Religion, Violence, and Radical
Environmentalism
by Bron Taylor
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
Since the 1980 formation of Earth First!, radical
environmental movements have proliferated widely.
Their adversaries, law enforcement authorities, and
some scholars, accuse them of violence and terrorism.
Here, I scrutinize such charges by examining 18 years of
radical environmentalism for evidence of violence and
for indications of violent tendencies. I argue that despite
the frequent use of revolutionary and martial rhetoric by
participants in these movements, they have not, as yet,
intended to inflict great bodily harm or death. Moreover,
there are many worldview elements internal to these
movements, as well as social dynamics external to them,
that reduce the likelihood that movement activists will
attempt to kill or maim as a political strategy. Labels
such as 'violent' or 'terrorist' are not currently apt,
blanket descriptors for these movements. Thus, greater
interpretive caution is needed when discussing the
strategies, tactics,
and impacts of radical environmentalism.1
Radical environmentalism is best understood as a new
religious movement that views environmental
degradation as an assault on a sacred, natural world.
Aggressively anti-dualistic and generally anti-nationalist
(human-political boundaries are cultural artifacts to be
transcended), it has evolved as a global bricolage with
both religious and political dimensions. Its nature-
centered spirituality is patched together from bits and
pieces of the world's major religious traditions,
indigenous cultures, and the creative invention and
ritualizing of its devotees-thus, a good umbrella term for
this movement is pagan environmentalism.2 Its political
ideology, while plural and internally contested, is an
amalgamation influenced most prevalently by the world's
radical intellectual traditions as informed by egalitarian
(especially anti-imperialist and pro-peasant) social
movements. All this is fused to a "deep ecological" moral
perception of the kinship and sacred value of all life that
is tethered to an apocalyptic vision of the impending
collapse of these sacred ecosystems. In a new twist on the
domino theory, this collapse will topple the human
political systems that depend on such ecosystems.
Among government and industry elites, alarm has
escalated about radical environmentalism. This is in part
because these activists have demonstrated an increasing
ability to organize massive civil disobedience campaigns,
sometimes including the sustained blockading of logging
roads, in campaigns that have challenged established
resource regimes and occasionally forced significant
concessions.3 Alarm has been acute among Conservative
Christians, many of whom perceive radical
environmental activists as promoting a pagan revival bent
on destroying Christian industrial-civilization, and of
using terrorism as a tactic. Alarm has been further fueled
by law enforcement authorities and "wise use" partisans
who have deployed the Unabomber's stated sympathy for
radical environmentalists and green anarchists as
evidence that radical environmentalists engage in
terrorism. As exhibit one, they cite the January 1998
conviction of Theodore (Ted) Kaczynski,4 his clearly
stated sympathies for radical environmentalists and
anarchists, and court documents (including his own
stated acknowledgment) revealing that he drew on radical
environmental tabloids when selecting two of his victims.
But this charge of terrorism had been leveled long before
the Unabomber articulated sympathies for radical
environmentalists; and it was a charge advanced not only
by theists hostile to green paganism. In Terrorism in
America. Brent Smith warned that ecoterrorism would
become "a major threat before the turn of the century."5
In her analyses of Earth First!, Martha Lee concluded
similarly, that it is "possible, if not highly probable, that
more radical environmental movements will emerge" and
that those, like certain factions within Earth First!, which
have "a millenarian belief structure will be the most
threatening [and best] prepared to use any tactics they
deem necessary to achieve their goals."6 Lee's analyses
were subsequently deployed by "wise use" partisan Ron
Arnold to buttress his claim that widespread ecoterror
was emerging from radical environmental groups, and
worsening due to the absence of aggressive law
enforcement response to these threats.7
Such fears are supplemented by scholars who warn that
radical environmentalism promotes an atavistic
primitivism reminiscent of the Nazi preoccupation with
blood and soil,8 or who criticize the irrationality they
believe characterizes radical environmental spirituality.9
Supplemented by statements by contemporary Nazis
extolling nature and calling for her militant defence, even
empirically-grounded scholars such as Jeffrey Kaplan
understandably wonder about possible affinities between
radical environmentalists and participants within Far
Right millenarian movements.10
The Cultic Milieu: Spawning Ground of
Green Violence?
Even Colin Campbell's discussion of the cultic milieu can
be used to suggest the likelihood of this possibility. He
argues that a cultic milieu exists as "constant feature of
society" representing "the cultural underground of
society" including "all deviant belief-systems"; that cultic
groups "rarely engage in criticism of each other [and]
display a marked tolerance and receptivity towards each
others' beliefs"; and that since mysticism is "the most
prominent part of the deviant religious component of the
cultic world" a key characteristic of the cultic milieu is
"the continuing pressure to syncretization"11 (my
emphasis).
Although Campbell's characterization of cultic groups is
overbroad (many are intolerant and anti-syncretistic even
in relation to other culturally marginal groups), nature
mysticism does permeate radical environmental
subcultures and sometimes the racist right.12 It is prudent,
therefore, to inquire about possible linkages and to
wonder whether the cultural "tent" represented by the
cultic milieu is pitched so broadly that radical
environmentalists, animal liberationists, and those from
the racist right, might cross paths underneath it and
reciprocally influence one another, perhaps mutating
synergistically into increasingly violent forms.
