Ecological Modernization: Shaping Environmental Concerns and Institutions | Exams Design

There are likely as many environmentalisms as

there are people. Whose environmentalism, then,

does one choose as the standard? Paradigm shift

researchers have tried to draw this standard from

the works of leading environmental writers.85 But

writers do not represent everyone (or there would

be no need to conduct a survey), nor do they

always agree (or they probably wouldn’t bother to

write). Inevitably, researchers have had to draw on

their own understandings of environmental writ-

ers and environmentalism. There is thus a danger

that paradigm shift researchers are in part assess-

ing the degree to which the rest of the world agrees

with them about what environmentalism is.

Survey-based research also doesn’t give respon-

dents a chance to explain why they answered the

survey questions in the ways that they did. Survey

researchers have to presume ahead of time the

kind of phrases and questions that might reflect

the way people see things. But there is no oppor-

tunity on a survey to determine if a person inter-

prets a question differently from the way the

researchers intend. For example, I might reject the

notion that “the earth is like a spaceship, with lim-

ited room and resources” because I don’t like the

mechanical and technological image of a “space-

ship.” I might see the Earth more as an organism.

In other words, I might disagree with the state-

ment even though I agree with the belief the state-

ment is meant to assess.

Finally, there is the difficulty of assessing long-

term ideological change with surveys of current

public opinion. Paradigm shift researchers have

on only a couple of occasions been able to resur-

vey the same population at a later date, and have

found only modest and somewhat inconsistent

shifts when they have done so.86 The kind of ideo-

logical change that paradigm shift researchers

hope to evaluate may be taking place over too long

a time for surveys to document. The problem is,

you can’t go back and administer a questionnaire

to the people of the past. Thus, survey research

needs to be balanced with historical research.

These critiques do not invalidate paradigm

shift research, however. Nor do they invalidate

Inglehart’s postmaterialism research, to which all

of these critiques mentioned equally apply,

except for the last about historical evidence.

(Inglehart has amassed some impressive histori-

cal information by separating out age cohorts.)

Measuring and understanding public opinion is

an inherently difficult task. All survey-based

research faces these measurement problems.

Without some simplifying assumptions, the

question of ideological change probably could

not be researched. And even a grainy image of the

overall state of the public mind is useful and

important to have.

Moreover, it seems hard to deny that material

factors must have ideological consequence. If our

patterns of thought, our mental reflexes, had no

bearing on our material conditions, we would

likely not last long. Or, to put it another way, if

you keep stubbing your toe when you kick the

environment, chances are you will eventually

stop to reconsider why you were kicking it in the

first place. And maybe that is what we are finally

starting to do.

Ecological Modernization

Or so ecological modernization theorists would

argue, but from a somewhat different standpoint.

Based in part on the earlier work of Ulrich Beck

(of whom we will hear much more in Chapter 9)

and Joseph Huber of Germany, among others,

the Dutch environmental sociologists Arthur

Mol and Gert Spaargaren contend that the recog-

nition of environmental problems is starting to

reshape the institutions and everyday social prac-

tices of modernity in fundamental ways. “The

basic premise,” writes Mol, “is the centripetal

movement of ecological interests, ideas and con-

siderations...which results in the constant eco-

logical restructuring of modern societies.”87

Material conditions (environmental problems)

shape ideas (those interests, ideas, and consider-

ations), which in turn reshape material condi-

tions (the constant ecological restructuring). But

The Ideology of Environmental Concern—— 175

07-Bell (Environment)-45611:07-Bell (Environment) 5/17/2008 5:14 PM Page 175

Partial preview of the text

Download Ecological Modernization: Shaping Environmental Concerns and Institutions and more Exams Design in PDF only on Docsity!

