Andy Fisher

D epth psychology—concerned with the unconscious and imaginal realms—has a long history in ecopsychology. Psychoanalyst Harold F. Searles’ book The Nonhuman Environment (1960) was an early attempt at understanding unconscious processes related to the ecological crisis; his work furthermore influenced the writings of Paul Shepard, most notably Nature and Madness (1982). In The Voice of the Earth (1992/2001), the first book to popularize ecopsychology, Theodore Roszak drew from Freud and Jung (as well as Searles and Shepard). And since the mid-1990s, a large number of (post-)Jungian authors have appeared on the scene, many influenced by the archetypal psychologist James Hillman (1982). A more recent arrival is Renee Lertzman’s book Environmental Melancholia: Psychoanalytic Dimensions of Engagement (2015). A professional environmental communicator and psychosocial researcher, Lertzman offers an important message: The environmental movement requires a deeper, more complex understanding of the human psyche if its efforts are to be both sensitive and effective. For this reason alone, her book deserves a wide readership. Criticizing the dominant but unrealistically simple models of environmental change that focus on behavior, attitudes, and values, she foregrounds instead the contradictory, affect-laden, defensive, and largely unconscious nature of psychic life. She admirably brings the messy world of human psychic depths into view in order to provide an alternative interpretation for the phenomenon of apathy, seeing this not as a sign of unconcern about ecological decline but of a widespread condition she terms ‘‘environmental melancholia.’’ This leads her to call for modes of environmental engagement quite unlike what we mostly see today. Although Lertzman positions her work as an alternative to ecopsychology, which she characterizes as ‘‘romantic,’’ I believe there are in fact a number of noteworthy links between her project and specific currents within ecopsychology. Indeed, I suggest that a dialogue with ecopsychology takes the conversation deeper still.

In this response to Zhiwa Woodbury's review of my book Radical Ecopsychology (2nd ed.), I clarify positions of mine that I believe Woodbury presents either inaccurately or inadequately. I do this by placing his comments and criticisms within the context of the issues I think they raise about the development of ecopsychology: the conflict between the inherent radicalism of ecopsychology and the historical conservatism of psychology; the need to develop critical distance from eco-destructive systems that need to be transformed or transcended; the challenge of preserving the truths that are essential to ecopsy-chology as we attempt to move from periphery to center; and the need to offer new images as part of the process of ecological social change. I comment throughout on the relevance of my argument that ecopsy-chology is inherently radical for making sense of the first-generation/ second-generation ecopsychology crossroads.

The introduction of second-generation ecopsychology has prompted a debate about which way the field should go. In this article I suggest that the choice is actually not between first-generation and second-generation paths but rather between radical and mainstream ones. By the term radical I do not mean extremist politics; I refer merely to the perception that our collective problems are of a deeply rooted or thoroughgoing nature and to the corresponding conviction that these will not be solved without significantly altering our thought and action. That ecopsychology is best understood as a radical ecological transformation of psychology can be seen by considering the various meanings of ecology, the implications of conceptualizing the psyche ecologically, and the challenges of being truly holistic. This understanding of the field reveals the first generation as a largely unrealized, inherently radical ecopsychology, the second generation as a largely denatured, mainstreamed ecopsychology. My position, then, is that ecopsychology will find good form, and resolve the first-generation/second-generation impasse, only if developed in a manner faithful to its radical nature. This will include directing eco-psychology away from psychology's historically individualistic praxis to the collective level of cultural and social engagement. I conclude this article with the idea that as a critical dialogue between ecology and psychology, ecopsychology shows the latter's anthropocentric, philosophical , methodological, and political economic biases. With this idea in mind, I offer some responses to the second-generation authors in the interest of furthering the dialogue about the development of the field.