S u s t a i n a b l e C o n s t r u c t i o n R e l a t i v e t o a C o n c e p t u a l A n a l y s i s
545
species (Jacobs 1961), and has led to the development of Gaia theory (Lovelock 1979),
which conceives the Earth as “a total self-organizing and self-reproducing, organic,
spatio-temporal, and teleological system with the goal of maintaining itself” (Mebratu
1998). On such an intellectual basis, it is perhaps more appropriate to align this
perspective with the ideological group (Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien 2005) as the
fundamentally protean nature of deep ecology has allowed it to assume a more activist
platform (Devall and Sessions 1985, Drengson and Inoue, 1995). While deep ecology
has been criticised by some commentators as anti-human and even fascist (Bradford
1989) others regard it as mere self-interest (Lovelock 1988) and, when logically
concluded as ecosophy (i.e. personal wisdom that seeks ecological harmony and
equilibrium), necessary for human self-realisation (Naess 1987 1989, Drengson 1999).
In this context, self-realisation can be considered as “involving the transition not only
from ego to social-self, but from social-self to eco-logical self” (Mathews 2001: 221).
Transformative / ideological perspectives
According to Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien (2005), transformative approaches are
grounded in the view that “environmental degradation, poverty and a lack of justice are
not a historical coincidence”. Identifying disenfranchising governance structures and the
erosion of humanity’s relationship with nature as the principle causes of the
environmental crisis, proponents are usually indigenous or minority interest groups,
external to The Establishment, who may or may not regard sustainable development as
the means by which to achieve their revolutionary ends.
Notwithstanding previous assignments by Mebratu (1998), those that eschew
sustainable development include deep ecologists and so-called social cornucopians.
Those who embrace sustainable development tend to take a more balanced view of the
sustainability problem; they share a common understanding of the complex relationships
that exist between the natural environment and society but nonetheless consistently
acknowledge the grave consequences that would ensue should the associated issues
not be timeously addressed (Rees 1995). Here, social equity and distributive governance
feature strongly as valid ripostes to the ceaseless destruction of nature. This ideological
view of sustainable development is substantially rooted in ‘green’ adaptions of existing
doctrines, such as feminism, socialism and liberation theology (Mebratu 1998). Hopwood,
Mellor and O’Brien (2005) also include social ecology (Bookchin 1980, 1982) within this
group and further note that among its constituents “there is a constant interchange of
ideas and cross-fertilization, which sometimes makes classification difficult, but enriches
both ideas and practice”. For example, deep ecology, as made explicit in its original
exposition by Naess (1973), and social ecology place a strong emphasis on local
autonomy and decentralisation (Mathews 2001: 218-219) while Pepper (1993) identifies
a symbiosis between deep ecology and eco-socialism.
Eco-feminism regards overpopulation and the degradation of the natural environment as
symptomatic of a prevalent andocentric epistemological outlook (Buckingham-Hatfield
2000; Mellor 1997). Those who subscribe to its principles perceive the domination of
nature as ideologically inseparable from the suppression of woman by men (Merchant,
1983; Warren, 1990). Furthermore, eco-feminism is regarded as a means to interrogate
and understand the dualisms of Enlightenment thinking and parallels that exist in the
oppression of animals, minorities and the populations of developing countries (Davison
2001). As highlighted by Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien (2005), this position
encompasses a range of approaches from cultural/biological associations of woman with
nature (Collard 1998) through to social analysis (Salleh 1997). Through the conflation of
the critical and transformative potentials of ecology and practical feminism, its supporters
