The Ecology of Freedom

The Ecology of Freedom received a positive review from Susan Marie Szasz in Library Journal, a mixed review from Karen L. Field in American Anthropologist,[3] and a negative review from the political scientist Alan Wolfe in The Nation.[4][5] An exchange of letters between Bookchin and Wolfe followed Wolfe's review.[6][7] The book was also reviewed by R. Clarke in New Scientist and R. Williams in The Technology Review.[8][9]

Szasz described the book as well written.[4] Field wrote that Bookchin "reminds us of what humankind has been, warns us of what it is becoming, and dares us to imagine what it could be in a social structure geared to interdependence and environmental sensitivity rather than to competition and wanton destruction." She credited him with describing "essential differences in outlook between class and preclass societies", clarifying "the philosophical linkage between the propensities to objectify nature and to objectify one’s fellow human being", and providing a "valuable inventory of Western antiestablishment currents from the Adamites and Ranters to May 1968". However, she criticized his account of the emergence of civilization for its reliance on the anthropologists Paul Radin and Dorothy D. Lee, and found his description of preliterate societies oversimplified and "sanitized" in its emphasis on peaceful egalitarianism. She believed that he deliberately minimized "the importance of technoeconomic factors", and unconvincingly proposed "age stratification as the key to domination". She also maintained that parts of the work suffered from a "disappointing Eurocentrism", and that it failed to use recent literature on the place of technology in capitalist society.[3]

Wolfe wrote that while he was receptive to a radical critique of society, he found the book "obsessive, dogmatic and angry" and did not believe it would gain as much attention as it deserved. He criticized Bookchin's negative attitude toward New Age views, his account of the development of modern society, and the hostile language he used to describe many authors with whom he disagreed. He believed the work was utopian and did not explain how to solve society's problems.[5] Bookchin, in reply, accused Wolfe of ignoring its central themes.[6] Wolfe responded by charging Bookchin with misrepresenting his critique; he also accused him of egocentrism.[7]

The anarchist author Ulrike Heider described The Ecology of Freedom as "a utopian work" in which the "social and political reality of the past, present, and future are pretty much faded out and capitalism is neither mentioned nor criticized".[10] Bookchin responded in The Raven: Anarchist Quarterly, calling Heider's criticism unethical and distorting his views. He described Heider's assertion that he does not criticize capitalism as a fabrication.[11] The philosopher Steven Best described The Ecology of Freedom as a classic, writing in Organization & Environment that, of Bookchin's books, it is the one that best captures the themes of his work as a whole. He credited Bookchin with making an influential critique of "Marxist historical narratives"; he noted that the book also influenced feminism. He complimented Bookchin for his interpretation of history. However, writing in 1998, he noted that some of Bookchin's claims were controversial, and that "Bookchin has evolved beyond certain positions" taken in the book.[12] Brian Tokar wrote in Capitalism Nature Socialism that while The Ecology of Freedom "received high praise", it was also considered a "utopian social criticism".[13]

The philosopher Andrew Light wrote that The Ecology of Freedom was "widely read by both theorists and practitioners in the ecological movement". He also suggested that it was Bookchin's best-known book. He credited Bookchin with providing an extensively developed and novel perspective on social domination, writing that it, "made Bookchin one of the most widely read ecological thinkers in the last thirty years."[14] The activist Joel Kovel described the book as "Bookchin's most important work". However, he criticized Bookchin's treatment of Marx and Marxism. He compared The Ecology of Freedom to the Marxist humanist philosopher Raya Dunayevskaya's Rosa Luxemburg, Women's Liberation, and Marx's Philosophy of Revolution (1981). Still, he did not believe Bookchin would welcome the comparison.[15] The political scientist Robyn Eckersley described the book as Bookchin's "magnum opus".[16] The philosopher John Clark criticized Bookchin's discussion of politics, arguing that he provided "little detailed discussion of ecological situatedness and bioregional particularity, despite a theoretical commitment to such values."[17]

Janet Biehl wrote that The Ecology of Freedom was one of Bookchin's most important books. She noted that while it has been regarded as Bookchin's magnum opus, she considers several of Bookchin's subsequent books at least equally important. She credited Bookchin with demonstrating that "the rise of hierarchy eroded the complementarity of relatively egalitarian communities long before the appearance of property ownership." However, she also wrote that while he was working on The Ecology of Freedom, Bookchin was influenced by a "New Age anthropology" that he later rejected. According to Biehl, he regretted its influence on the book.[18]

Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan studied The Ecology of Freedom while in solitary confinement in a Turkish prison, and was reportedly impressed by the work, consequently issuing a manifesto titled Declaration of Democratic Confederalism in Kurdistan, which called on the Kurdistan Workers' Party to implement the ideas of social ecology.[19]