A marred collection: Review of ‘Ecosophies of Freedom’

Neither the editors nor the contributors in this otherwise valuable collection seem to be aware of the rich legacy of “ecosophy”.

Saplings being planted in a recently deforested area in Mexico City where Illegal logging is rampant. An awareness of the environment and of the mortality of the human species formed important premises of Felix Guattari’s philosophy. | Photo Credit: Marco Ugarte/AP

The altruistic aim of “Suturing Social, Ecological and Spiritual Rift” proclaimed in the book’s subtitle is taken head on by Maya Joshi who begins her contribution “with a consideration of the titular suturing”, following as she says, “that thread through a literary digression”. I was grateful for that “digression”.

Ecosophies of Freedom: Suturing Social, Ecological and Spiritual Rift 

Edited by Milind Wani and Sucharita Dutta-Asane

Kalpavriksh-Earthcare Books

Pages: 442

Price: Rs.650

Kabir expressed the fragility of human life in the evocative doha chadariya jheeni. Maya Joshi writes: “By definition, what requires suturing (suture used as a verb is distinct from the polyvalence of its use as a noun) is a wound, a tear in the fabric of living flesh. It may be worthwhile to dwell on what it is not, or could have been. It is weaving; not knitting. No Kabir-like evocations of acts of primal creation, no primal jheeni-jheeni chadariya, web of nerve threads interwoven into the magic of the human form. No rhythm of the charkha, no poetic tana-bana. Nor does the word suggest the accretive, gentle and leisurely act of knitting, done to the music of clicking needles, winter-sun-kissed or rocking-chaired. Suturing requires needles, but they are sharp and antiseptic. Unlike knitting, they do not create that which comforts and envelops, nor, unlike the weaving metaphor in Kabir, do they map the entire body in invisible but powerful networks.”

Maya Joshi raises important questions. The intention, perhaps, is to provide answers, not pose questions? Karl Marx’s aphorism comes to mind. “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

Is this collection meant to “interpret” the various rifts or an attempt at “transforming” them to states of “freedom”? An interpretation I venture to make, in keeping with the title of the book. Where in all this is the healing? Leonard Cohen’s song “Come Healing” echoes in my mind. As Joshi writes, “When times are out of joint, it may be time to turn to the poets, to acknowledge them as possible legislators of the world.” Joshi reminds us of the power of literature and storytelling reaching out to ordinary mortals in a broken world. Something that all the grand philosophising that philosophers and those posing as philosophers cannot achieve.

Similar questions troubled my mind as I ploughed through some of the contributions before arriving at Joshi’s contribution. The idiosyncrasy of an alphabetical order in the book puts her somewhere in the end. I wondered why the world of literature, that so beautifully deals with rifts and their healing, has only a marginal presence in the book. The Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Overstory by Richard Powers came to my mind. The thoughts Powers triggers on nature, trees and the fights to save them. As did the evocative writing of Robin Wall Kimmerer, whose book Braiding Sweetgrass braids scientific knowledge and indigenous wisdom so touchingly. To Joshi’s metaphors of weaving and knitting we could add “braiding”.

Sumana Roy, author of “How I Became a Tree”: her writings, her thoughts in her talks around plants that draws one to her work and for the profound sense of interiority she kindles. An interiority so necessary for healing rifts taking place within us and nature. For Felix Guattari, who wrote about Ecosophy possibly for the first time, “interiority” is essential in facing the travails of what he terms as “Integrated World Capitalism”.

The French psychiatrist and philosopher Felix Guattari (1930-1992) developed a concept of interdependent ecologies of mind, society and environment, linking mind and society to the environment and ecology.

In his Introduction to the book, Milind Wani explains the coinage “ecosophy”. “Ecosophy” was not just a coinage but a call for new philosophy by Felix Guattari in a significant and important long essay on “Three Ecologies”, published in 1989. In it he said: “A new ecosophy, at once applied and theoretical, ethico, political and aesthetic, would have to move away from the old forms of political, religious and associative commitment. Rather than being a discipline of refolding on interiority, or a simple renewal of earlier forms of ‘militancy’, it will be a multi-faceted movement, deploying agencies, instances and dispositives that will simultaneously analyse and produce subjectivity.”Ian Pindar and Paul Sutton published a wonderful translation with a valuable introduction in English in 2000 (Athlone Press, New York).

Unaware of rich legacy

Neither the editors nor any of the contributors in the book seem to be aware of the rich legacy of “ecosophy” starting with Guattari. In this age of the ubiquitous Internet (before it arrived Guattari had some prescient things to say), what would a young reader find on the net, if he or she ever gets to read such books? Thinking of a young reader raises another question. Who is this book meant for? On the net, the term “Ecosophy” is very much part of the world of commerce and with coinages similar to that used in the book. A number of commercial products use this term. Philosophical in their own way, in an era of “sustainability” being a much touted, used and abused word, one can find on the Internet bold proclamations such as “Welcome to ECCOSOPHY, where style meets wanderlust, and convenience becomes a way of life”. A hard reality for well-meaning folk as their worlds and words are constantly appropriated.

