Hello, dear readers. I want to bring the concept of ekophilosophical health to life. Part of this journey - for me - entails being really clear about my WHY. Why do I think this project matters, and why do I want to spend time and energy on it? To get that WHY clear, I need to feel like the ideas are coherent with my values and logic: are there any pitfalls that I am overseeing that potentially cause more harm than good? To me, considering the potential risks (though likely incomplete) of a project and ideas is part of a regenerative future and part of living philosophically because - as I have written about here - by bringing ideas into the world, we are always worlding, creating worlds that are. And I'd prefer to create a nice one.
As Bruno Latour once responded in an article where he critiqued ecomodernism, "Even though I am not too keen on the word ecomodernism, it does not mean that the invention of a risky label to describe a situation and mobilize people who would never have collaborated under another flag, is not a good idea."
I think the same goes for the term "health."
Health is a risky label.
Risk no.1: Lack of Relationality
Fortunately, even in Western medicine, it's been mostly acknowledged that health is not mechanical but that our health also depends on our psychology, on our environment, and, with that, on the planet. This wasn't always the case.
In the WEIRD world (western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic), the concept of health has evolved significantly over time. Initially, health was predominantly viewed through a mechanical lens, focusing on physical symptoms and treating ailments as isolated issues. This approach prevailed for much of history, with figures like René Descartes in the 17th century emphasizing the separation of mind and body, contributing to a reductionist view of health.
However, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, key figures such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung revolutionized the discourse by highlighting the significance of psychology in health. Freud's work on psychoanalysis challenged traditional notions of mental illness, while Jung's exploration of the collective unconscious introduced broader concepts of the psyche.
As understanding deepened, there was a gradual shift towards recognizing the importance of mental and emotional well-being as integral components of overall health. This transition was further propelled by research in the mid-20th century, such as the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study by Vincent Felitti and Robert Andaon, showing the long-term impacts of psychological trauma on health outcomes. Psychological health eventually became a well recognised aspect o health. In rather recent years, concepts such as flourishing and positive psychology have become mainstream.
Additionally, there was a growing awareness of the influence of social and environmental factors on health outcomes. In the 19th century, public health pioneers like Florence Nightingale and John Snow highlighted the role of sanitation and social conditions in disease prevention. Later, Rachel Carson, with her seminal work "Silent Spring" in the 1960s, drew attention to the environmental factors impacting human health. With her, a true discussion started - and hasn't stopped - about the relation between personal and planetary health. We see that represented in ideas such as ONEhealth, which is supported by political institutions such as UNEP and WHO. Unfortunately, despite that understanding, doctors (and their education) are largely oblivious to these connections, and people who are sick with typical modern diseases, such as obesity and heart disease, are largely made responsible as individuals.
The lack of understanding of the relational nature of health is still largely neglected, which is one of the main reasons why the concept of health is being criticised by many, especially in social justice movements. For example, persons in vulnerable social class, race, lower socioeconomic status, and other minority groups have the highest burden of chronic diseases. For instance, non-Hispanic blacks have the highest rate of cardiovascular disease mortality in the United States. The World Health Organization talks in this regard about the Social Determinants of Heath and defines them as "the circumstances in which people are born, live, work and age, and the systems put in place to deal with illness."
Health issues are often multifaceted and intersectional, involving a complex interplay of factors such as race, gender, class, and environmental conditions. A recent article in the Guardian pointed out how
"Fossil-fuel-induced changes – from rising temperatures to extreme weather to heightened levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide – are altering our brain health, influencing everything from memory and executive function to language, the formation of identity, and even the structure of the brain".
While Western medicine is crazy good at the mechanics of health (for example, operating on an open heart), my experience is that it's mostly on the other side of the spectrum in regards to relational and systems modalities of healing.
Using the term philosophical health than - especially coming from someone who grew up in this WEIRD world - also runs the risk of losing it's relationality and turning it into a singled and siloed, mechanistic endeavour.
Measure: To integrate the relational nature, I added the prefix eko in front of philosophical health. That doesn't solve the problem by itself, but rather is a reminder to myself (and others) to ask: what perspective is this consideration coming from, what might be a different way to look at this, how is the more-than-human world part of this…?
Risk no 2.: Normativity
The risk of normativity in health refers to the tendency to define health based on certain normative standards or ideals, which may not accurately reflect the diverse experiences and needs of individuals and communities. When health is narrowly defined according to specific norms or ideals, it can marginalize or stigmatize individuals whose experiences or identities deviate from these norms.
For example, traditional notions of health often prioritize physical well-being and conformity to certain body standards, neglecting the importance of mental, emotional, and social aspects of health. This can lead to the marginalization of individuals with disabilities, mental health conditions, or non-conforming bodies who may not fit the conventional definition of "healthy."
