Definition and Origins
Use of the term “social ecology” began as early as the 1920s. With the rapid industrial development of modern cities, leftwing architects, city planners, and urban studies scholars began to take special interest in the role of biological systems in urban design. These scholars sought to incorporate animals, plants, fungi, and countless other biological systems into our understanding of “society.” To this day, social ecology offers scholars an interdisciplinary framework to understand the ability of human beings to transform their environments as well as to capture how built environments shape social relationships (Steward 2000).
Other important aspects of contemporary social ecology trace back to the formulation of anarcho-communism. In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin famously popularized the theory of evolution, postulating that organic species change over time, acquiring advantageous physical and behavioral traits via the long, slow process of natural selection. The Russian anarchist and geographer Peter Kropotkin embraced this new paradigm, but disputed Darwin’s assumption that natural evolution was driven by sexual competition. With the publication of "Mutual Aid" in 1909, Kropotkin laid out his own theory in which cooperation, rather than competition, was the driving force of natural selection. Put simply, species that cooperate procreate more and survive the hardships of life together. Contemporary life sciences appear to support this theory, indicating that symbiosis, cooperation, and mutualism are far more pervasive than previously realized, from the most advanced organisms to the simplest of single-cell life.
Murray Bookchin brought these notions into conversation with Marxist revolutionary theory. Born into a working-class communist family in the Bronx, New York City, during the 1920s, Bookchin’s political life began at a very early age. As a young man, he was mentored under the German Trotskyist Josef Weber and helped lead US activities in the Movement for a Democracy of Content. In 1969, with the publication of his pamphlet, “Listen, Marxist!”, Bookchin became an influential voice advocating for future-oriented, radically democratic approaches to revolution on the New Left (Bookchin 2004).
Bookchin argues that capitalism and class oppression alone cannot account for the root causes of environmental catastrophe. The struggle was not between economic classes, but across all social hierarchies. In order to pull humanity back from the brink of ecological devastation, we have to thoroughly transform our way of live, replacing capitalism with a moral economy based upon need rather than exploitation and profit, the state with non-coercive and radically-participatory forms of government, patriarchal home environments with care and nurturing, and eliminating all racial, imperial, and exploitative dynamics with egalitarian relationships.
This can be accomplished, he proposed, through a new kind of popular revolutionary movement, an organized political tendency for directly democratic assemblies organized into federations. Such a movement would embrace the full, yet equitable and ecological implementation of technology. It would seek conditions of post-scarcity, where everyone’s basic needs are met and toil is unnecessary. Crucially, this new approach would take inspiration from ecology. Principles of interdependence, mutualism, and unity in diversity echo in the social organic development of free, federated neighborhoods, towns, and villages.
Practices and examples
Early experiments in social ecology converged at the Institute for Social Ecology, founded by Bookchin and Goddard College student Daniel Chodorkoff in 1974. There, students pioneered the development of sustainable technologies, feminist ecology, agroecology, organic farming, and architectural design. They also experimented with the then-novel notions of renewable wind and solar energy and constructed Vermont's first windmill since the 1930s. Through this highly active, highly radicalized youth, social ecology infused the social movements of the day. During the 1970s, the ISE collaborated closely with community activists in New York City’s Lower East Side to create housing, community gardens, and revitalize blighted neighborhoods. ISE students were critical in the Clamshell Alliance, which successfully impeded the national proliferation of nuclear power, as well as the Green Movement. Bookchin himself was a member of the US’s inaugural chapter, the Burlington Greens.
More recent attempts focus on the political philosophy of direct democracy and federalism. Federal principles were widely used in the Alter-globalization Movement, which waged fierce ecological struggles such as those against water privatization and the biotech industry. Affinity groups, spokescouncils, and general assemblies were also very much at play during Occupy Wall Street and the Movements of the Squares, leading into later attempts at federations such as the Symbiosis Network. Outside the US, social ecology’s presence has been similarly felt in movements such as France’s Yellow Vest Movement or Istanbul’s Gezi Park.
