Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Buttel and Humphery - 2º Cap.

    Uploaded by

    O Bern
    20 views19 pages
    Buttel and Humphery - 2º Cap.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Buttel and Humphery - 2º Cap.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    20 views19 pages

    Buttel and Humphery - 2º Cap.

    Uploaded by

    O Bern
    Buttel and Humphery - 2º Cap.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    2 Handbook of Environmental Sociology Spaargaren, Gert, Arthue P. J. Mol, and Frederick Hi Butel (eds. 2000. Environ: ‘ment and Global Modemity. London: Sage Publications. Seasz, Andrew. 1994, EcoPopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environ ‘mental Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Pees. Vitousek, Peter M., Harold A. Mooney, Jane Lubchenco, and Jerry M. Melillo, 1997, “Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems.” Science 277:494-499, Yearly Steven, 1996, Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization. London Sage Zeisel, John. 1981. Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Chapter 2 Sociological Theory and the Natural Environment Frederick H. Buttel and Craig R. Humphrey INTRODUCTION Environmental sociology, unlike many sociological fields, by and large has not been preoccupied with theoretical debate since its inception in the earl 11970s. Taken positively, this means environmental sociology has been char acterized by neither the overproduction of theory in a vacuum of empirical research, nor by the excessive internecine theoretical combat evident in some fields (Collins, 1987; Denain, 1987). Taken less positively, it means that continuity in the assessment of relatively high-order theoretical prop- ositions has been lacking. Although most research in environmental soci ology addresses some theoretical proposition, the themes tend to be ad hoc and fragmented. This chapter attempts to provide an overview of theoretical environmen tal sociology, particularly that dealing with the natural or biophysical (as opposed to the built) environment. Following work by Burch (1971), among others, we suggest that environmental sociological theory inherently must be characterized by a double determination; major theoretical pos- tures in environmental sociology tend to be based on social theory at large, fon one hand, and on empirical observations or theoreticalfmetatheoretical assumptions relating to humans as a species and to relationships between society and nature, on the other. This double determination, and especially the social significance of dependence on and interaction with the natural environment, represents the uniqueness of the field ‘As we point out below, environmental sociology and theoretical debates im the field have their roots both in nineteenth-century social theory and later American sociology during its theoretical inception. The first section 34 Handbook of Environmental Sociology of this chapter is devoted to the classical tradition and its relevance to enviconmental sociological theory. We then examine human ecology, one of several preurtor environmental sociology. The remaining sections fre devoted to other contemporary theoretical approaches and issues in the field. " CLASSICAL THEORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY Recent years have witnessed increased attention to the work of classical theorists, particularly with regard to conflicting interpretations of their writings. Several of these controversies have a close relationship with en- Vironmental sociology. First and foremost, were environmencal-biological considerations given sufficient attention in classical theory? Bock (1978), for example, has argued that biological analogies and evolutionary reason- ing gave nineteenth-century social theory a distorted, deterministic view ‘of social change and development, and Dickens (1992:xii) has gone so far fs to claim that classical sociology’s reliance on biological concepts para~ doxically inhibited the development of an adequate theory of society and nature. Lopreato (1984) has made a different argument—that nineteenth- ‘century social theory was influenced by fundamental misreadings of Charles Darwin and others Different from these views, Catton and Dunlap (1978), two pioneers in environmental social theory, have argued that anthropocentrism is a key legacy of classical theory. Considerations relating to biology, the biophys- ical environment, and the relations of humans to other species in the eco~ System have been studiously omitted, they say, because of Durkheim’s insistence that social facts must be explained by social facts, not heredity, rave, geography, or personality. Religion, for example, must be explained by the functional role it plays for social solidarity. Lenski (1984) also has argued that social theory generally has accepted Durkheim's emphasis on Social facts at the expense of ecological factors relevant to social structure and change. "A second controversy of relevance to environmental sociology relates to Social Darwinism. Most observers have credited Herbert Spencer, the nineteenth-century British social theorist, with providing the intellectual ba- fis