The martial rhetoric and tabloid graphics found among
radical environmentalists amplify such concerns and
appear to promote violence, perhaps even terrorism; my
own work provides the most detail about violence-related
debates within these subcultures.13 Some Earth First!
activists, for example, have depicted their struggle as a
holy war against those who would desecrate a sacred
earth, express solidarity with diverse revolutionary
movements around the globe, and endorse sabotage that
involves at least some risk to human beings. One
sabotage manual distributed by an anarchist faction
associated with Earth First! even discusses firearms and
firebombs. A few have expressed sympathy for the
tactics employed by terrorist groups such as the Weather
Underground and even the Unabomber.
Yet despite the recurrent debates about violence within
radical environmental subcultures and the refusal by
many activists to rule it out, there is little evidence of
violence being deployed to cause injuries or death.14 The
interpretations of scholars and partisans building careers
by warning us about proliferating radical environmental
violence, thus, deserve scrutiny. Such analysts often
restrict their inquiries to archival research of movement
documents, law enforcement and court records, and at
best, a few interviews, usually with prominent movement
spokespersons, and often without a clear sense of who
they are and which if any factions they represent. A
clearer assessment of the prospects for violence emerging
from radical environmental groups demands the inclusion
of ethnographic data and judicious interpretation of all
sources of information. Through my intensive qualitative
fieldwork I have identified a number of variables that
explain why the martial symbolism and apocalyptic
worldviews found within radical environmental
subcultures has not and probably will not yield
widespread or proliferating terrorist violence. Although a
complete overview of the record related to violence up to
this point is beyond the scope of this paper, it is available
in my forthcoming paper in the Journal of Terrorism and
Political Violence.
Not surprisingly, authorities and other adversaries of
radical environmentalists overstate the risks posed by the
kinds of sabotage in which radical environmentalists tend
to engage. Tree spiking, for example, does not threaten
tree fellers because Forest Service regulations require that
they cut the trees within twelve inches of the ground.
Spiking should pose no risks in the mill if mill owners
install the proper safety barriers and insist that workers
follow safety procedures. If power line destruction were
to continue, injuries would likely result, but probably
more from a failure to foresee consequences (and
possibly from callous indifference) than from an intent to
kill or maim. Clearly, however, such tactics can and
likely will cause injuries, at least indirectly.
Arson has been probably the most dangerous tactic
employed thus far, with one exception: On 30 November
1992, after repeated acts of sabotage targeting a chip-mill
company engaged in clearcut logging in North Carolina,
the on-guard mill owner shot at a fleeing figure after
awaking to find his chip-mill on fire. The apparent
ecoteur eluded capture by shooting back, the bullet
knocking the owner to the ground without causing
serious injury. To my knowledge, this is the only incident
where it appears that a radical environmentalist used a
firearm.
To summarize, most radical environmentalists refuse to
deploy sabotage that risks injuries to humans. During
efforts to disrupt logging there have been scuffles with
workers and sometimes with law enforcement officers
resulting in minor injuries . And as we have seen in one
case, an activist was apparently willing to employ lethal
violence to avoid apprehension. There is, nevertheless,
even after 18 years of radical environmental action, little
evidence that radical environmentalists intend to maim
and kill their adversaries or to foster "terror" among the
general populace.
If David Rapoport is right, however, and nonviolent
direct action has often appeared "as an initial step in
conflicts which later matured into full-scale terrorist
campaigns" and that the drama of such campaigns "may
intensify and broaden commitments by simultaneously
exciting hopes and fanning smoldering hostilities,"15 it
makes sense to look deeper for clues regarding the
possibility of these movements evolving terrorist
dimensions. Although I cannot here offer detailed
ethnographic description regarding traits and dynamics
among radical greens that encourage and discourage
violence,16 I can broadly discuss such tendencies and
offer some judgments about their relative importance.
Traits and Dynamics Encouraging Violence
One dynamic that could fuel the prospects for violence is
the tendency for both radical environmentalists and many
of their adversaries to view their activities as defending
sacred values. Radical environmentalists generally locate
the sacred beneath their feet while their adversaries
perceive the sacred as somehow above or beyond the
world (or even as centered in the nation state and
constitution).
A related but often overlooked dynamic that can
encourage violence between these adversaries is the result
of watchdog groups waging campaigns to demonize
members of the radical group in question. Jeffrey
Kaplan's analysis of the role of watchdog groups
opposing racist groups is provocative in this regard.17 He
suggests that watchdog groups often promote a self-
fulfilling prophesy in which only those with violent
propensities are drawn to the demonized movement while
potentially moderating voices are scared away. This
could increase the likelihood that violence will emerge
from the individuals and groups under scrutiny. Applied
to the social context in which radical environmentalists
and their opponents are engaged it is reasonable to
wonder if the demonizing of radical environmental
activists by "wise use" partisans (such as Barry Clausen
and to a lesser extent Ron Arnold), abetted by the alarm
expressed by some academicians (such as Brent Smith
and Martha Lee), might also add fuel to the possibility
that violence could emerge from radical environmental
groups. (Advocates of logging, ranching, and mining on
public lands use the term "wise use" to contrast their own
approach to natural resources, which they consider to be
prudent use of them, with the "environmental extremists"
or "preservationists" who hope to "lock up" the land and
preclude anyone from responsibly making a living from
it.)
