As I sit here in the final stretch of marketing and pulling together my presentation, Live with Intention, based on my latest book Ethics and the Earth Missionary, I am feeling pulled between my desire to give more structure to the field of ecopsychology with a code of ethics and the controversy that came from the book, Ecopsychology: Science, Totems and the Technological Species. The controversy appears to be, in part, from the editors’ call to be more scientific and how that threatens to divide the field. Now as the only academic journal transitions from the original Editor-in-Chief to the one that called for a more scientific approach, I am not surprised that the journal is now soliciting for papers on a new or renewed vision for the field. I feel pulled because I am actually disappointed by the call for a new vision because ecopsychology, as a field, seems to always be in a state of being defined and redefined by those who practice it. While I’m a proponent of regular reflection and evaluation, I do so with the idea that in between those reflections there is action and movement. I’m not sure, in the case of ecopsychology, that this is more than the first and second generation ecopsychologists again just trying to explain what they stand for.
What are your thoughts on re-envisioning ecopsychology?