for Social Darwinism. The most prominent American Social Darwinist W.G. Sumner, came under attack in American sociological circles for having founded this tradition of thought. The most articulate critic was Brown University’s Lester Ward, who took strong exception to the Social Darwinists’ interpretation of Darwinian fitness, particularly the notion that affluence or power is distributed according to merit (Lopreato, 1984). Ward's critique included a vigorous attack on Social Darwinists’ tendency to legitimate poverty and class exploitation. Ward and other critics would Sociological Theory and the Natural Environment 3s soon find themselves vindicated by the Great Depression, during which the Sneesses of laisser-faire capitalism became dramatically apparent Social Darwinism soon dropped from favor in American sociology which, as Catton and Dunlap (1978) and others have noted, led henceforth Toa strong aversion by sociologists to explanations using biological theres. Gouldner (1970:440), for example, axgued that the assumprion “society and culture shape men” served at one point to liberate people from bio: iogical or supernatural conceptions of their destiny, Others argued that rhs literation has gone too far. Prevailing sociological theories are incomplete and inadequate because they fail to consider the role of ecological and biological factors in shaping and being affected by social structure and processes (Catton et al, 1986; Dickens, 1992; Lopreato, 1984) ‘While these scholars have valuable and important ideas about the neglect of ecological factors in classical and contemporary theory, it can be argued that environmental sociology is both old and new. Elements of environ Inental sociology have roots deep in nineteenth-century social thought. ‘Mare and Engels frequently referred to the penetration of capitalism as a ‘cause of massive air pollution and other threats to the health and welfare Cf workers, and to the need for political economy to treat relations between Society and nature (Dickens, 19925 Parsons, 1977). Their schema positing the contradictory development of class societies and the revolutionary transformation from one mode of production to another contains an evo utionary component based on Darwin's work (Lopreato, 1984). ‘Durkheim also set forth a modified evolutionary schema and relied heav- ity on metaphors from Darwinian evolution and organismic biology. While Durkheim questioned Spencer's argument that evolutionary change led to continuous progress, his theory was based on an evolutionary view of social Ghange (Turner, 1994), The master direction of change was from primitive socieries with a low division of labor to modern societies with a complex vision of labor. Durkheim, however, differed from Spencer in emphasiz~ ing the disruptive qualities of change. The transition from primitive co mod. searcosieries was accompanied by anomie and a breakdown of social Solidarity and regulation. While Durkheim anticipated that modernizing Societies ultimately would exhibit new, more effective organic solidarity, he fegarded the establishment of adequate integration and solidarity ro be problematic. Durkheim freely used biological concepts in presenting his theories of social evolution and solidarity, as is evident above in the concept of organic Solidarity. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895) referred ro various types of societies along che continuum from raditional ro modern as species cr societal species. Moreover, as we will note below, his most famous work, The Division of Labor in Society (1893), set forth the major elements of a theoretical perspective that has come to be known as human ecology "A final classical theorist widely considered to be among the most influ- 36 Handbook of Environmental Sociology ential in Western sociology was Max Weber, While Marx and Durkheim largely assumed that there was an a priori direction of social change, Weber firmly rejected the theoretical viewpoint that there was a unilinear course of societal development. Social change was determined by shifting constel lations of subjective, structural, and technological forces that ultimately were rooted in human motivations and history. Moreover, Weber (1922) was an outspoken opponent of Social Darwinism, and he frequently stressed how social science differed from biological sciences and that the methods and concepts of the former must be different from those of the latter, Weber's work thus has been taken to be the first decisive break from nineteenth-century evolutionism anchored in biological analogies (see Burns and Dietz, 1992; Dietz and Burns, 1992; and Sanderson, 1990 for com- prehensive overviews of “social evolutionism”). It should be stressed, however, that Weber's break from nineteenth~ century evolutionism should not be equated with his having rejected the notion that social structure and social action must be understood apart from biophysical factors such as natural resources. In fact, the works of Weber's in which his break with evolutionism and biological analogies was clearest (e.g, Weber, 1927/1981, 1976} were his comparative-historical, tmpirical studies in which he gave particularly extensive attention to nat- ural