Certainly some radical environmentalists likewise
demonize their adversaries. Stuffed "Smoky the Bear"
dolls symbolizing Forest Service employees are
occasionally hung in effigy from trees in movement
campsites. Earth First! activists sometimes use Biblical
metaphors like "Babylon" to label the government evil
and corrupt, and some radical environmental activists
engage in their own incendiary and revolutionary
rhetoric, intensified by apocalyptic urgency and their
deep moral conviction. So it certainly is possible that
violence could escalate as radical environmentalists and
their adversaries engage in crusade rhetoric to justify
their competing missions. It is certainly possible that
some troubled soul or souls will decide that God or Gaia
is calling them to defend their given sacred space through
a terrorist holy war. Much more likely, however, are
continued scuffles with relatively minor injuries
occurring at blockades and during other resistance
campaigns, or somebody getting hurt while responding to
or fighting an arson-fire. Sooner or later, someone
probably will be badly injured by one or another act of
monkeywrenching. Perhaps this will result from an
environmentalist-placed tree spike, or from gunfire
employed to avoid capture, or when a vehicle crashes
after hitting an obstacle created to thwart industry or law
enforcement.
Such possibilities, however, do not automatically suggest
the likelihood that concerted terrorist violence will
emerge from such subcultures. Based on the record of
nearly two decades of radical environmentalism and a
variety of impressions derived from my ethnographic
field work - I believe that if terrorist violence does
emerge from radical environmental groups, it will most
likely come from people Kaplan calls "unguided
missiles" or "lone wolf assassins"-namely from those
untethered to the broader subculture with which the
terrorist identifies.18
This said, even an individual like Judi Bari, who battled
long and hard against violence promoting rhetoric in
Earth First!, and who had repeatedly criticized tree
spiking as ineffective and dangerous, did not rule out
violence.19 In a 1993 interview, after the second major
wave of movement debate about violence, she said that
she agreed with those in the movement who believe that
the movement should divide along strategic lines based
on attitudes toward violence: "I think we need a split, like
the Weather Underground and SDS [Students for a
Democratic Society] so those who want to do such tactics
can do so without any official connection to Earth First!."
Bari then mentioned what she considered to be a similar
relationship between the Animal Liberation Front and the
above-ground People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, and other groups, that support and publicize
ALF actions.20 But in her reference to the Weather
Underground, which engaged in armed robbery and
bombings, Bari implied a greater sympathy for violent
tactics than she was willing to acknowledge publicly.
After her death Bari was simplistically portrayed as the
saint of the nonviolent faction of Earth First!, yet clearly
the reality was more complex. Indeed, "a few days before
her death Bari requested that her obituaries depict her
occupation as a 'revolutionary'."21 This is not a term
usually associated with nonviolence.
Traits and Dynamics Discouraging Violence
State Power
Within radical environmental groups rebellious and
revolutionary rhetoric is consistently tempered with
realism if not exaggeration about the repressive power of
the state.22 As Kaplan observes with regard to Nazis,
intense scrutiny of radical groups by law enforcement
makes it "tantamount to organizational suicide" to
"seriously contemplate violent action"-and this provides a
strong disincentive to violence.23
Relative Insularity or Social Isolation
Another variable within radical groups that scholars find
helpful in analyzing the likelihood of radical groups
turning violent is the relative isolation of the adherents
from mainstream society. As Kaplan puts it, "The more
distant a particular group tends to be from the values and
beliefs of the mainstream society, the more difficult it
becomes for an adherent to moderate or give up the belief
system altogether."24
When viewed through such an analytic lens, radical
environmentalism seems less likely than many other
radical groups to yield the kind of unbridled extremism
that promotes violence. Earth First!ers do not, as a
general pattern or membership requirement, sever ties to
their natural families; indeed, some rely on such
connections for part of their material resource base.
While stridently critical of the consumerism they believe
is prevalent among their friends and families, most Earth
First!ers still celebrate holidays and life-passages with
them. Although there probably are some cases where
familial ties have been completely severed, this is not a
general tendency. Although there are intentional and
"back-to-the-land" communities within radical
environmental subcultures, they do not generally sever all
contact with the wider world. There are cases and
contexts where terrorists, especially early in their
campaigns, do not sever their ties with family, friends,
and the wider society which harbors them.25 My point
here is simply to suggest another variable that reduces the
likelihood of violence emerging from radical
environmental groups.
The Unabomber provides an important contrast that
demonstrates the potential importance of the
"withdrawal" variable. Ted Kaczynski severed ties with
his family and society at large. This was one of many
factors that led each of the three court-empowered
psychology experts who examined the documentary
record and interviewed Kaczynski to diagnosis him
"schizophrenic, paranoid subtype." Moreover,
Kaczynski's refusal to acknowledge his own illness and
to allow his attorneys to use it in his defence, these
experts agreed, is a common aspect of the illness.26 In any
case, despite the prosecutor's zeal to link Kaczynski with
Earth First! by introducing into the record the existence
of movement literature in Kaczynski's cabin and one time
reliance upon it in victim selection, the strong evidence
of mental illness clearly erodes the implication that the
Unabomber case proves Earth First! is a terrorist
breeding ground.
Indeed, in the absence of mental illness, it is the activist
engagements of radical environmentalists that can
prevent social withdrawal and the dangerous "insularity-
dynamic" linked by scholars to violence. Except for a
tiny and unknown number of completely underground
and isolated ecoteurs, most movement activists are
engaged face-to-face with many of their adversaries,
from loggers, to Forest Service bureaucrats, to attorneys.
