Environmental Sociology

Catton and Dunlap have criticized sociological theory - in general - for not giving enough attention to critical feedback linkages between natural and built environments and society. They argue that there is a need in sociology to shift paradigms, or take on a new world view that incorporates linkages between ecosystems and social systems.

C and D begin by noting that the development of environmental problems, especially in the past three decades, has changed attitudes and expectations amongst the general public and sociologists alike. There has been a dramatic shift from the 1950's when the North American dreams of social progress, upward mobility, and societal stability seemed secure.

Before we begin a discussion of the development of the "new ecological paradigm" we must first review what is meant by the term paradigm. According to Ritzer, a paradigm is a fundamental image of the subject matter within a science. It serves to define what should be studied, what questions should be asked, how they should be asked, and what rules should be followed in interpreting the answer obtained.

The paradigm is the broadest unit of consensus within a science and serves to differentiate one scientific community (or sub-community) from another. It subsumes, defines and inter-relates the exemplars, theories, methods, and instruments that exist within it.

Catton and Dunlap argue that the numerous competing theoretical perspectives in contemporary sociology (for instance structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism to name a few) tend to exaggerate their differences from each other. C and D argue that their diversity is not as important as the fundamental anthropocentricism which underlies all of them.

This mutual anthropocentricism is part of a basic sociological world view. C & D label this view, the "Human Exceptionalism Paradigm" (HEP). Catton and Dunlap argue that acceptance of the assumption of the HEP has made it difficult for most sociologists to deal meaningfully with the social implications of ecological problems and constraints

"The HEP comprises several assumptions that have either been challenged by recent additions to knowledge, or have had their optimistic implications contradicted by events of the seventies. Accepted explicitly or implicitly by all existing theoretical persuasions, they include:

1. Human are unique among the earth's creatures, for they have culture. 2. Culture can vary almost infinitely and can change much more rapidly than biological traits. 3.Thus man human differences are socially induced rather than inborn, they can be social altered, and inconvenient differences can be eliminated. 4. Thus, also, cultural accumulation means that progress can continue without limit, making all social problems ultimately solvable."

Catton and Dunlap state that sociological acceptance of this optimistic world view was shaped by the doctrine of progress inherent in Western culture. They argue that the majority of the public (until recently) maintained a strong belief that the present was better than the past and the future would improve upon the present.

Catton and Dunlap state that neglect of the ecosystem-dependence of human society has been particularly evident in sociological literature on economic development, which has failed to recognize biogeochemical limits to material progress. When the public started to become concerned about newly visible environmental problems, it was biologists who served as opinion leaders not sociologists.

Sociologists began to read the work of these "opinion leaders" and assumption and perceptions changed. Sociologists began to recognize that the reality of ecological constraints posed serious problems for human societies as well as for the discipline of sociology.

At the beginning of the 70's concern with the environment as a social problem led to numerous studies of public attitudes toward environmental issues and of the "Environmental Movement". Links developed between sociologists concerned with a range of issues, including the build environment, natural hazards, resource management, outdoor recreation, and "social impact assessment".

After the energy crisis of 1973 numerous sociologists began to study the effects of energy shortages in particular, and resource constraints in general, on society. For example, the effects of resource constraints on the stratification system, the political order, and the family

"Conceptions of "environment" range from the "manmade" (or "built") environment to the "natural" environment, with an array of "human- altered environments -e.g., air, water, noise, and visual pollution-in between.

Catton and Dunlap go on to describe the development of environmental sociology, which rests on a different set of assumptions.

1. Human beings are but one species among the many that are interdependently involved in the biotic communities that shape our social life. 2.Intricate linkages of cause and effect and feedback in the web of nature produce many unintended consequences from purposive human action. 3.The world is finite, so there are potent physical and biological limits constraining economic growth social progress, and other societal phenomena.

A Comparison of Major Assumptions in the Dominant Western Worldview, Sociology’s Human Exemptionalism Paradigm, and the Proposed New Ecological Paradigm

Assumptions about the nature of human beings DWW1: People are fundamentally different from all other creatures on Earth, over which they have dominion HEP1: Human have cultural heritage in addition to (and distinct from) their genetic inheritance, and thus are quite unlike all other animal species. Assumptions about social causation DWW2: People are masters of their destiny; they choose their goals and learn to do what- ever is necessary to do. HEP2: Social and cultural factors (including technology) are the major determinants of human affairs. Dominant Western Worldview (DWW) Human Exemptionalism Paradigm (HEP)

Assumptions about the context of human society DWW3: The world is vast, and thus provides unlimited opportunities for humans. HEP3: Social and cultural environments are the crucial context for human affairs, and the biophysical environment is largely irrelevant. Assumptions about constraints on human society DWW4: The history of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never cease. HEP4: Culture is cumulative; thus technological progress can continue indefinitely, making all social problems ultimately soluble. Dominant Western Worldview (DWW) Human Exemptionalism Paradigm (HEP)