resource factors. Weber treated environmental/resource factors as in- teracting with social factors (such as class, status, power relations, material and ideal interests, religious ethics, and so on) in complex causal models, Weber gave particular stress to how environmental factors “frequently af- fect complex societies through favoring the ‘selective survival” of certain strata over others” (West, 1984:232). Thus, Weber's (probably unintended) tse of Darwinian imagery was arguably truer to Darwin's notion of evo- ution than was the social evolutionism of Herber Spencer and others. While West's (1984) account of Weber's embryonic sociology of natural resources was largely drawn from Weber's comparative macro-historical cmpirical studies, it should be noted that Murphy (1994a) has recently developed a neo-Weberian environmental sociology that differs considera- bly from that portrayed by West. Murphy’s rendering of Weber is far less historical in approach and method than West's. Murphy draws primarily on Weber's ideal-types of rationality and orientations to action, and on his notion of Western rationalization. Murphy (1994a) agues that rationali- zation and the expansion of formaV/nstrumental rationality have involved tendencies to an ethic of mastery over nature, to a blind quest for new technologies with which to realize this mastery, and to a lack of attention to human threats to the environment. Similar to Weber's notion of char- jsmatic authority, Murphy suggests that the ecological ieationalities caused by rationalization will stimulate social movements that aim at “deration- alization” or “re-rationalization” of modem institutions. Sociological Theory and the Natural Environment HUMAN ECOLOGY Human ecology as a field can be defined as the study of structure and change in sustenance organizations or resource groups which support hu- nan populations within dynamic and constraining environments (Freese, 19888, 1988b; Hawley, 1986; Kasarda and Bidwell, 1984). It focuses on patterns of activities for sustaining human populations, their functional Felationships, and temporal change in their level of complexity. The tran- Sition from rural to urban organization of populations, its causes, and its Consequences have been central phenomena in traditional human ecology (Fawley, 1950, 1971), although larger- and smaller scale changes, inchud- jing societal evolution (Hawley, 1986; Lenski and Nolan, 1984) and change jn the population of organizations such as labor unions (Hannan and Free- man, 1988) and newspapers (Carroll and Hannan, 1989), fall within the domain of ecology. "The nature of organized sustenance activities of course, involves more than productive organizations, supplies of natural resources, and atherlim- ite encountered by growing human populations. These activites reflec the cultural values and beliefs held by members of a society. Ways of earning § living, converting land from one use to another, constructing buildings, faising food, and other sustaining actions characteristic of a population Emanate from a cultural milieu in which people are socialized and work (Furey and Sjoberg, 1982). Nonetheless, human ecologists, especially the neoclassical ones following Hawley (1950), traditionally analyzed the steuc- ure of human sustenance otganization and how itis affected by technol- bay, population, and envizonmental constrains irrespective of whatever attitudes and cultural values might be involved. ‘Human ecology has played an important role in sociology because of its ambitious conceptual scheme, including the notion of the environment as the phenomena surrounding and serving as a context for a human popu- lation (Turner, 1994). Scarce natural resources as well as other organiza tions, populations, and space are said to constitute the environment of any aggregate of people functionally related to each other in some enduring sway. Elowever, the ecological perspective contains ambiguous assumptions bout the role of the environment in constraining the growth of human populations. In particular, despite frequent theoretical arguments within Roman ecology that the concept of environment includes nonhuman nature, for 70 years there has been a recurring tendency among ecologists to con ceptualize the environment in one of two ways. Either it represents the friction of space limiting the daily range of human travel, or it consists of cther human groups competing with other people for resources. While his forically some of the leading human ecologists in the United Stares have acknowledged this problem (Hawley, 1984; Schnore, 1958) i has not been addressed in a systematic way. Indeed, the ambiguous, contradictory teat 38 Handbook of Environmental Sociology ment of the relationship between population and the environment partly explains the emergence of environmental sociology as a separate field (Dun: lap and Catton, 1979} Because of space limitations we must focus our discussion of human ecology on its main phases, highlighting those facets which ar least address the relationships between population and the environment to some extent. First, we identify the roots of the field in innovative sociological work at the University of Chicago over one-half century ago. Then a strategic as- sumption in ecology—conceptualizing a human population as a territorially ‘expanding sustenance organization—will be discussed. Finally, revisions to ecology centering on the idea of the ecological complex will be outlined. ‘While one could cover even more recent phases in the development of the field (Freese, 1988a, 19885; Hannan and Freeman, 1989), itis the concept of the human ecological complex which brought the field closest to the study of interrelations between society and the environment. