Deep ecology’s core notion of identification is apolitical and individualist.

Evidence

Thus dominant forms of deep ecology choose for their core concept of analysis the notion of identification, understood as an individual psychic act rather than a political practice, yielding a theory which emphasises personal transformation and ignores social structure. The dominant account is both individualist (failing to provide a framework for change which can look beyond the individual) and psychologistic (neglecting factors beyond psychology). — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 91

Categorization

• XREF: This individualist-versus-political critique parallels the reading purpose’s listening/observation-as-method thread and echoes eco-justice pedagogy’s suspicion of personal-transform-only responses that ignore structural injustice. — connects to: Deep ecology’s rejection of ethics proves unstable and inconsistent — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 786; Deep ecology understands beings as constituted by their relations, not as separate from environments — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 327; Extending community to nature under-theorizes the recognition required — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 432

Broader Connections

• Deep ecology understands beings as constituted by their relations, not as separate from environments #contradicts (0.85) — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 327
• Extending community to nature under-theorizes the recognition required #contradicts (0.80) — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 432