Political Nature: Environmentalism and the Interpretation of Western Thought

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Review: Political Nature: Environmentalism and Interpretation of Western Thought By John M. Myer Reviewed by Pramod K. Nayar University of Hyderabad, India John M. Meyer. Political Nature: Environmentalism and Interpretation of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. 210 pp. 0-262-13390- 3 (cloth); 0-262-63224-1(paperback). US$55.00 cloth; US$22. 95 paperback. John Meyer's Political Nature is essentially a reading of two important Western political thinkers: Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes. Beginning with assumption that our most fundamental concern should be with the ability of our political and social institutions to address environmental problems effectively (pp. 3-4), Meyer delineates two interpretations of naturepolitics relationship. The first, dualist interpretation, is characterized by idea that communities sought to tear themselves away from cycles of by celebrating and elevating qualities believed to be distinctively (p. 5). This approach therefore sees all Western politics as being completely divorced from nature. The dualist interpretation sees a deeprooted duality as endemic to human-nature relationship. Instead, dualists argue, we need to acknowledge inter-connectedness of all life forms. The derivative approach argues for centrality of right. This interpretation sees Western political philosophy as derived from certain conceptions of nature. There have been two influential conceptions of in Western thought. The first, teleological or organic, is Aristotelian with a Christian reinterpretation as forwarded by medieval philosophers. The second, mechanistic or modern conception, is visible from 17th century onward and is result of modern science. Reading Hobbes and Aristotle's texts in an extraordinarily rich interpretive act, Meyer argues that both thinkers present several common features. Hobbesian thought was caught in dilemma between state of and artifice. On one hand Hobbes opposed any artifice (intervention) in changing or human nature. Yet, he also argued that it is lack in that artifice tries to fill. Hobbes' conception of argues that man has no natural ends, while simultaneously suggesting that end of all politics is peace. Meyer points out that Hobbes' provide a constraint that would prevent sovereign (understood as an artificial structure) from ordering or organizing human ends even though they are not so 'naturally (pp. 84-5). In Aristotle's teleological view polis is fulfillment of potential within human nature. Human itself is manifestation of a more general and this makes Aristotle's polis entirely natural. Yet Aristotle also suggests that any particular regime is a form of artifice, hence lacking a natural telos. Aristotle's conception of nature, Meyer points out, pays attention to particularities of in formulation of ideas/opinions/politics about of political regime, economic relationships, household arrangements, and educational forms within polis. Meyer suggests that this is a remarkable move in Aristotle (and Meyer builds on this idea in his concluding remarks). Here nature and human provide inescapable context within which discussions about boundaries between different realms of practice take place (p. 118). The derivative and dualist interpretations of these thinkers offers following lessons: Nature can offer us a principle in form of a conception of natural law, and all politics must be derived from such a conception of nature. Both thinkers end up suggesting a subject role for since politics is master science (Aristotle) and Hobbesian ruler is interpreter-ruler of all realms. However, as Meyer demonstrates, both thinkers suggest that political authority cannot be fully derived from a natural order. …