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGY AND HUMAN ECOLOGY, Influenced by Darwin, Durkheim, and bioecologists, Park and Burgess postulated that competition and cooperation are basic forms of human interaction through which organized populations struggle to maintain an equilibrium within a constantly changing environment. Thus, the concep- tualization of competitive struggles to gain resources among plants and animals in nature was adapted for human ecological analysis. Park and Burgess also recognized that the functional interdependencies within the human population required a certain amount of cooperation, so the basic process underlying much of human behavior amounted to competitive co- operation (Faught, 1986; Theodorson, 1982). ark and Burgess made an analytical distinction between community and society in an effort to clarify exactly what they meant by ecological com- petitive cooperation within human populations. Ecological relationships ‘were construed as biotic or functional interdependence binding people to- gether, regardless of the values or motives for pursuing particular actions. In this way ecology presented a dual conceptualization of human society (1) “biotic™ oe community relationships, based upon “non-thoughtful ad- justments made in the struggle for existence,” which became the major focus of human ecology; and (2) societal relations, based upon acquired values and motives to pursue goals prescribed by others, generally consid ered 10 be outside of the purview of human ecology (Theodorson, 1982: 3). While scholars now recognize that Park (1936a) viewed cultural aspects ‘of human social interaction as the ways and means by which humans are related to the natural world (Lyman, 1990, Maines et al. in review), Park's, distinction berween community and society created endless debate and crit- icisms (Alihan, 1938; Michelson, 1976; Young, 1988). Ultimately, this im- Sociological Theory and the Natural Environment 39 broglio would lead to the demise of the classical school and to its replacement by neo-orthodox ecology developed by Hawley (1950) and others ark, Burgess, and their colleagues used Chicago as a natural laboratory for studying community growth and change. They viewed their industrial city as a terricorially based ecological system—a Darwinian “web of life” (Park, 1936a). The in-migration and natural population increase resulting from the movement of people into an expanding industrial community were seen to cause a centrifugal movement of people from the congested central business district to sparse, outlying residential zones. A kind of Darwinian steugele over land use—compettive cooperation in an impersonal market— ensued. This process of urban population redistribution was seen to result, for example, in a segregated residential pattern, with the “fittest” (wealth jest) members of the community buying their way into the most sought- after residential locations, The poorest members of the community, those least able to compete in the housing marker, resided in transient neighbor hoods and slums, which later were often taken over by commercial activ- ities from an expanding core or central business district. As Logan and Molotch (1986:5-6) have put the matter in ther ertique of human ecology’, In conteast to other species whose behaviors are genetically fixed, human beings have an equilibrating force in the property market and price system... We thus nd up in the ecological perspective with a “hidden hand” that secures the greatest ood for the greatest number as an outcome of the market mechanism. The process, referred to as ecological succession by analogy with bio- ecological succession, served as a major focus within Chicago human ecol- ‘ogy, particularly in’ its application to changing urban land uses and residential population composition in a variety of neighborhoods (Cressey, 1938; Park 1936a, 1936b). In land-use succession, members of a popula tion were seen to be competing for the control of territorial space, the net effect being outward geowth of a community in wavesike, concentric zones. Any given stage of succession would be set in motion as pioneer migrants attempted :o stake out new residential or commercial land uses jn a location which was currently undeveloped or controlled by a compet- itor. Examples of residential succession have included the subdivision of farm land at the periphery of a metropolis for housing or commercial build- ings (Patel, 1980; Rudel, 1989), the migration of working-class families into. middie-class neighborhoods (Aldrich, 1973}, and gentrification of inner-city neighborhoods (Hudson, 1987). [As with other branches in ecology, the