There are likely as many environmentalisms as there are people. Whose environmentalism, then, does one choose as the standard? Paradigm shift researchers have tried to draw this standard from the works of leading environmental writers.^85 But writers do not represent everyone (or there would be no need to conduct a survey), nor do they always agree (or they probably wouldn’t bother to write). Inevitably, researchers have had to draw on their own understandings of environmental writ- ers and environmentalism. There is thus a danger that paradigm shift researchers are in part assess- ing the degree to which the rest of the world agrees with them about what environmentalism is. Survey-based research also doesn’t give respon- dents a chance to explain why they answered the survey questions in the ways that they did. Survey researchers have to presume ahead of time the kind of phrases and questions that might reflect the way people see things. But there is no oppor- tunity on a survey to determine if a person inter- prets a question differently from the way the researchers intend. For example, I might reject the notion that “the earth is like a spaceship, with lim- ited room and resources” because I don’t like the mechanical and technological image of a “space- ship.” I might see the Earth more as an organism. In other words, I might disagree with the state- ment even though I agree with the belief the state- ment is meant to assess. Finally, there is the difficulty of assessing long- term ideological change with surveys of current public opinion. Paradigm shift researchers have on only a couple of occasions been able to resur- vey the same population at a later date, and have found only modest and somewhat inconsistent shifts when they have done so.^86 The kind of ideo- logical change that paradigm shift researchers hope to evaluate may be taking place over too long a time for surveys to document. The problem is, you can’t go back and administer a questionnaire to the people of the past. Thus, survey research needs to be balanced with historical research. These critiques do not invalidate paradigm shift research, however. Nor do they invalidate

Inglehart’s postmaterialism research, to which all of these critiques mentioned equally apply, except for the last about historical evidence. (Inglehart has amassed some impressive histori- cal information by separating out age cohorts.) Measuring and understanding public opinion is an inherently difficult task. All survey-based research faces these measurement problems. Without some simplifying assumptions, the question of ideological change probably could not be researched. And even a grainy image of the overall state of the public mind is useful and important to have. Moreover, it seems hard to deny that material factors must have ideological consequence. If our patterns of thought, our mental reflexes, had no bearing on our material conditions, we would likely not last long. Or, to put it another way, if you keep stubbing your toe when you kick the environment, chances are you will eventually stop to reconsider why you were kicking it in the first place. And maybe that is what we are finally starting to do.

Ecological Modernization

Or so ecological modernization theorists would argue, but from a somewhat different standpoint. Based in part on the earlier work of Ulrich Beck (of whom we will hear much more in Chapter 9) and Joseph Huber of Germany, among others, the Dutch environmental sociologists Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren contend that the recog- nition of environmental problems is starting to reshape the institutions and everyday social prac- tices of modernity in fundamental ways. “The basic premise,” writes Mol, “is the centripetal movement of ecological interests, ideas and con- siderations... which results in the constant eco- logical restructuring of modern societies.” 87 Material conditions (environmental problems) shape ideas (those interests, ideas, and consider- ations), which in turn reshape material condi- tions (the constant ecological restructuring). But

The Ideology of Environmental Concern—— 175

this shaping and reshaping is not just a matter of individual ideologies of environmental concern, such as the theories of postmaterialism and par- adigm shift discuss. This shaping and reshaping occurs as well at the level of our institutions and the social practices we find ourselves engaged in, whatever we may think about them individually. Central to the process of ecological modern- ization is what Mol terms the “emancipation” of “ecological rationality.” 88 What he has in mind here is that we increasingly consider more than economic, technological, political, and social rea- sons in making decisions about how to organize our lives. Ecological rationality has now come to have an independent force in social debates. We’re on the road—maybe just the beginning of it, but on it nonetheless—to the huge, even radi- cal, changes that we need to make to maintain what ecological modernization theorists call our “sustenance base.” But the problem we faced was never modernization itself, say ecological mod- ernization theorists. The problem was “simple modernization” driven by economy, technology, politics, and society that did not take into account ecological rationality. Put ecology in, in a serious and far-reaching way, and we can put our institutions and our daily lives on the eco- logical path. Put ecology in, and we can repair the “design fault,” as Mol and Spaargaren term it, of an economic and technological order based on the presumption that ecology is a free service we need not pay much attention to. 89 Put ecology in, and we can overcome the long-standing conflict of business and the environment. At first glance, ecological modernization can seem overly cheerful and hopeful. But many industries have made significant progress in retooling their businesses, embracing what has come to be called industrial ecology, and seeing environmental issues as opportunities and as indications of inefficiencies in their operations. Most wealthy nations now have developed envi- ronmental laws and regulations to encourage their economies in recognizing the services we gain from the environment and in becoming more eco-efficient, often with substantial savings