Such encounters are often unpleasant for all parties, but
nevertheless they play an important role in humanizing
the "enemy," continually forcing the message on all
involved parties that, however much we might dislike
them, adversaries are human.27 Sometimes activists must
acknowledge that some adversaries are likable enough
creatures, even if their values are "fucked up." This
moderates movement demonologies and reduces the
possibility of violence. Indeed, much of the rage felt by
movement activists is directed less at the mass of
"functionaries" in governments and corporations than at
high government and corporate officials. Ordinary
workers are often viewed as brainwashed and deluded,
trapped by the evil system due to their livelihood needs
and advertising-manipulated lifestyle preferences.
Charismatic Authority and Freedom of
Speech
Another variable, one linked to the relative isolation of
adherents and postulated by some scholars of apocalyptic
movements to have predictive value related to the
likelihood of violence, is 'charismatic authority.' Robbins
and Palmer agree that this is a crucial variable as they
summarize the argument that charismatic authority
increases the "volatility and violence in apocalyptic or
'world rejecting' sects." They argue, therefore, that:
... charismatic leadership probably enhances the
antinomian potential of apocalypticism. Indeed, the
combination of charismatic leadership and an apocalyptic
worldview may create a kind of tinderbox, although much
will depend on the particular qualities of the visionary
leader [including whether he] demonize[s] any opposition.
[Moreover,] world-rejecting sects manifest a stance of
total rejection of or detachment from the broader society
that may require a revered charismatic prophet with a
compelling vision.28
Yet again, when viewed through such an analytic lens,
radical environmentalism seems less likely than many
other apocalyptic groups to turn violent. There is no
charismatic figure to follow blindly, indeed, any figure
who even begins to consider her or himself an
authoritative leader is usually quickly and effectively
blocked or deposed by other activists within this radically
egalitarian group.
The anti-hierarchical dimension to Earth First! not only
makes this movement inhospitable to charismatic
authority, it also manifests itself in another trait found
among them-their enthusiasm for debate. The Earth First!
journal itself provides a venue for debate that, on
balance, has a moderating effect. No movement
individual who is contemplating violence and in contact
with other movement people, whether through the journal
or at movement gatherings, will fail to hear the many
good strategic and moral arguments against such tactics.
Moreover, because of their activism, the most astute in
these subcultures will surely notice that their greatest and
most consistent successes have been won from the
judicial branch of the federal government; an
inconvenient fact for rigid ideological anarchists, to be
sure, but certainly one that makes difficult a
comprehensive demonology of the federal government.
Certainly there are troubling insular dimensions to the
subcultures of radical environmentalism, including
certain anti-intellectual streams. I have heard startlingly
ignorant statements about politics and ecology, especially
by activists who grew up in these subcultures or were
drawn into these groups at a young age. Because of the
ideological commitment to free speech and expression
within these groups, however, countervailing and
moderating opinions will continue to be heard, along
with the prevailing green militancy.
Life as Sacred
There are also general religious sentiments, such as that
the earth and all life is sacred, that lessen the possibility
that movement activists will engage in terrorist violence.
Sometimes such arguments are advanced explicitly
during movement gatherings and in its publications. In
response to Barry Clausen's efforts to link Earth First!
and the Unabomber, for example, one Earth First! group
insisted that, "Earth First! practices non-violent civil
disobedience." They continued asserting that sabotage is
controversial and there is no official position about it and
"Earth First! does not advocate violence towards any
person because Earth First! considers all life sacred, even
Barry Clausen's."29 Often, the sacredness of all life is
conveyed through various forms of movement ritualizing.
It is hard to avoid the logic that, if all life is sacred, one
ought to eschew violence, especially when defending
sacred places. This would seem to reduce the potential of
such a movement spawning terrorist action.
The Convergence of Animal Liberation
and Radical Environmentalism?
To a significant extent, the Animal Liberation and
Radical Environmental movements represent distinct
subcultures. My own perception is that within Earth
First! there are at most a few dozen activists who
regularly participate in both movements. Yet there is
increasing cooperation and overlap between radical
environmental and animal rights activists, and since a
major movement schism in 1990, Earth First! has printed
articles about animal liberationist resistance. Given the
much greater propensity for ALF activists to engage in
arson, the future extent of collaboration between these
groups is certainly of interest in attempting to assess the
likelihood of injuries resulting from radical
environmental actions.
In addition to Rod Coronado, two other figures have
attempted to bridge the gap by appealing to and writing
for Animal Liberation tabloids and the Earth First!
journal. Like Coronado, both David Barbarash and
Darren Thurston have been convicted of crimes for
which the Animal Liberation Front took credit, including
the theft (or "liberation") of 29 cats from the University
of Alberta on June 1, 1992. During a related search of
property owned by the two activists, according to Ron
Arnold, Canadian police found "an AK-47 assault rifle,
ammunition and two hand grenades."30 When informed
that Arnold had reported this on his website, Barbarash
replied:
Ron Arnold, like most of his kind, are [sic] idiots who
twist facts. During a raid on Darren's place in Edmonton in
1992 in relation to the university raid, police found an AK-
47 type of rifle, as well as a dummy grenade being used as
a paperweight. The weapon was fully legal and registered,
and the dummy grenade was not illegal either.31
Since no charges were ever filed with regard to the
firearm and grenade, it appears Arnold did not report all
pertinent facts.