Chicago human ecologists ex- pressed an interest in the relationship between population and the environ- ment, but they did so in a restricted fashion, The components of the environment germane to their work included natural barriers to the phys- 0 Handbook of Environmental Sociology ical expansion of the community, travel time, access to sites within a com- munity or region, population density, the size and function of other sub-areas, and the availability of natural resources. However, the optimistic influence of Durkheim, especially the idea that competition inevitably brought about more productive forms of social organizations, shifted at- tention away from the more problematic aspects of urbanization such as environmental pollution of natural resource depletion (Lenski, 1984). In- stead, human ecologists focused on the location of neighborhoods and dis- triets or land-use change in metropolitan communities. While many other criticisms can be raised concerning classical human ecology (Gottdiener, 1985), research in the field ultimately paved the way for important revisions and innovations in other sociological fields as well, such a5 organizational theory (Aldrich and Pfeffer, 1976; Hannan and Free- ‘man, 1989). Perhaps the chief contribution of the field from our vantage point is the implicit recognition that human populations, as other species, share functional interdependencies in a natural web of life. Neither Park land Burgess nor their students, however, fully examined the implications Of this interdependence between human populations and their environ: ‘ments, especially the problems associated with biophysical constraints on ‘growth or with the influence of narural resources on the structure of sus renance organization. HUMAN POPULATIONS: ADAPTIVE OR EXPANDING SYSTEMS? Human ecology has the dual legacy of Malthusian and Duckheimian social thought, At least since Malthus published his famous Essay on the Principle of Population (1830), it has often been assumed that natural re productive forces cause populations to grow exponentially until chey en Counter checks caused by finite natural resources, especially food supplies. In their efforts to acquire scarce resources, human populations can develop new technologies and an increasingly complex division of labor. Eventually, however, a population will stop growing as it reaches the limits of vital resources needed for further growth and development. In this sense ecolog- jeal growth or expansion amounts to “a discontinuous and cumulative process in which change and equilibrium alternate until... a climax stage Or steady-state equilibrium is reached” (Hawley, 1984:7). Human ecology js thus Malthusian in the sense that population processes constieute its ma~ jor dynamic (Turner, 1994). Human ecology has traditionally stressed the role of population growth in changing the organization of communities and societies, although some ecologists have been critical of Malthus for placing too much stress on population growth (Hawley, 1986:24-26). The emphasis of human ecology fon population processes has ironically been due to Durkheim's (1893) The Sociological Theory and the Natural Environment 41 Division of Labor in Society having played a formative role in human ec- logical theory, particularly in its emphasis on the ability of human pop- tition to transcend Malthusian limits and co grow by means of technological innovation and a more complex and productive division of labor, As human populations expand, the frequency and variety of social omacts would increase in what Durkheim called a process of dynamic density. The increased density of economic and social relationships and exchanges, set in motion by population growth, become an engine for the growth of ideas about innovative techniques and activities. Since these were Frutually beneficial to members of a population encountering intensified Tesource scarcity, in Durkheim's view increased density thus tended to pro- pel a population ro new levels of complexity or structural differentiation (Schnore, 1958). “The capacity for scientific and technological advance, spurred on by transportation and communication processes, led ecological theory to em phasize cautionary optimism with respect to che continuing ability of hu fran populations to expand their productive capabilities. In its more Straightforward form, the theory becomes one in which the limits to growth are defined in terms of collective abilities of a population to organize pro: ductive activities and find new ways to sustain future generations. As a prominent ecologist put it, “the power for technological and organizational Fanovation implicit in the already accumulated fund of knowledge is ines timable and is constantly being enlarged” (Hawley, 1973:10). More recent Variants in the same paradigm envision the social and natural environment Sea set of limiting conditions for the development of human organization (Hawley, 1986; Kasarda and Bidwell, 1984; McPherson et al. 1992). Defined as 2 condition in which a community reaches the maximum sustainable size and level of organizational complexity for its particular environment (Micklin, 1984:55), the equilibrium-seeking tendency of @ population