Silent Spring and Long Term Social Change

Summarized discussion of: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL WORLD-VIEW: THE POLITICS OF NATURE IN RACHEL CARSON’S SILENT SPRING by Yakoov Garb

in: Macauley, D. (1996) Minding Nature: The philosophers of ecology. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.

While Silent Spring was one of the most significant forces of change in environmental thought, it was framed in a way that was ideologically acceptable to a wide audience. This first becomes evident with Carson’s evoking the concept of the “balance of nature”. This concept has its roots in theology as it is God that ensures this balance. The use of this concept in the book makes her arguments persuasive, as we become most aware of this natural balance as it is disrupted and lost by our use of pesticides. In her discussion of alternatives, however, she suggests methods of biological control such as juvenile hormones, and X-ray sterilization, and thus belies many of her appeals to the natural balance. Agricultural techniques such as biological control were actually already in use before pesticides use began to rise, and the rise of pesticides can be attributed to their profitability.

Garb suggests that the most novel idea in Silent Spring is her discussion on the growing toxicity of the landscape, and the uncertainty of effects of these toxins. Our traditional ideas of poisonous chemicals are put in question as minute quantities of chemicals can have toxic effects, and even non-toxic levels accumulate in body tissues and biomagnify as they reach higher trophic levels. Yet Carson does not discuss why research is primarily funded for the development of more chemicals, and not the study of their effects.

Rachel Carson is most reticent in her writing when we begin to logically move towards the social relations that brought about the overuse of pesticides. We are told that the decisions for such use were made by an “authoritarian temporarily entrusted with power” who snuck this decision by us. But the solutions can come from science and technology, diminishing the significance of important social relations that underlie the pesticide problem.

Garb compares Silent Spring to Murray Bookchin’s Our Synthetic Environment, written half a year earlier and touching on similar topics. Bookchin, however, suggested that the problems lie not only in our relations with nature, but also in our relations with each other. He advocates the political strategies of decentralization (Ecoanarchism) and the abolition of capitalism.

Thus Garb argues that Carson shied away from the logical conclusions of her work, a new way of relating to nature, and a critique of capitalism. Our Synthetic Environment is largely unknown, likely due to its radical views, but Rachel Carson’s goal was to achieve reforms that would have immediate effects on pesticide use. She was also preemptively on the defensive as she was quite aware of the amount of attacks she would get from corporate interests.

The results were effective… or where they? As far as I know, we continue to pump out new chemicals every year, faster than we can test them. Bioengineering has become a popular agricultural marketing ploy, while their ecological effects are far from understood. Garb raises the question of when or whether it is useful to temper your work to affect a wide audience, and when to be uncompromising. Ultimately, the questions comes down to the importance long-term and far reaching changes, and whether baby steps that seem to be in the right direction can undermine these long-term goals.