Finally, in 2012-2014, we see the first major global revolution in explicit conversation with social ecology: the Rojava Revolution of Northern Syria. The founder of the Kurdistan Workers Party, Abdullah Öcalan, adopted Bookchin’s philosophy as a guideline for the liberation of millions of Kurdish people in Turkey and Syria. Sweeping societal changes have since taken place in what is now called the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, a territory approximately the size of Lebanon. Women are the protagonists of this transformation, leading countless new educational institutions, ecological and cultural initiatives, work cooperatives, and civil justice centers– each connected through a system of participatory democracy. Yet the region remains in a vulnerable state, under attack by Turkish bombing campaigns, resurgent ISIS forces, and a newly established Syrian transitional government led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a Salafi jihadist terrorist organization.
Challenges and opportunities
Social ecology holds particular promise as potentially one of the most enduring and influential philosophies of the 21st century. All over the globe and through many different channels, people are coming to realize that real, long-term ecological sustainability is deeply entwined with deep, participatory democracy.
Yet, the theory also encounters numerous objections. For example, social ecology is often changed with painting too rosy a picture of humanity. Critics point to the destructive habits of our species and caution against an overly idealistic or “utopian” approach. Others argue that society is too “complex” to be organized without coercion, although they generally opt for more cushioned language like “centralizing” or “coordination.” Still other criticisms come from within, with sympathetic left voices suggesting that a problem lies not in direct democracy per se, but in the reflexive use of direct democracy in a profoundly unequal world.
Each of these concerns has its merit, but it would be a mistake to assume that social ecologists haven’t already grappled with them at length. Indeed, they seem to present more of a necessary check on how we go about creating a social-ecological world rather than an indictment of the ideal altogether. Democracy is full of intransigent contradictions and dilemmas, as the ancient Greeks can remind us, but that does not relieve us of the moral obligation to seek a free and equitable society. In practice, social movements have yielded numerous lessons about the pitfalls of democratic experimentation, as well as about how surprising degrees of freedom and equity can be achieved.
Opportunity lies in alliances between struggles. Much is to be gained, for example, in closer alliances between social ecology activists and Indigenous movements. Yet this requires careful reckoning with the enduring dynamics between colonizer and colonized, from subtle forms of epistemic domination to ongoing genocidal violence. Housing is another key terrain of struggle. In the world’s cities, we are seeing a global cost-of-living crisis and unprecedented degrees of wealth inequality. Social ecology has much to learn from struggles for housing and economic justice, tenants' rights, and immigrant defense, which in turn have the potential to create new conceptions of citizenship and urban life.
Above all, we must not lose sight of the integrated nature of ecological and political struggle. As climate change worsens, driving displacement and devastating life-giving ecologies and resources, we must remember that we are fighting for nothing less than a new world system. This is the provocation and summons of social ecology.
Bibliography Bookchin, Murray. 2004. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. 3rd. ed. Working Classics Series 3. Edinburgh ; Oakland, Ca: AK Press. Hill, Stuart. 2000. “What Is Social Ecology.” 2000. https://www.zulenet.com/see/newStuartHill.html. Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, David Graeber, Andrej Grubačić, Ruth Kinna, and Allan Antliff. 2021. Mutual Aid: An Illuminated Factor of Evolution. Kairos. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Winiecki, Martin. 2024. “Opinion | Rojava Under Attack: Why We Must Stand with Syria’s Democratic North-East | Common Dreams.” Common Dreams (blog). December 20, 2024. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/rojava-syria-turkey. Further Reading Bookchin, Murray. 2023. Remaking Society: A New Ecological Politics. AK Press. Heller, Chaia. 1999. Ecology of Everyday Life: Rethinking the Desire for Nature. Black Rose Books CC275. Montréal: Black RoseBooks. Hunt, Stephen E. 2025. We Must Begin with the Land: Seeking Abundance and Liberation through Social Ecology. Washington: John Hunt Publishing. Kadalie, Modibo. 2019. Pan-African Social Ecology: Speeches, Conversations, and Essays. Edited by Andrew Zonneveld. History, Black Studies, Ecology. Atlanta, Georgia: On Our Own Authority! Publishing. Öcalan, Abdullah. 2020. Manifesto of the Democratic Civilization. Kairos. Oakland, CA : Cologne, Germany: PM Press ; International Initiative Edition.