is an important property in ecological theory. Out-migration, Fmensified resource exploration, technological innovation, declining rates ‘of natural population increase, and other adaptations can be explained in terms of the equilibrium-seeking tendency of human ecological systems. How equilibrium is maintained, of course, depends on a variety of inf ences, The changing ratio of population to resources, competition among organizations, the availability of substitute esources, andthe technological anovativeness of a population influence the timing and nature of the equi librium condition. Perhaps the thorniest problem for human ecology in theorizing about the relationship between population and the environment concerns adaptation tnd the paallel concept of equilibrium. Curiously enough, only a few lead- ing ecologists (Hlavley, 1986) have serucinized the coneept of equilibrium. Lacking unambiguous criteria for equilibrium, one is rarely certain, for ‘example, whether a phenomenon such as arrested population growth is 2n 2 Handbook of Environmental Sociology ‘equilibrating process, an indicator of disequilibrium, or a temporary phase in the longer-term process of expansion. This problem has become even more complex because recent work in population ecology suggests that human organizations have a characteristic known as structural inertia, so that individual organizations may or may not change significantly as their social and natural environment takes on new forms (Hannan and Freeman, 1984). Thus, while populations of organizations change over time, this ‘occurs primarily through “bieths” and “deaths” of organizations (through 1 selection process), rather than through planning and strategic innovation among existing organizations, Critics of human ecology in the past argued that notions about adapta- tion reflected a functionalist or conservative bias with a naively benign view of social change (Logan and Molorch, 1986:4-10).' If, on the other hand, entire populations of organizations grow and decline because environmen- tal conditions change and organizations of like kind remain relatively inert or rigid in form, the problem is somewhat different. Then we have a kind of random change where organizations which happen to be suited co a particular set of conditions survive, while others, for a variety of reasons, die off (Burns and Dietz, 1992). Whether this haphazard sequence amounts to adaptation, however, remains problematic. It raises the question of ad- aptation for whom? Moreover, scholars have frequently observed that since fone can always find some reason why a particular social practice is adaptive in terms of some group or population, the term is nearly meaningless (Freese, 1994; Turner, 1994), Ecologically, adaptation refers to behavior that creates conditions, in- cluding biophysical ones, conducive to the successful reproduction of the next generation, Lopreato (1984) adds to this notion the idea that adap- tation includes the enhancement of human satisfaction and avoidance of pain, Nonetheless, che human impact on the natural world and its conse quences for the reproduction of the human population remain a very im- portant part of the concept of adaptation. Yet, as we have already noted, sociologists historically have rarely examined interrelationships between so- cial behavior and its biophysical consequences. Thus, we would have to concur with Burns and Dietz (1992) that after more than 70 years in the development of human ecology, we are a long way from a suitable under- standing of the processes of societal evolution and human adaptation. ‘Although a few contemporary environmental sociologists were trained in human ecology or actively do ecological research, human ecology and environmental sociology have remained largely insulated from each other lover the past rwo decades. This has probably been because many environ~ ‘mental sociologists were drawn to the field by strong feelings that the di- rection of social change in the advanced industrial countries was nonadaptive or maladaptive in terms of environmental and resource- scarcity threats to the sustainability of human societies—or even to the Sociological Theory and the Natural Enuironment 8 survival of the human species (Catton, 1976; Schnaiberg, 1980). Thus, many early environmental sociologists shared a conviction that the ecolog- jeal expansion of modern society was undermining the very persistence of ‘modern civilization. From this perspective, changes in the economy, gov fernment, and cultural values were needed to bring societal demands on the hhatural world in line with the resources and tolerance limits on the bio- sphere. ‘THE ECOSYSTEM: HUMAN ECOLOGY REVISITED. Recognizing the limitations in a human ecology whi ‘exclusively on competitive cooperation in the spatial organization of met- ropolitan populations, a number of sociologists reworked the conceptual basis of the field during the 1950s and 1960s. Consequently, it came to be the study of interrelationships among four key properties of human eco- systems: population, organization, the environment, and technology, which are often designated as components of a “POET” model (Duncan, 1961, 1964; Sly, 1972). While this