Assumptions about the nature of human beings DWW1: People are fundamentally different from all other creatures on Earth, over which they have dominion NEP1: While humans have exceptional characteristics (culture, technology, etc.), they remain one among many species that are interdependently involved in the global ecosystem. Assumptions about social causation DWW2: People are masters of their destiny; they choose their goals and learn to do what- ever is necessary to do. NEP2: Human affairs are influenced not only by social and cultural factors, but also by intricate linkages of cause, effect, and feedback in the web of nature; thus purposive human actions have many unintended consequences. Dominant Western Worldview (DWW) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)

Assumptions about the context of human society DWW3: The world is vast, and thus provides unlimited opportunities for humans. NEP3: Humans live in and are dependent upon a finite biophysical environment which imposes potent physical and biological restraints on human affairs. Assumptions about constraints on human society DWW4: The history of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never cease. NEP4: Although the inventiveness of humans and the powers derived therefrom may seem for a while to extend carrying capacity limits, ecological laws cannot be repealed Dominant Western Worldview (DWW) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)

Schnaiberg, working within the tradition of political economy, has developed a theoretical model for analyzing the causes and consequences of production for the natural environment.

In his theoretical model, entitled the treadmill of production, ecosystem elements are converted by capitalists through market exchanges into profits. Capitalists then reinvest some of these profits in more productive physical capital. This requires still greater ecosystem access in order to keep equipment operating at an economically efficient rate. (This process is what has led to the depletion of B.C. salmon fishing stocks; see Pearse 1982).

The implementation of advanced equipment inevitably leads to changes in the structure of an industry because it raises the capital- intensification of production and hence requires a growing share of national production in order to remunerate capital owners. These increased costs require greater production and in turn necessitates expanded ecosystem exploitation.

According to the treadmill model, there are further demands on production besides the need to cover capital costs (and profits). Enough surplus must be generated to supply an adequate level of wages to maintain consumer demand (for the capitalist system to function) and to generate enough tax revenue to cover the social expenditures of the state.

The need for increasing exchange value tends to accelerate "the environmental demands of modern treadmills". Schnaiberg and other political economists consciously working within the "new ecological paradigm" argue that it is the commitment of the dominant institutions (as well as ideological commitment) to growth that is the root of alienation of humans from natural ecological systems.

George Bush ironically reinforces this notion with his comments at the Rio Earth Summit. Criticized for refusing to sign important accords on global warming and endangered species, Bush responded by stating: "Twenty years ago, some spoke of limits to growth. Today we realize that growth is the engine of change and the friend of the environment."

Schnaiberg discusses various structural theories of the state. He argues that modern western states have experienced serious internal conflicts regarding environmental issues. On the one hand the state serves as a facilitator of capital accumulation and economic growth.

On the other, it acts as a social legitimator of the socioeconomic structure for its citizens (see O'Connor 1973).

Schnaiberg: The former role commits the state to looking at environmental resources for their exchange- values. Conversely, the latter leads the state to view ecosystems' capacities to produce the use-values (as habitat and/or biosocial resources) of various constituents, who are among the political constituencies of state actions.

Ecosystem Exploitation Profits Capital Investment In More Efficient Equipment Need for Adequate Wages to Maintain Consumer Demand and Generate Tax Revenue Accelerated Ecosystem Exploitation The “Treadmill of Production”.

The Societal-Environmental Dialectic Schnaiberg, drawing upon the intellectual tool of dialectical analysis (developed by Hegel, and Marx), proposes the condition of a societal- environmental dialectic. He argues that economic growth (the thesis) is a basic value of contemporary western societies, while "ecological disruption" (the antithesis) "is a necessary consequence of economic expansion.

A tension emerges between these two forces because while economic growth is valued, "ecological disruption is harmful to human society".

ECONOMIC GROWTH (the thesis) ECOLOGICAL DISRUPTION (the antithesis) POSSIBLE SYNTHESES 1. An “Economic” Synthesis. 2. A “Managed Scarcity” Synthesis. 3. An “Ecological” Synthesis. The “Societal-Environmental Dialectic”.

Schnaiberg notes that there are three possible resolutions (or syntheses) of this dialectic: (1)an economic synthesis which ignores ecological disruptions and attempts to maximize growth; (2)a managed scarcity synthesis which deals with the most obvious and harmful consequences of resource-utilization by imposing controls over selected industries and resources;

(3) an ecological synthesis in which "substantial control over both production and effective demand for goods" is used to minimize ecological disruptions and maintain a "sustained yield" of resources.

Schaniberg (1975, 1980, forthcoming) argues that which of these outcomes emerges depends upon the economic structure of a society Schnaiberg argues that the modern treadmill of production produces an enduring systemic bias towards the economic synthesis, and against the ecological synthesis because major social institutions continue to maintain and transmit the dominant belief: the necessity of economic growth.

Schnaiberg states that there are two central questions that arise for the dominant classes and economic institutions: (1) how to generate more surplus, and (2) how to allocate the surplus that is generated. At the level of the state, "regressive" (inequality- magnifying) societies are likely to continue the "economic" synthesis while "progressive" (equality-fostering) societies are least resistive to the "ecological" synthesis

Schnaiberg notes that the U.S., with its "non- redistributive" ideology, has tended to engage in the "managed scarcity solution to environmental and resource problems