---
title: "The Sovereignty of the Living: Two Voices for a Centerless Ecology"
sousTitre: "Distinction and Convergence Between Forest Agency and Relational Ethics"
description: "Between Kohn’s assertion of a forest-based mode of thought and Naess’s ethical perspective, two approaches to ecology emerge. One questions the possibility of non-human agency, while the other roots reflection in an institutional tradition. These fragments invite us to consider how the living might be conceived without reducing its autonomy to human frameworks."
date: 2026-10-14
lang: en
tradition: transversal
auteurs: ["Eduardo Kohn", "Arne Næss"]
---
# The Sovereignty of the Living: Two Voices for a Centerless Ecology

The question of an ecology freed from anthropocentrism arises through two fragments that, without directly engaging one another, open distinct paths. The first emerges from a reflection on non-human modes of thought, the second from a philosophical tradition rooted in an institution. These two voices do not oppose each other, but bringing them together first requires distinguishing them.

## The Forest as a Subject of Thought

Kohn approaches the matter through myth and history—not as abstract categories, but as elements of an inquiry into how the living structures itself. The passage cited does not present a finished theory, but a point of departure:

> 249 1988 Introduction: Myth and History. In *Rethinking History and Myth: Indigenous South American Perspectives on the Past*.
>
> — **Eduardo Kohn**, *how forests think*. éd. after the French translation.

This fragment does not claim that forests think in the way humans do, nor that myth and history are properties shared by other forms of life. It merely suggests that these notions are mobilized to rethink Indigenous South American perspectives on the past. Kohn’s shift consists in not presuming that these categories are exclusively human. In this view, the forest is not an object of study, but a context in which forms of meaning emerge independently of human consciousness.

This approach implies that the agency of the living cannot be reduced to anthropomorphic projection. If forests "think," it is not by mimicking human thought, but by unfolding their own logics, accessible through narratives that are not those of Western science. Here, myth and history are not conceptual tools applied to the living, but ways in which the living manifests itself through local practices and knowledges.

## An Ethics Rooted in Duration

Naess, for his part, situates his reflection within an institutional and historical framework. The cited passage does not directly address the agency of the living, but the continuity of a tradition of thought:

> The University has printed and published continuously since 1584. Ecology, Philosophical perspectives.
>
> — **Arne Naess**, *Ecology Community and Lifestyle*. éd. after the French translation.

This mention is not incidental. It reminds us that ecological thought, as Naess conceives it, is embedded in a long history—that of an institution that has produced and disseminated knowledge. Unlike Kohn, who decenters the gaze by incorporating non-Western perspectives, Naess remains within a framework where ecology is first and foremost a philosophical question, that is, a human discipline, even if it aims to rethink humanity’s relationship with the living.

Naess’s ethics does not deny the autonomy of the living, but it begins from a human position: that of a subject seeking to establish respectful relationships with its environment. The university’s continuity since 1584 is not a detail, but a way of emphasizing that ecological reflection is part of a tradition, with its limits and possibilities. It does not claim to speak on behalf of the living, but proposes principles to guide human action within it.

## A Common Summit?

These two fragments do not converge toward an explicit synthesis, but they share a common concern: how to think of the living without reducing it to a passive object? Kohn does so by exploring non-human modes of thought, while Naess grounds a relational ethics in an institutional tradition.

The first shifts the center of gravity of reflection outside the human, without denying the specificity of human knowledge. The second maintains the human as a starting point, but expands the scope of its responsibilities. Their convergence does not resolve the tension between an ecology beyond anthropocentrism and one anchored in human frameworks, but it shows that these two approaches can coexist.

Kohn proposes to regard the living as a subject in its own right, without seeking to translate it into human categories. Naess, meanwhile, suggests that humans can be conscious actors within a larger whole, without claiming to be its center. These two perspectives do not exclude each other: they invite us to think of ecology as a dialogue between modes of thought and ethical traditions, without forcing their unification.

The sovereignty of the living, if it exists, cannot be decreed. It is discovered through practices, narratives, and institutions that, each in their own way, attempt to make room for it.

## Sources

- Eduardo Kohn, *how forests think* — 
- Arne Naess, *Ecology Community and Lifestyle* — 


Canonical source : https://viasophia.org/en/articles/2026-10-14-souverainete-vivant-deux-voix-pour/