Anthropocentrism vs. Ecocentrism

When looking at the environment, human beings generally take one of two major viewpoints. These two viewpoints are anthropocentrism, also known as homocentrism (Merchant, 1992; Oelschlaeger, 1991) and Ecocentrism, also known as biocentrism (Leopold, 1949) and each is different from the other.

According to Oelschlaeger (1991) anthropocentrism, which is considered part of the resourcism view, looks at the world from a usefulness standpoint. From this standpoint, natural landscapes are looked at as resource stockpiles to be used by human beings (Merchant, 1992; Oelschlaeger, 1991). The Human Exceptionalism Paradigm proposed by Catton and Dunlap (1978) demonstrated the interconnectedness of the prevailing sociological and environmental theories of the time and showed the prevailing anthropocentric assumptions of those various theories.

The second viewpoint is the ecocentric or biocentric point of view. Aldo Leopold (1949) proposed an ecocentric worldview known as land ethic which shifts the focus from nature being conquered by humans to nature being stewarded by humans. This standpoint focuses on preserving nature for its own sake and sees nature as having its own value separate from human interaction and use (Merchant, 1992). Bell et al. state that humans have no special precedence when it comes to nature and that nature should be equalized with humans instead of forced into servitude to humanity (2001).

The New Environmental Paradigm, an environmental values scale developed by Dunlap et al. (1992, 2000) focuses on the proposition that humans and nature are interconnected not separate from each other and helps promote an ecocentric worldview. According to Stern and Dietz (1994), this scale approximates general environmental concerns that roughly approximate Merchant’s (1992) anthropocentric and ecocentric value systems.

One of the major examples of the difference between the anthropocentric and the ecocentric viewpoints is the argument over the national forests of various countries. From an anthropocentric viewpoint, the national forests need to be saved for use by human beings in the form of paper products, recreation, and construction materials. However, the opposing view of ecocentrism would say that it is important to preserve the national forests for preservation’s sake. It would focus on the value of nature as a part of the planet and not as something to be used.

Another example is the ocean. An ecocentric view of the ocean would say that the protection and conservation of the earth’s oceans is an important part of human life due to the vast amounts of species that call it home. Ecocentrism would promote ethical stewardship of the oceans not for use (such as fishing and recreation) but for preservation of the life that exists there. Thousands of species call the oceans of earth home and the proper stewardship of the oceans falls nicely into the land ethic view of ecocentrism. However, on the flip side of this, an anthropocentric view of the oceans would focus on the use of the oceans for oil drilling, food, energy, recreation, and any number of other uses which relates to the utilitarian view that anthropocentrism is focused on.

Thus, there are two major views that have been discussed, the anthropocentric which nature is utility based (Merchant, 1992; Oelschlaeger, 1991), and the ecocentric in which nature is looked as equal to humanity (Leopold, 1949). Examples of the national forests and the oceans were used to exemplify the difference between the anthropocentric and the ecocentric views of the environment.

My thoughts on the conflict between the anthropocentric and the ecocentric views are interesting to say the least. The United States is most definitely an anthropocentric country when it comes to nature even with all of the environmental protection laws and policies on the books as we are a consumer based economy. According to Clark et al. (1999) and Peterson et al. (1996), individuals can readily determine a rank order of values in which natural resources, or assets, are placed very highly. Building off of this, an anthropocentric worldview places high value on resources to be used while an ecocentric worldview places high value on resources to exist.

References

Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Catton Jr., W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. American Sociologist, 13(1), 41-49.