revised form still focuses on the ways by which populations are organized for sustenance or survival within dynamic and Constraining environments, the model does isolate the concept of environ- ment. ‘At times the use of the human ecological complex came close to an em bryonic form of environmental sociology, although not always with a con~ cem for the sustainability of organized social life. Duncan {1964}, for example, observed the influence of atmospheric pollution on the redistri- bution of population in Los Angeles. During and after World War Il, Los "Angeles grew rapidly as a result of its location and function as a seaport and naval base (E-0). As the Los Angeles population grew and decen- tealized (P30), the amount of particulate and gaseous substances emitted daily into the atmosphere increased, primarily as a result of increased travel in privately owned automobiles (T->E}. With increasing levels of pollution for smog in the Los Angeles Basin after 1950, the residential population decentralized even further (EP), thereby intensifying the causes of air pol- lution. Thus, Duncan's version of human ecological theory enables one £0 see the complex, reciprocal relationships among population, organization, ‘environment, and technology. ‘Other work, carried out at about the same time, examined the reciprocal effects of urbanization and the importation of raw materials and processed commodities (Gibbs and Martin, 1958, 1962). Using data from more than 440 countries, Gibbs and Martin demonstrated strong, positive statistical associations among levels of metropolitan population concentration, tech- ological development, the division of labor, and the import of natural resources. Although the fossil fuels, nonfuel minerals, and food products imported to countries with bigh levels of metropolitan population concen- focused almost “4 Handbook of Environmental Sociology tration were not considered important in the classical version of human ecosystem theory, Gibbs and Martin (1958:267) stressed “the intensive and extensive organization of effort to convert natural resources into objects of consumption is a critically important part of human effort.” Thus, the link- ages among natural resources, an ever-increasing dependence upon tech- nology, and a more complex division of labor have been recognized as important ecological processes for changing the sustenance organization of a human population ‘These and other examples in the literature (Lenski and Nolan, 1984) stuggest that human ecology can provide a useful perspective on the linkage between population and the enviconment, Nonetheless, the question of ‘whether human populations and their organizations tend toward stability or growth remains unclear. Notions about the carrying capacity of partic ular environments, the functional as well as dysfunctional forms of adap- tation (including technological innovations), and the nature of equilibrating processes remain to be adequately explored. These shortcomings, even after more than a hal century of research, have led to the renewal of vigorous criticisms during the past decade (Catton, 1980, Catton etal, 1986; Catton and Dunlap, 1980; Logan and Molocch, 1986; Micklin and Choldin, 1984}, Moreover, these criticisms and the neglect of social problems stem- ‘ming from environmental pollution and natural resource scarcity by soci ologists in human ecology and other fields have served as compelling reasons for the growth of environmental sociology during the past two decades, THE ORIGINS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY Environmental sociology, of course, did not develop in a vacuum, and human ecology served as one entry point for sociologists with a growing, interest in what would become a new field, There also was a literature on natural resources written by rural sociologists (Field and Burch, 1988), For decades rural sociologists have conducted research on agriculture, forestry, recreation, mining, and other primary industries.® Another important seg- ment of the emergent literature, especially during the 1970s, consisted of sociological analysis of the environmental movement itself (Buttel and Mor- ison, 1977; Corgrove, 1982; Humphrey and Buttcl, 1982; Sandbach, 1980}. Environmental sociologists (Burch, 1971) in the 1970s also drew extensively on the literature developed by ecological and cultural anthro- pologists (Vayda, 1969} Other literature shaping environmental sociology came from several maverick scholars who periodically attempted to stake out a sociological human ecology. Their work remained dormant amid the disinterest of the 1940-1970 sociological mainstream in matters biological, ecological, and environmental. Sorokin and Ogbuen made notable attempts earlier in the Sociological Theory and the Natural Environment 4s century (Catton, 1980), but the work of Cottrell (1955) and Firey (1960) ‘would prove to be most influential, even though Cottell's Energy and So ‘ety is now seen by many to reflec technological and environmental de terminism (Rosa and Machlis, 1983), and Firey’s Man, Mind, and Land had a highly abstract, functionalist overlay that made for difficult reading and for major problems in application to empirical