a perspective, which acknowledges connections between human and nonhuman elements in a community and earnestly weighs trade-offs present in an adversity–resiliency process, would be beneficial to the social work profession as it addresses this grand challenge.

Ecofeminist and deep ecological interventions take into account the subjectivities of those affected by climate change and create space for communities to learn and dialogue on both environment and other social issues that are believed to be interconnected; a social problem does not arise without equal problem in the natural ecological realm (Alston, 2013; Drolet, 2012). Jones (2010) highlights interventions of this nature that utilize experiential learning related to issues of environmental exploitation and destruction. Jones recommends taking clients and students of social work to community gardens, degraded waterways, waste management facilities, and natural ecological rejuvenation sites. These experiences prompt intervention participants to question their potentially limited knowledge of ecological environmental issues and their underdeveloped frameworks to question and solve problems of social and natural ecological dimension.

In concurrence with these methods, indigenous scholars have recently provided examples of social work that incorporates place-based teaching. Billiot and colleagues (2019) share on their work to teach social work students through embodied learning about the sand creek massacre in the state of Colorado. In their example of this type of teaching, explicit connection-making between historical violence perpetrated in part by important figures in the student’s academic community was made, and a site visit was utilized to promote a deep ecological perspective for students who illustrated their interconnectedness with their environment and its history. These scholars also give an example of mental health interventions that engage with the natural environment: The Yappallí Choctaw Road to Health intervention uses a place-based, outdoor mode of communal and individual healing for women of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Billiot et al., 2019). These are but two examples on how social work practitioners, researchers, and administrators can incorporate place-based, historically aware educational classes and health interventions using these paradigms.

Deep ecological and ecofeminist interventions promote communities’ ability to enjoy one another and nature. Naess (1989) argues “We need types of societies and communities in which one delights in the value-creative aspects of equilibrium rather than the glorification of value-neutral growth; in which being together with other living beings is more important than exploiting them” (p. 24). Deep ecological and ecofeminist interventions attempt to bring individuals, families, and communities together outside of the realm of enjoyment as demarcated by market-based economy. These interventions teach individuals and communities to enjoy one another, to be in and revel in natural spaces, and to observe and create art and music (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). This occurs simultaneously in communities while advocacy ensures that socially marginalized groups receive adequate resources to engage in these types of activities; market-based economies have disenfranchised many from accessing these types of value-driven lifestyles (Peeters, 2012).

Interventions such as those described here are supported by critical methodologies such as educator Paulo Freire’s (2000) perspective-shifting take on the ways in which educator, student, and environment are defined. Freire (2000) states “The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creations of people, people themselves, time—everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal” (p. 11). Proposing to shift this framework, Freire (2000) advocates for humans to become aware of their “incompletion” (p. 29) and to actively reject the process of valuation, domination, and oppression. The social work profession would do well to similarly be aware of its “incompletion” as it works toward achieving justice for humans, all sentient creatures, and the nonsentient material of the planet alike.

Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism, and the Social Work Grand Challenges

Deep ecological and ecofeminist theory and associated interventions described above provide a critical and thorough voice; however, they are limited as they are not “evidence-based.” Alston (2013), after elaborating on the value of ecofeminist theorizing to provide guidance on gender-sensitive social work in an era of environmental crisis concedes, “we require multiple and layered practice theories and interventions based on sound research in order to be critical players and advocates in the environmental and climate disaster policy and practice space” (p. 219). Deep ecology has been widely criticized for its celebration of the spiritual, which comes, for some, at the expense of the practical (Ungar, 2002). It can be argued that deep ecology and ecofeminism are ways of thinking, not ways of doing, which invite social workers to question the dominant paradigms with which they have been socialized, not only in the profession but also in the society as well. Having been steeped in an anthropocentric worldview, social workers understandably focus their skills on addressing existential crises facing their clients, patients, and community members. Similarly, when faced with environmental crises, we understandably tend to situate our responses from an anthropocentric stance.

The American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare hopes to foster, highlight, and proliferate the social work profession through advancements in science-informed programming, and to estblish the social work profession as an integrative scientific profession (Barth, Gilmore, Flynn, Fraser, & Brekke, 2014; Brekke, 2014). To what extent can the eco-spiritual frameworks make claim that they are indeed scientifically based and thus be centered in this movement? At this point, literature on the deep ecological and ecofeminist movements in social work is indeed theoretical, conceptual, and, at times, strongly anti-positivist (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). The deep ecological and ecofeminist movement has made explicit a disdain for a reliance on existing methods of scientific inquiry, which are in part believed to be the cause of current environmental crisis.