to the economy. For example, in 2003, the Bush administration of the United States released a report showing vast economic savings from envi- ronmental regulation. The study, by the Office of Management and Budget, found that the $23 to $26 billion spent on retrofitting power plants to meet clean air standards saved the economy $ to $193 billion in money that didn’t need to be spent on health problems and lost work days. For every dollar spent, $5 to $7 was saved. 90 This recognition—particularly by an administration with a reputation for being unfriendly to envi- ronmental concerns—is an indication of the wel- coming of ecological rationality into our basic social institutions. Ecological modernization is also reshaping our daily practices. New standards are changing the machinery of our lives. Refrigerators, air con- ditioners, and plumbing systems are far more efficient on the whole than they used to be, using much less energy and water. People are experi- menting with new ways of living that reduce their personal consumption of the ecological ser- vices we were ignoring. Biking, car sharing, recy- cling, precycling, composting, more efficient housing urban design, and more are all on the rise. Consumption and lifestyle choices matter a lot, say ecological modernists, and many citizens are working hard on this, with some success. One of the ways that ecological moderniza- tionists believe we are moving in a green direc- tion is, controversially, through globalization. I say “controversially” because many environ- mentalists (and indeed many environmental sociologists) are quite critical of globalization, as they fear it can weaken environmental protection by giving priority to trade above all else. But as Mol argues in a recent book, many of our great- est environmental problems are global in scope, and many of our greatest environmental suc- cesses have been through global treaties that address them. 91 Take the Montreal Protocol, which has done so much to reduce the produc- tion of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) worldwide and to protect the upper-atmosphere ozone layer. Or take ISO 14000, the environmental

176 ——THE IDEAL

degree. Early work on the theory was indeed hobbled by what the ecological modernization theorist Martin Hajer has called a “techno- corporatist” vision. Hajer advocates instead a “reflexive” vision—that is, one that emphasizes democratic institutions of discussion and debate that allow societies to “reflect” on where they are going, rather than being blindly led along through technological and corporate sleepwalk- ing.^96 You could call the early vision “weak” eco- logical modernization and Hajer’s “strong” ecological modernization, or perhaps “thin” and “thick.”^97 By embracing the necessity of democ- ratic debate, ecological modernization theorists agree that we can’t just wait for this stuff to hap- pen. Building the institutions that enhance democratic debate is what ecological moderniza- tionists mean by “political modernization.” Besides, ecological modernizationists ask, have you got a better idea—that is to say, a real- istic better idea? If we have to wait for capitalism to fall before we get anywhere, we may have to wait a very long time. By then, the ecological mess could be insurmountable, as it indeed may already be. At least ecological moderniza- tion theory works from within the general situation we’re likely to have for some time to come. And it claims that, while by no means certain, ecological modernization is at least possible. Really? Some critics also argue that ecological modernization applies with any great success to only a few countries in Europe, most especially Germany, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries. It has little to say about the United States, for example, where environmentalists com- plain of virtually no progress since the great (and, at the time, revolutionary) acts of the 1960s and 1970s were passed: the Wilderness Act (1964), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), and the Clean Water Act (1977). There has been little other than rear-guard action ever since, trying to hold on to some of the gains as

mainly corporate interests systematically chip away at them, as the American environmental sociolo- gist Fred Buttel has argued.^98 Ecological modernizationists respond that yes, there’s a long way to go, and yes, ecological modernization is currently most developed in Western Europe. Yet with appropriate forms of globalization, it could spread much further, much more rapidly. The current configuration of the World Trade Organization is not a help. Nor is the North American Free Trade Act, the Central American Free Trade Act, and other free trade acts that put trade ahead of labor and environmental concerns. Nor is a growing trend toward unilateralism. But treaties like the Montreal Protocol, Agenda 21, and the Kyoto Accord can make a huge difference. As of 2007, there were 464 international treaties that have an environmental impact, and the list is growing. 99 Moreover, many international development organizations like the World Bank are adopting greener policies. Another criticism is that ecological moderniza- tion has little to say about issues of environmental justice. Nor does it have much to say about the rights and beauty of habitat. Its focus is almost entirely on issues of sustainability. Ecological modernization theorists accept these points, though, and are working on ways to incorporate them into the theory. 100 Finally, some critics worry that ecological modernization is normative—that it both describes a direction it thinks it is possible we could go and says that is the way we should go. To which ecological modernizationists have a simple and direct answer: So? Don’t you want to make the world a better place?

The Democratic Basis

of Contemporary

Environmental Concern

But why do people increasingly see that an important way to make the world a better place is

178 ——THE IDEAL

Ecological Modernization: Shaping Environmental Concerns and Institutions, Exams of Design

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Ecological Modernization: Shaping Environmental Concerns and Institutions and more Exams Design in PDF only on Docsity!

Ecological Modernization

The Democratic Basis

of Contemporary

Environmental Concern