Thurson and Barbarash are currently, however, suspected
of a number of additional crimes. According to articles in
Animal Liberation tabloids and Earth First!, these include
four 1995 cases where mail bombs were sent to two
Canadian racists (the Nazi propagandist Enrnest Zundle
and Aryans Nation leader Charles Scott), John
Thompson of the right-wing MacKenzie Institute, and
Terrence Mitenko, a geneticist with Alta Genetics in
Calgary. Yet neither of these activists have been charged
with mailing bombs.
Although they have not been arrested in these bomb
cases, they were charged in March 1998 with 27 counts
related to sending packages booby-trapped with razor
blades. The alleged aim was to injure big game "trophy"
hunters in Canada, who might cut themselves on the
blades when opening the letters. Barbarash was also
charged with possessing an illegal weapon (a stun gun),
and with Rebecca Rubin, "an explosive substance," that
was, according to Vancouver Sun reporter Rick Ouston,
a nine-volt battery and wire.32 They deny the charges and
attribute the arrests to unfair, ongoing police harassment.
If true, however, these actions represent one of the very
few cases where activists at the intersection of Animal
Liberationism and Radical Environmentalism have
clearly intended harm to their adversaries.
These crimes did not have a clearly stated ecological
purpose, however, in the articles written by supporters of
these activists. Therefore, it is worth wondering if these
qualify as "radical environmental" actions. Yet clearly,
some ALF activists, seeking support widely and viewing
Earth First!'s ecoteurs as kindred spirits, regularly send
news updates on their activities and encounters with law
enforcement to Earth First!. By publishing these stories
Earth First! creates an impression that these two
movements are unifying or, at least, that they cooperate
and are mutually supportive. There is certainly something
to this impression, although it is probably exaggerated in
the minds of watchdog groups and most law enforcement
officials. The printing of such material is probably
influenced by the anti-authoritarian and anti-censorship
views widely shared by radical environmentalists more
than it is dictated by ideological agreement with animal
liberationist ideology.
Significantly, collaboration between these groups usually
occurs where animal rights beliefs intersect with concern
for ecosystems and species survival. (For example, when
hunting of predators is underway, which often negatively
impacts ecosystems, or where species themselves are
threatened with extinction by human activities.) Most
radical environmentalists are more concerned for
ecosystems and species than for individual animals.
When radical environmentalists and animal rights
activists collaborate the latter tend to become radically-
ecologized-developing greater concerns for ecosystems
and endangered species. Consequently, such activists
often turn their attention increasingly toward wild
animals rather than domestic ones or those exploited in
the fur trade. I know of no cases where radical
environmentalists have suddenly converted to an animal
liberationist perspective, abandoning forest protection
work to liberate hogs, mink, or fox.
As we have seen, however, there are a number of
activists who dwell in both camps, even if sometimes
uneasily. Often such activists are anarchists, opposed to
all hierarchies, whether in human society or between
humans and non-human nature. One woman activist who
writes under the pseudonym "Anne Archy," for example,
has made it a personal goal to unify the two movements,
by writing for each of their tabloids.33
Despite such efforts, profound ideological differences
remain between radical environmentalists and animal
liberationists. Radical environmentalists promote a
ecosystem- and species-focused ethics (which includes
plant life) while animal liberationists focus more on the
well being of individual, sentient, animals. This has and
will continue to cause tensions between these groups and
reduce the occasions for their collaboration and mutual
influence.
Moreover, my strong impression is that animal
liberationists who come in contact with radical
environmentalists without finding their priorities
changing withdraw to their more 'individualistic' and
traditional animal rights groups. It is possible, however,
that the more arson-friendly ALF may win tactical
converts even if they do not change the focus of the
radical environmentalists they know.
Deep Ecological "Identification,"
Interdependence, and anti-Dualism
Deep ecology's goal of fostering a "deep ecological sense
of identification with all life," as Bill Devall and George
Sessions once argued, including a sense of the
interrelated sacredness of all life, works against both
misanthropy and violence in radical environmental
groups. "Ecology has taught us that the whole earth is
part of our 'body' and we must learn to respect it is as we
respect ourselves," they wrote, "As we feel for ourselves,
we must feel for all forms of life." It is difficult to
advocate or justify violence against any life form when
animated by such spiritual perceptions, as Devall and
Sessions concluded: "Both on practical and ethical
grounds, violence is rejected as a mode of ecological
resistance."34
Perhaps even the most "spiritual" or "woo woo" activists
("woo woo" is an amusing movement term referring to
religious ritual or one's "spirituality") have a moderating
influence. Some of them wear buttons with "us/them"
crossed out with the universal sign "Not!"-suggesting that
if movement people take their anti-dualistic,
metaphysics-of-interdependence seriously, they will
refuse to demonize opponents. On balance, the politics
and metaphysics of the sacred, which permeates radical
environmental groups, helps erode the kind of absolutist-
Manichean demonizing of the "enemy" that otherwise
might more forcefully emerge in these movements, given
their apocalyptic urgency. Such dualism has been widely
noted by scholars as an important variable that increases
the likelihood of violence by radical groups.35
Nature Bats Last and
"Who Shall be the Agent of
Transformation?"