Thus, it may seem that ecofeminist and deep ecological practice is an uneasy fit with current trends to operationalize social work based in scientific evidence. However, ecofeminist and deep ecological tenants and practices can be aligned with traditional paradigms to broaden the impact of scientific inquiry and to develop evidence-based practices attentive to social and ecological justice. For example, scholar Deboleena Roy (2008) offers a “feminist practice of research agenda choice” (p. 154, emphasis in original) which does not seek to dismantle typical scientific inquiry “but rather to provide the feminist scientist with the necessary tools to produce interruptions or positive disruptions in the processes of scientific knowledge making” (p. 154). Thus, through centering ecofeminist ethics as a starting point in social work research and intervention, the ecological spiritual movement and its ideas can be applied to existing modalities of professional practice.

Inform Practice: A Deeper Social Justice

A “deeper social justice” is one that inextricably connects and equally prioritizes social and ecological well-being. Traditionally, the social work profession has defined social justice as a system that ensures equitable distribution of goods and resources to all. According to deep ecological thinkers, this is an inherently flawed idea rooted in market economies and the unquestioned desire for consumption and growth. This is a shallow social justice that is egocentric (individual focused) and homocentric (human society focused; Besthorn, 2012). In striving for such shallow justice, social workers may do harm to future generations and nonhumans.

For some time, social workers as a whole have not reflected on the difference between doing good for some and being agents of social change for all (Gray & Coates, 2013; Ungar, 2002). Deep ecology and ecofeminism provide an expanded framework and critical dialectic for social workers to more thoroughly question our roles in ways that will allow us to be truly transformational not only for those we serve but also for the broader social and natural environments as well (Jones, 2010; Peeters, 2012). Eco-spiritual proponents believe that there is a responsibility of all made aware of the principles of deep ecology to advocate for proliferation and social political manifestation of the principles: “These eight principles of practice are meant to challenge earlier conceptualizations of ecological practice that produced little change in the business-as-usual approaches found among service providers mandated to change people’s behavior” (Ungar, 2002, p. 487). Deep ecological and ecofeminist theory inform a deep social justice that rejects this insufficient, business-as-usual approach within the social work profession.

Deep social justice, on the other hand, is conscious of both social and environmental justice. It moves “professional thinking away from the preeminence of individualism and dualism, and the unquestioned acceptance of progress and uncontrolled growth that make it difficult for social workers to fulfill their role as agents of social and environmental justice” (Gray & Coates, 2013, p. 356; Jones, 2010). To question societal structures such as economic models, values, and ways of life is critical as we embark into deeper social justice (Rambaree, Powers, & Smith, 2019). This consciousness is essential if social workers hope to make lasting social change, especially in the face of an environmental crisis that promises to be a challenge to all things on the planet, human and nonhuman.

Conclusion: The Natural Ecology and the Science of Social Work

Sooner rather than later, issues related to the environmental crisis will move from the periphery of social concern to the issue of social concern (Jones, 2010; Kemp et al., 2018). In order for humankind to survive this challenge, the symbiosis between the ecology of human societies and the natural physical environment will become an essential component of social work and all related professions’ theorizing and interventions (Alston, 2013; Jones, 2010). Current responses to environmental crisis based primarily in climate science are deficient in addressing complex and intersecting social problems emerging in climate-affected spaces (Alston, 2013). Furthermore, the alarmist tone with which climate change is discussed, while justified, may further serve to situate humanity and nature in an adversarial relationship. With deep social justice as a guide, however, natural ecological theorizing can facilitate a rapprochement between humankind, the nonhuman natural world, and a changing climate. Thus, deep social justice can spur social work interventions that fulfill the objectives of the grand challenge to address the human impacts of the climate crisis in a meaningful and lasting way.

The science of social work and its corresponding American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare have been created to lay claim to academic capital and to systematize the professional conduct of the social work profession through the scientific method (Barth et al., 2014). Eco-spiritual theorizing can ensure that these endeavors of scholarly thinking will be holistic and nonanthropocentric (Gray & Coates, 2013). Eco-spiritual thought tells that the natural environment is more than raw resources and that natural ecology possesses sacred and intrinsic value outside of its utility to humankind. In sum, nature, as both the physical environment and the natural communion in human interaction, is at risk (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002); if integrated into a science of social work, ecofeminist and deep ecological guidance will ensure that the quest for progress and growth does not occur in a way that is harmful and detached from nature. Without such a consciousness, the science of social work will perpetuate Western society’s domination over nature and limit our opportunities to develop a sustainable relationship with the earth. Human and nonhumankind have everything to lose.