The book is well-intentioned and well-meaning, but it turns out to be an odd collection. Greater mindfulness in selecting contributors, reflecting authenticity and intellectual honesty than just their academic credentials, could have avoided some whom I suspect are part of what Sumana Roy calls the “ambition industry”. A selection with greater discernment, tighter editing and care with form would have made it a better collection, and importantly, accessible to younger readers. Guattari stresses the latter in his appeal for “ecosophy”. The volume at hand, though “ecosophy” is the pivot, seems just a random collection of contributions, which includes some contributors who I suspect have recycled their ware. Also, sadly, much of Felix Guattari’s incisive ideas on Ecosophy are missed and the views expressed in the book may even run counter to those of Guattari.

In a review for a popular publication and not an academic journal, it is difficult to refer to all of the long list of contributors advertised on the cover. Talking of literature in the book, Bharatwaj Iyer reaches out to Orhan Pamuk and introduces “melancholia” as a condition. Aseem Srivatsa, who works on Rabindranath Tagore’s vision, always brings Tagore in his writings. He evokes Tagore in his contribution here also. Felix Padel and Malavika Gupta constantly remind us of the worlds beyond our middle-class pre-occupations, the world of adivasis and their tribulations. Theirs is a thoughtful contribution in this collection also, relating to the forgotten worlds of adivasis and their struggles.

Highlights

• In his Introduction to the book, Milind Wani explains the coinage “ecosophy”, which a call for new philosophy by Felix Guattari in a significant and important long essay on “Three Ecologies”, published in 1989.
• The reviewer says neither the editors nor any of the contributors in the book seem to be aware of the rich legacy of “ecosophy” starting with Guattari.
• The reviewer describes the collection as a possible good book has gone astray because of some bad contributions and bad ideas.

Use of ‘indic’

Rudolf Heredia, a profound commentator on the crying issues of our country, has a worthy contribution. I did not understand why a writer of his eminence fell prey to that obnoxious neo-orientalist term “Indic”. A term used mischievously, out of context from its original meaning relating to languages. Elitist, upper class, “Indic” discourses speak in grand rhetorical terms of culture. Tragically their culture is devoid of dynamism, defensive, frozen in time and deeply exclusionist. “Indic” reduces to a monochrome our colourful, diverse and rich culture. I suspect it gained traction especially after 2014. Many NRIs hold forth on Indic culture even if illiterate about Indian culture and history. I have seen many casteist uses of that word. I find the word “obnoxious” for its ahistoricity. It denies subjectivity and existence to our indigenous people and tries to create a new false history.

One such group promoting “Indic” (like some animal breed) proclaims its activism for “Indic”, saying its members act “whenever and wherever we find our culture and way of life under assault from political or cultural forces that have an agenda of their own under the garb of human rights or environmental concerns and the like” [sic]. Ironic that in the 23rd year of the Third Millennium, Western cunning can still find new adherents to its old Orientalist discourses in new neo-orientalist language of the “Indic” votaries. Writers like Shasank Chaturvedi in the collection would also be guilty of such neo-orientalism.

Why is this contribution by Shashank Chaturvedi on the Goraknath Math part of this book on “Ecosophy”? An unsuspecting reader may not connect that the current head of the Goraknath Math is Adityanath, who goes as “Yogi”. Chaturvedi cleverly avoids mentioning this connection to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, whose abominations are well known. It is rank dishonesty and I avoid the harsher term “intellectual fraud” for academics to pretend “innocence” in their work relating to the so called “spiritual and religious” realms.

This brings me back to Guattari. He writes, “While it is trapped on Spaceship Earth, and now that it has entered the nuclear and biotechnological age, our species remains irreversible. In order for it to survive, the twenty-first century must be atheist in the best sense: a positive disbelief in God, concerned only with, and respectful of terrestrial life. It will require the development of an immanent, materialist ethics, coupled with an atheist awareness of finitude, of the mortality of the species, the planet and the entire universe, and not an illusory belief in immortality, which is only a misplaced contempt for life”. As I read these lines, my thoughts and nostalgia of an earlier period of honesty and simplicity came back as also when I opened the book and read the dedication to Sudheer Bedekar. A sense of happiness surged through me at the dedication to a dear activist friend from the past and who perhaps lived his life akin to Guattari’s search for “Ecosophy”.

Despite such good associations and such pure intention, a possible good book has gone astray because of some bad contributions and bad ideas. In the perspective of Guattari, the task of every ecological analyst now is to promote ecologically “good” ideas in the hope that these will prevail, over ecologically “bad” ideas that will prove fatal to the planet..

Lawrence Surendra is Professor and Council Member, The Sustainability Platform, Asia.