research. “Two books played a particularly important role in synthesizing these transitional literatures and setting forth sociological postures relevant to modern ecological problems. Klausner’s (1971) On Man in His Environ ment was steongly structural-fuctionalist in orientation and drew, in par- ticular, on Firey's (1960) functionalist perspective. Klausner, for example, extensively focused on how diverse social science and ecological literatures could be synthesized within a functionalist framework; but structural functionalism (Parsons et al., 1953) had been under sustained attack for nearly a decade, so it is probably fair to say that Kiausner’s work was far ‘more influential in its synthesis of theoretical arguments and research find ings from many disciplines, and in its setting forth a research agenda for environmental sociology, than it was in persuading its readers about the applicability of environmental steuctural-tunctionalism. Burch's (1971) Daydreams and Nightmares shared certain theoretical and empirical common ground with Klausner’s book. Burch, like Klausner, generally stressed the importance of values and norms in shaping societal resource use—a posture typically taken to be Durkheimian in nature, Burch also admirably synthesized a wide variety of social science and ecological literatures in a manner that, if anything, was more impressive than Klaus- rner’s and, in particular, was agnostic toward Parsonian functionalism. A principal argument of Klausner’s Ow Man in His Environment was that Well established sociological theory—particularly the Parsonian theory of ‘action—was readily applicable to the sociology of environmental problems and policy, whereas Burch (1971:14-20) was critical of prevailing socio- logical theories for their inability to incorporate ecological insights. THEORETICAL ISSUES IN CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY Following Burch’s (1971, 1979) work and others (Catton and Dunlap, 1980), we have argued that the distinctive aspect of environmental social theory is its double determination in terms of general social theory on the fone hand, and metatheoretical postures toward society and nature on the other.* Both dimensions are represented in Table 2.1. The first dimension js that of theoretical postures from the major classical sociological theorists: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. The perspectives of the three major classical theorists are taken as the first axis of the typology, following the widely laccepted premise that these classical sociologies continue to pervade mod- 971) 3, Klausner (1971) Durkheim 1, Classical human ecology 2. Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) 1, Firey (1960) 2) Buel cal Roots theories of environmental 1. Mitchell (1984) Weber 2. Resource mobilization 2, Morrison (1976) 1. Perrow (1984) 1, West (1984) 1, Baran and Sweeny (1966) 1, Logan and Molotch (1386) 2. Bnzenberger (1979) 3, Hardesty et al. (1971) 1, Anderson (1976) Metatheoretical Paradigm* Human Exemptionalism Paradigm (HEP) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) [A Typology of Environmental Sociological Theory Table 2.1 Sociological Theory and the Natural Environment 9 xn sociological theory (Alford and Friedland, 1985). We recognize, none: theless, that this framework is most applicable to macro-sociology and is not adequate for representing micro-sociological theories such as phenom- ‘nology, symbolic interactionism, behaviorist social psychology, and so on. "The second dimension is a dichotomous representation of the arguments referred to by Burch (1971). One pole of the dichotomy involves the as- sumption that humans are a unique species due to their capacity for cultures hhuman societies are accordingly seen as being shaped by socio-cultural forces. The second pole of the dichotomy reflects an assumption that hu- mans are only one species among many in the biosphere; explanations of social structure and behavior must then be based, at least in part, on bio- Topical, ecological, or natural environmental forces. These poles of the con tinuum are referred to as, respectively, the Human Exemptionalismn Paradigm (HEP) and the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), following Cat- ton and Dunlap (1980). | ‘The typology in Table 2.1 yields six *ideal-types” of theoretical postures toward society and its natural environment. The table also recognizes the possibility of mixed types. For example, we categorize Dunlap and Catton 8 Weberian-Durkheimian/NEP, while Schnaiberg and Szast are placed in Z the Marxist-Weberian/NEP category. Also note that Klausner, Burch, and Firey have been assigned to the Durkheimian/NEP category, despite differ ences in their work. Other examples include traditional human ecology and Douglas and Wildavsky's (1982) work on technological risk being classified | as Durkheimian/HEP; Perrow’s (1984) work on technological risk as We- eight (ay7a) 1, Catton and Dunlap 2, Marcell (1994) exuberant Sociology," in Americon Behavioral eientst 2415-4 Ba I berian/HEP; Baran and Sweezy (1966) as MarxisHEP; Anderson (1976), sigs| = Benton (1989), Dickens (1992), Enzenberger (1979), Gor (1982), Hae gyea | &

    You might also like