Diversity at the Crossroads: A Commentaryon ‘‘Ecopsychology at the Crossroads:Contesting the Nature of a Field’’

Lori Pye

Viridis Graduate Institute, International School of Ecopsychology,Ojai, California.

A Commentary on ‘‘Ecopsychology at theCrossroads: Contesting the Nature of a Field’’by Andy Fisher (2013)

Ifirst read Andy Fisher in 2003 on a boat out in the Pacific

Ocean. I was working with NGOs to create the Eastern Tropical

Biological Corridor to stop shark finning. In Radical Ecopsy-

chology: Psychology in the Service of Life (2002), Andy’s deep

care for the natural world and his strong sociopolitical voice in-

spired and provoked the activist in me. This has not changed. I

continue to be stimulated by Andy’s thoughts regarding a radical

social and political stance as well as his search for a more ecological

psychology. However, his recent article for the journal Ecopsy-

chology, ‘‘Ecopsychology at the Crossroads: Contesting the Nature

of a Field’’ (2013), has perplexed me. Fisher’s argument to bring

ecopsychology under a radical canopy (meaning under a sociopo-

litical mandate) and to direct a radical ecological transformation of

psychology where ecopsychology might be better understood

(Fisher, 2013) feels lacking in diversity. His argument arises out of

the current debate between so-called first-generation and second-

generation ecopsychology and the discussion of what theoretical

direction the field of ecopsychology should pursue (Fisher, 2013;

Kahn & Hasbach, 2012).

A sociopolitical radicalness is essential to the field of ecopsy-

chology, which is predicated on the notion that all systems are in-

terconnected. Therefore, to insist that ecopsychology come under a

radical ecopsychology for it to be ‘‘best understood’’ is not only re-

strictive but seems to be disconnected from the elemental idea that a

sociopolitical aspect is organically located within ecopsychology. I

also question the purpose of wanting to conduct an ecological re-

construction or reformation of psychology, which seems constricting

and colonizing (something I think Andy would be very much

against). Ecopsychology emerged precisely because humans and the

world were not working (psychology); the disconnection between our

internal and external home fostered a nonrelational attitude and the

despoliation of the planet (ecology). Something new was required

(ecopsychology).

To position the field of ecopsychology at the ‘‘crossroads,’’ a lo-

cation neither here nor there, is mythologically interesting but psy-

chologically polarizing. Symbolically, the crossroads hold in our

imaginations powerful images and metaphors for the unknown, the

invisible agents that affect life’s transitions, and the unconscious.

Placing ecopsychology at the crossroads, as Fisher has done, suggests

that he views the field as confronting a choice: either become a

radical ecopsychology or face separation, splitting, or dissolution in

some way. There is a disconnection and disengagement in this either/

or thinking—if we do not choose a radical path, we fall prey to

mainstream psychology lurking on the edges of the crossroads. This

lacks an ecopsychological dimension at its roots in several critical

ways.

Either/or thinking limits the field’s diversity, potential, and crea-

tivity. Ecologically we know that every ecosystem requires diversity

to flourish; without it, the system will collapse. One image I use when

teaching ecology and ecopsychology is that of a pond—an ecosystem

that is dynamic. A pond has a variety of flora and fauna, insect life

and microbial life (invisible to the eye but promoting constant decay

and renewal). The field of ecopsychology can be likened to the pond

ecosystem in that it, too, needs diversity; it needs a variety of per-

spectives, ideas, approaches, philosophies, pedagogy, and practices

for the field’s flourishing and maturation. To suggest that

DOI: 10.1089/eco.2013.0033 ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. � VOL. 5 NO. 3 � SEPTEMBER 2013 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 177

ecopsychology come under the umbrella of one approach limits the

diversity of the field.

The betwixt and between debate of first or second-generation

people, ideas, and theories feels simplistic in that it promotes more

confusion and disconnection within the field of ecopsychology. I

think it fair to say that ecopsychology recognizes that personal, so-

cial, ecological, economic, and mechanistic systems are interrelated,

interdependent, intricate, and complicated. What I imagine this in-

terconnectivity holding for ecopsychology is complexity in the field.

This type of involvedness would promote freedom to approach the

web of interaction from our various areas of expertise, experiences,

traditions, and orientations. This would allow for relationality and an

expansive inclusion of approaches and ideas, not simply through the

radical or mainstream (Fisher, 2013). Perhaps remaining in the first-

or second-generation argument prevents our ability to see the radical

nature within ecopsychology as much as it thwarts a revisioning and

revitalization of the field (Kahn & Hasbach, 2012).

Our field could be well served by providing space for emerging

ideas and perspectives that rise up from the radical and mainstream,

ancient and modern, indigenous and traditional, cultural and tech-

nological, political and social, mechanical and natural. and new

perspectives. Ecopsychology’s pond can hold complexity if it has

diversity.

By nurturing diversity in the field, we promote an organic

evolution—opportunity for degeneration and regeneration. Both are

necessary aspects of any ecosystem (ecological and psychological). A

pond’s diversity is enhanced by the multitude of microbial bugs in the

soil, the invisible organisms hard at work underneath the waterline.

These unseen organisms are responsible for life and death in and

around the pond. The analogy I wish to make here is that there are

also invisible elements, unconscious aspects at work in the human

organism, and we bring these bugs into our ecopsychological field—

into the discussions and relationships we promote or hinder. Due to

all the portals into and the plurality of psyche, we will not all agree on

how we approach ecopsychology, teach it, and practice it as a ther-

apy. Nor will we all agree on how we embody ecopsychology or live it

in the world. But if we limit its diversity, reduce its resources (be they

radical, mainstream, or other), we then interfere with its natural

processes of decay (outmoded ideas need to die off) and renewal, and

we will cause it to collapse.

The symbology of the crossroads can also represent the possibility

of multiple ways and opportunities. Fisher’s radical perspective is

necessary to the multiplicity and complexity of the field. Psycholo-

gically, the crossroads suggests a juncture where consciousness

might be served to acknowledge the unconscious. Ecopsychology

requires that we examine our ecosystem for interior crossroads,

monotheories, and either/or thinking that affect the field and each

other. As ecopsychology continues to strengthen its presence in the

culture and find its way academically, ultimately it presses each of us

to question how it can better serve psyche–Nature.

Author Disclosure StatementNo competing financial interests exist.

REFERENCES

Fisher, A. (2002). Radical ecopsychology: Psychology in the service of life. Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.

Fisher, A. (2013). Ecopsychology at the crossroads: Contesting the nature of a field.

Ecopsychology, 5, doi:10.1089/eco.2013.0031.

Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Hasbach, P. H. (Eds.). (2012). Ecopsychology: Science, totems, andthe technological species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Address correspondence to:

Lori Pye, Ph.D.

414 Avenida de la Vereda

Ojai, CA 93023

E-mail: loripye@gmail.com

Received July 7, 2013

Accepted July 18, 2013

PYE

178 ECOPSYCHOLOGY SEPTEMBER 2013