It could be deduced from one of David Rapoport's
arguments, however, that religiously motivated
apocalyptic groups are especially prone to violence. He
asserts that with such groups there are two conditions for
terrorist violence, an expectation of an imminent day of
deliverance and a belief that violent human actions "can
or must consummate the process."36
The critical question Rapoport is addressing is "Who
(and what means) shall be the agent of transformation?"
A related question is, "How does the answer to such a
question influence the likelihood of violence emerging
from a social movement?" Jeffrey Kaplan's answer is that
when apocalpytic groups envision no divine intervention
or rescue, violence is more likely.37
Although it might seem that Earth First!ers do not
anticipate a divine intervention that will usher in a green-
millennium, there is a strong belief that if humans do not
radically change their lifeways, nature (whether
personified as Gaia or goddess and/or conceived as
'population dynamics' within ecosystems) will eventually
do it herself. This is symbolically represented in the
popular movement slogan and bumper sticker, "Nature
Bats Last" (coined by ecologist Paul Ehrlich) that
musingly anticipates the eventual restoration of Eden on
earth, even if by means of a tragic "cataclysmic
cleansing." Here is expressed the widely shared
movement belief that sacred earth herself will eventually
shake-off species pathogenic to her long-term health.
This belief might, in a way similar to that observed by
Kaplan in a different context, reduce the possibility that
movement activists will feel it is justifiable and possible
to, by their own actions, violently force the needed
transformations.
For this reason I disagree with Martha Lee's insistence
that the Earth First! faction she calls the "apocalyptic
biocentrists" are more likely to engage in terrorist
violence than ones she claims are optimistic
millenarians.38 It is hard to see how despair regarding the
possibility of human action bringing about the desired
transformations can provide a basis for revolutionary
violence.
This conclusion does not, however, address Rapoport's
belief that there is a strong psychological need, by at least
some devotees, to think their actions are central. Here he
seems to imply that there is a strong tendency for
apocalpytic groups to turn terrorist:
When a sense of imminence takes root, some believers
must find it psychologically impossible to regard their
actions as irrelevant, At the very least, they will act to
secure their own salvation. And once the initial barrier to
action has been overcome, it will only be a matter of time
before different kinds of action make sense too. Soon they
may think they can shape the speed or timing of the
process.39
Moreover, Rapoport adds: "It would seem rather obvious
that, when the stakes of any struggle are perceived as
being great, the conventional restraints on violence
diminish accordingly."40
Such assertions are certainly sobering. Radical
environmentalists do believe the stakes are high: the
survival of Homo sapiens and untold other species is at
stake. Consequently, it is possible to imagine some
radical environmentalists, despairing of peaceful social
change, and having no expectation of divine rescue,
splintering off into militia-like survivalist movements. Or
perhaps revolutionary cells will emerge, grounded in
tragic, romantic scripts that argue that the only hope for
the planet is in a vanguard of green-anarchist
revolutionaries willing to resist violently the industrial
juggernaut. Nevertheless, with regard to radical
environmentalism, I am currently unconvinced of the
psychological tendency cited by Rapoport. The anti-
anthropocentrism in radical environmentalism works
strongly against placing hope in human agency. Perhaps
the musing movement slogan, "There is hope, but not for
us" captures some of the fatalism to which I am alluding.
Fun and Eros
Perhaps one of the most important factors that reduce the
likelihood of violence emerging from radical
environmentalism is the riotous sense of fun that
characterizes its activists. In keeping with their
conviction that "rewilding" is an essential part of the
needed transformations, many of these activists are
hearty "party animals." Indeed, the fraternity/sorority
scene celebrated in the motion picture "Animal House"
might even be considered a ritual source. "Body shots,"
where activists take turns drinking Tequila off
increasingly intimate body parts, has become a trust-
building and group-bonding rite-even self-consciously so.
It might also lead to even deeper intimacies in nearby
fields or woods. Alcohol-fueled antics can become
serious fun-and real ritualizing.
Also popular at most wilderness gatherings is an
"amoebae" made up of circling and encircled mostly
inebriated activists. With arms and hands intertwined
around shoulders and hips, swirling chaotically around
fields and campfires, the amoebae captures unwary
human organisms, absorbing them into itself, all the
while chanting "eat and excrete, eat and excrete." Not
only does it provide a wild good time-although
sometimes angering those trampled by it or whose overtly
spiritual ritualizing was disrupted-the amoebae draws
even some of the most retiring activists into the group. It
also conveys other important messages: as another ritual
of inclusion, it represents the value and importance of the
so-called "lower" organisms, while simultaneously
bonding activists together in the ritual play.41 It also
articulates symbolically the kinship of all creatures who
share the same primal urges. Perhaps it also signals that
activists should not take themselves too seriously-for like
amoebae food, they too will be reabsorbed into the
biological processes from which humans emerged.
Early in their history Earth First! activists appropriated
from a Native American culture the "mudhead
Kachinas"-trickster-like figures known for making fun of
solemn occasions-a role itself viewed as a sacred, anti-
hubristic endeavor. In any case, the lampooning, the
ridicule, and the mirth-making that characterizes Earth
First! gatherings mitigates the sullen bitterness and
brooding anger that can characterize the radical
personality of the "true believer"-the personality type
especially prone to violence.42
Caveats and Conclusions
It is impossible to predict confidently the extent to which
radical environmentalists (or the animal liberationists
with whom they sometimes collaborate) will employ
tactics that, intentionally or not, risk injury or death to
humans. There are many examples of groups with non-
violent records making a transition to violence.