Normativity in health can also perpetuate inequalities and injustices by reinforcing existing power structures and privileging certain groups over others. For instance, norms around gender, race, socioeconomic status, and ability can influence access to healthcare, quality of care, and health outcomes.
Think of Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. While his work was primarily artistic and scientific rather than explicitly related to health, and while it's unclear how much his drawing has influenced cultural perceptions of the human body is open to debate, his depiction of ideal proportions represents a way of thinking about the body in norms and standards of physical perfection.
Unfortunately, most of us don't fit the description. And yet, does that mean we are sick?
If I didn't have an autoimmune disease, I am sure I'd be in a very different place. The autoimmune disease forced me to question - first conventional approaches about my own health and healing (which didn't work) - and with that came a cascade of other questions that eventually led me to question conventional approaches about planetary health and the work I am doing today. If that didn't happen, I might still be the woman partying every weekend, drinking 5 out of 7 nights, smoking, easily getting annoyed, impatient. I am sure I'd live a life full of experiences, but I am not sure there'd be much depth to it. Nowadays, I find that it's the depth that often makes me wake up in the morning overflowing with excitement about life. Would the version of myself - without an autoimmune disease but instead with all these other "flaws" - actually be healthier? According to whom?
The risk of ekophilosophical health, then, is that I write and communicate from a normative standpoint in an attempt to define THE ekophilosophical health.
Measure: To prevent this I will be aware of the way I am communicating. It's actually a key idea of "rewilding philosophy" to overcome this normativity of what we think of as ekophilosophically healthy.
Risk no 3.: Reductionism and Solutionism
Reductionism in health can be found in the tendency to oversimplify complex health issues by reducing them to single factors or variables, such as genetics or lifestyle choices, obscuring the entangled nature of health and overlooking the intra-action of biological, social, environmental, and psychological factors.
It can also be found in singling out certain triggers for dis-ease. A trend of the past decade, for example, has been to make food the single most influence on our health. Any problem? Food is the solution.
And while research and my own experience show that food can certainly have a huge impact, other factors might play an even more important role, for example, when living near chemical factories.
It's easy for me to reduce every malady of the metacrisis to a lack of ekophilosophical health. And while I wish it was that easy, as I have written about here, I don't think this would be true.
Measure: This is a bit tricky for me. I will give a warning about this every now and then because the way I will be writing is in a tone of conviction that ekophilosophical health actually is THE solution while being well aware that there is no THE in solution. I'd also question - in this specific case - the idea of solutions in themselves. As I write on my website, "I don't think I have all the answers, but sometimes I will pretend that I do because research shows that you will be more willing to listen to me when I sound assertive." And I think to bring the idea of ekophilosophy into the public discourse, such assertiveness can be helpful while being cautious and aware that how you do one thing is how you do everything. That's why it made it into the risk list.
Risk no 4.: Commercialization
The commercialization of the health industry refers to the transformation of health-related products and services into commodities that are bought and sold in the marketplace. This commodification is often driven by profit motives rather than a genuine concern for public health, leading to a range of ethical and social implications. Just think about diet pills. Mental health has also become a quite lucrative business. I don't think I need to say much about this potential risk. When looking at the US (for example), the risks of this become very apparent.
I think advocating for ekophilosophical health runs the same risk. With that, it shares the burden that every other endeavour to better our futures finds itself in: how to balance those ideas while living well in a market economy. I might write more about this some other time.
Measure: With IPeP, I tried to set up a structure that allows for working on these topics without necessarily generating income through the main activities - which are research and activism - and being financially supported by activities such as keynotes and advisory. This compartmentalisation is not ideal, but I think it's helpful.
Risk no 5.: Overburden
Just like we nowadays feel responsible to go to the gym, eat healthy and go to a therapist, suddenly we also "have to" become ekophilosphically healthy. With that, practicing philosophy might just become another aspect of the to do list that we need to take care of.
Measure: To overcome them, I am strongly advocating to institutionalise practical ekophilosophy and to create spaces within our existing structures, such as workplaces, universities and schools, in which this becomes an inherent part, instead of it being something I have to do Friday night when the kids are in bed.
Despite justified criticisms against the prescribed notion of health, I still believe that it's a viable concept. Rather than completely discarding it, I'd rather contribute to redefining our understanding of health - to evoke new frames and pictures in our minds when we ruminate about what it means to be healthy. With all the lingering risks and potential harmful associations, the optimistic aspect is that it appeals to everyone's - and maybe I am being presumptuous - desire to be well. I also think the idea ekophilosophical health makes - at least to some - intuitive sense and is a lot easier to communicate than ideas such as "inner dimensions of sustainability." If you have any additional thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.