Sometimes, as Jeffrey Kaplan shows with regard to the
rescue movement, it only takes someone to show the
way, focusing pent-up frustration in a violent direction.43
Nevertheless, much expectation that these are or will be
violent, terrorist movements is based more on a priori
expectations than on the historic record of these groups
or on an understanding of their worldviews and how they
precipitate action. Upon examining the record and
characteristics of radical environmental groups, I here
conclude that claims that these are violence-prone
subcultures are inaccurate. I make this statement mindful
that some animal liberationists and radical
environmentalists have been willing to risk injuries to
their adversaries and, in a few cases, have intended to do
so. To summarize, excluding the Unabomber and
perhaps one other case where an ecoteur sought to evade
capture, there is as yet no proven case where Animal
Liberationists or Radical Environmentalists have
attempted or succeeded in using violence to inflict great
bodily harm or death on their adversaries.
Radical environmental subcultures certainly threaten
"business as usual" in western industrial societies. If such
societies are to respond in a way that does not exacerbate
environment-related conflicts, it is critical that the nature
of such threats be apprehended accurately. Such an
appraisal will not be achieved if exaggerated and ill-
informed perceptions of the violent tendencies in these
movements become conventional beliefs-and especially if
such perceptions are allowed to be shaped by the most
trenchant adversaries of these movements.44
Notes:
1. I wish to acknowledge collegial assistance and helpful
comments from Jeffrey Kaplan, David Rapoport, Ron Arnold and
Jean Rosenfeld.
2. See Bron Taylor, ed., Ecological Resistance Movements: The
Global Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism
(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 1995) and B.
Taylor, "Resacralizing Earth: Pagan Environmentalism and the
Restoration of Turtle Island" in American Sacred Space, edited by
D. Chidester and E. T. Linenthal (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana
University Press 1995) pp. 97-151.
3. B. Taylor, "Earth First! Fights Back", Terra Nova 2/2 (Spring
1997) pp. 29-43.
4. On 22 January 1998, Kaczynski pleaded guilty to being the
anti-technology serial bomber who between 1978 and 1995, killed
three people and injured 23 others.
5. Brent L. Smith, Terrorism in America (Albany: State University
of New York Press 1994) p. 129.
6. M. F. Lee, "Violence and the Environment: The Case of 'Earth
First!'", Terrorism and Political Violence 7/3 (1995) p. 124.
7. Ron Arnold, Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature-the
World of the Unabomber (Bellevue, Washington: Free Enterprise
1997).
8. Luc Ferry, The New Ecological Order (Paris: Bernard Graset
1992; reprint Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press
1995).
9. Michael W. Lewis, Green Delusions: An Environmentalist
Critique of Radical Environmentalism (Durham: Duke University
Press 1992); George Bradford, How Deep Is Deep Ecology? With
an Essay-Review on Women's Freedom (Ojai, California: Times
Change Press 1989); and J. Stark, "Postmodern
Environmentalism: A Critique of Deep Ecology", in B. Taylor,
ed., Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global Emergence of
Radical and Popular Environmentalism (Albany, New York: State
University of New York Press 1995) pp. 259-81.
10. Jeffrey Kaplan, "The Postwar Paths Of Occult National
Socialism: From Rockwell and Madole to Manson", in Cult, Anti-
Cult and the Cultic Milieu: A Re-Examination (2 volumes), ed. J.
Kaplan and Heléne Lööw. (Stockholm University & the Swedish
National Council for Crime Prevention 1998).
11. Colin Campbell, "The Cult, the Cultic Milieu and
Secularization", in A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain
5 (1972) pp. 122-124.
12. Bron Taylor, "The Religion and Politics of Earth First!", The
Ecologist 21/6 (November/December 1991) pp. 258-66; idem.,
"Evoking the Ecological Self: Art As Resistance to the War on
Nature", Peace Review 5/2 (1993) pp. 225-30; idem., ed.,
Ecological Resistance Movements; idem., "Earth First!'s Religious
Radicalism", in C. K. Chapple, ed., Ecological Prospects:
Scientific, Religious, and Aesthetic Perspectives (Albany, New
York: State University of New York Press, 1994) pp. 85-209. On
the racist right, see Jeffrey Kaplan, Radical Religion in America
(Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press); "Right Wing
Violence in North America", Terrorism and Political Violence 7/1
(1995) pp. 44-95; and idem., "The Postwar Paths of Occult
National Socialism: from Rockwell and Madole to Manson".
13. Bron Taylor, "Diggers, Wolfs, Ents, Elves and Expanding
Universes: Global Bricolage and the Question of Violence Within
the Subcultures of Radical Environmentalism", in Cult, Anti-Cult
and the Cultic Milieu: A Re-Examination, ed. J. Kaplan and H.
Lööw (Stockholm University & the Swedish National Council for
Crime Prevention 1998).
14. For the latest series of debates about violence (and a related
debate about whether the journal should print articles that seem to
promote it), see Gary McFarlane and Darryl Echt, "Cult of
Nonviolence", Earth First! 18/1 (1 November 1998) pp. 3, 17; Rod
Coronado, "Every Tool in the Box", Earth First! 18/2 (21
December 1998) pp. 2, 21; Lacey Phillabaum, "Censoring the
Journal", Earth First! 13/3 (1998) p. 2; and the forum in Earth
First! 18/4 (20 March 1998) pp. 7-11.
15. David Rapoport, "Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three
Religious Traditions", American Political Science Review 78
(September 1984) p. 671.
16. For this see Bron Taylor, "Diggers " (note 14).
17. Jeffrey Kaplan, "The Anti-Cult Movement in America: A
History of Culture Perspective", Syzygy: Journal of Alternative
Religion and Culture 2/3-4 (1993) pp. 267-96.
18. Jeffrey Kaplan, "The Context of American Millenarian
Revolutionary Theology: The Case of 'Identity Christian' Church",
Terrorism and Political Violence 5/1 (Spring 1993) pp. 30-82;
idem., "Right Wing Violence in North America".
19. Yet she was also clear that the time was not ripe to take up
arms. Nicholas Wilson, "Judi Bari Dies But Her Spirit Lives On",
Albion Monitor (5 March 1997),
<http://www.Monitor.Net/Monitor>. See Judy Bari,
"Monkeywrenching", Earth First! 14/3 (2 February 1994) p. 8, and
idem., "The Secret History of Tree Spiking", Earth First! 15/2 (21
December 1994) pp. 11,15, for her arguments against tree spiking,
especially that it does not work.
20. Interview with Judi Bari, Willets, California, February 1993.
21. Nicholas Wilson, "Judi Bari Dies But Her Spirit Lives on."
22. Bron Taylor, "Diggers " (note 15).
23. Jeffrey Kaplan, "Right Wing Violence " p. 47.
24. Ibid., p. 46.
25. As David Rapoport and Jeff Kaplan pointed out (personal
communication) in most guerrilla wars, familial ties are often not
severed. Kaplan suggests, however, that "leaderless resistance"
whether radical right, anarchist, or green, often depends on
breaking ties.
26. These conclusions are drawn from a careful reading of the
declarations submitted to the court by three court-appointed
psychiatric experts.
27. On the role of dehumanization in terrorist violence, see Ehud
Sprinzak, "Right-Wing Terrorism in a Comparative Perspective:
The Case of Split Delegitimation", in Terror From the Extreme
Right, ed. Tore Bjorgo (London: Frank Cass 1995) pp. 17-43,
especially p. 20.
28. T. Robbins, and S. Palmer, "Introduction" pp. 20-21.
29. Cascadia Forest Defenders, "Barry Clausen: The Unreal
Truth", <http://www.Igc.Apc.Org/Cascadia/ Clausen.html>
(1996).
30. Also, according to Arnold's internet site (http://www.
cdfe.org/ecoterror.html>), the "Ecoterror Response Network",
Barbarash and Thurston were convicted of torching several trucks
belonging to the Billingsgate Fish Company. But in email and
telephone communications on 10 and 11 May 1998, David
Barbarash stated that only Thurston was charged and convicted of
the fish company crime.
31. Email message 10 May 1998.
32. Rick Ousten, "Activists' 'secret' lives probed", Vancouver Sun,
(30 March 1988), A1.
33. She recently published the lead article in No Compromise
explaining Earth First! to ALF activists, arguing that habitat
destruction is an animal rights issue, and urging greater
collaboration between these movements. See Anne Archy,
"Frontline Forest Defence for Earth and Animal Liberation", No
Compromise # 8 (1998) p. 16-19.
34. Bill Devall and George Sessions, "Direct Action", Earth First!
5/1 (1984) pp. 18-19, 24.
35. E.g., "Apocalypticism is also, at least in its catastrophic
manifestations, decidedly dualistic. Absolute good and evil
contend through history such that there is no room for moral
ambiguity." T. Robbins and S. Palmer, "Introduction", p. 6.
36. "Messianic Sanctions for Terror", Terrorism and Political
Violence 20/2 (1980) pp. 197-198.
37. Jeffrey Kaplan, "Right Wing Violence in North America", p.
52.
38. Martha Lee, Earth First! (Syracuse University Press 1995).
39. Rapoport, "Messianic Sanctions", p. 201.
40. Rapoport, "Messianic Sanctions", p. 204.
41. See Christopher Manes, "Paganism as Resistance", Earth First!
8/5 (1 May 1988) pp. 21-2, for a movement discussion of the
importance of play.
42. Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (Harper: New York 1951).
When I presented an earlier version of this paper at the November
1997 meeting of the American Academy of Religion, David
Rapoport reminded me that much of the radicalism of the 1960s
started as Yippie-like fun-fests, but did not end up that way.
43. Jeff Kaplan, "Absolute rescue: absolutism, defensive action
and the resort to force", Terrorism and Political Violence 7/3
(1995) pp. 128-63.
44. Jeffrey Kaplan, "The Anti-Cult Movement in America: A
History of Culture Perspective", Syzygy: Journal of Alternative
Religion and Culture 2/3-4 (1993) pp. 267-96.
{PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=Virtual"}
Bron Taylor is Oshkosh Foundation Professor of Social
and Environmental Ethics at the University of
Wisconsin, Oshkosh, where he teaches in the Religious
Studies and Anthropology Dept. and directs the
Environmental Studies program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT