Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7 Environmental Discourse- Negative

Environmental Discourse- Negative............................................................................................................................................................1 INC- Environmental Discourse....................................................................................................................................................................3 INC- Environmental Discourse....................................................................................................................................................................4 INC- Environmental Discourse....................................................................................................................................................................5 Links – Alternative Energy..........................................................................................................................................................................6 Links – Alternative Energy .........................................................................................................................................................................8 Link- Environmental Prohibitions...............................................................................................................................................................9 Link- Environmental Managerialism.........................................................................................................................................................11 Link- Environmental Managerialism.........................................................................................................................................................13 Link- Environmental Managerialism.........................................................................................................................................................14 Link- Environmental Managerialism.........................................................................................................................................................15 Link-Environmental Managerialism..........................................................................................................................................................17 Link - Managerialism.................................................................................................................................................................................18 Link – Ends Focused Policy Making.........................................................................................................................................................19 Link – Images............................................................................................................................................................................................20 Link- Protecting Biodiversity....................................................................................................................................................................22 Link-Individualized Approaches................................................................................................................................................................23 Link-Individualized Approaches................................................................................................................................................................25 Green Consumerism Link – The Earth Day Example...............................................................................................................................27 Individual Green Consumerism Bad..........................................................................................................................................................28 Link- Science.............................................................................................................................................................................................29 Link- Science and Climate Models............................................................................................................................................................30 Link-Population Crunch ............................................................................................................................................................................31 Link – Population- Resource Crunch.........................................................................................................................................................33 Link – Populations Crunch........................................................................................................................................................................34 Internal Link- Subject- Object Dichotomy................................................................................................................................................35 Internal Link  Militarization ..................................................................................................................................................................36 Internal Link – Capitalism.........................................................................................................................................................................37 Internal Link – Managerialism...................................................................................................................................................................39 Internal Link – Securitization....................................................................................................................................................................40 Internal Link – Securitization....................................................................................................................................................................41 Impact- Value to Life.................................................................................................................................................................................43 Impact – Colonialism.................................................................................................................................................................................44 Impacts – Turns Case.................................................................................................................................................................................46 Impact – Turns Case...................................................................................................................................................................................48 Impact – Turns Case...................................................................................................................................................................................50 Impact- Mass Death...................................................................................................................................................................................51 Impact- War and Colonialism....................................................................................................................................................................52 Alternative Solvency..................................................................................................................................................................................53 Alternative – Discursive Re-Framing/Resistance......................................................................................................................................54

-1-

Environmental Discourse Michigan 7 Week 08 Alternative- Micro Resistance...................................................................................................................................................................55 Representations Key..................................................................................................................................................................................56 Alternative- Ecological Revolution...........................................................................................................................................................57 Alternative- Eco- Resistance......................................................................................................................................................................58 A2 Permutation .........................................................................................................................................................................................60 A2 Framework ..........................................................................................................................................................................................61 A2 Framework...........................................................................................................................................................................................63 AT Perm: “We Help People”......................................................................................................................................................................64 AT Perm: “We access the case”.................................................................................................................................................................66

-2-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7 INC- Environmental Discourse

Link - The plan’s discourse of necessary environmental sustainability serves as a justification for the state to exercise managerial power Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)
A political, economic, and technical incitement to talk about ecology, environments, and Nature, first surfaced as the social project of "environmentalism" during the 1960s in the United States, but it plainly has become far more pronounced in the 1990s. Not much of this takes the form of general theory, because most of its practices have been instead steered toward analysis, stock taking, and classification in quantitative, causal, and humanistic studies. Nonetheless, one can follow Foucault by exploring how mainstream

environmentalism in the United States operates as "a whole series of different tactics that combined in varying proportions the objective of disciplining the body and that of regulating populations."3 The project of "sustainability," whether one speaks of sustainable development, growth or use in relation to Earth's ecologies, embodies this new responsibility for the life processes in the American state's rationalized harmonization of political economy with global ecology as a form of green geo-politics.
These interconnections become even more intriguing in the aftermath of the Cold War. Having won the long twilight struggle against communist totalitarianism, the United States is governed by leaders who now see "Earth in the balance," arguing that global ecologies incarnate what is best and worst in the human spirit. On the one hand, economists, industrialists, and political leaders increasingly tend to represent the strategic terrain of the post-1991 world system as one on which all nations must compete ruthlessly to control the future development of the world economy by developing new technologies, dominating more markets, and exploiting every national economic asset. However, the phenomenon of "failed states," ranging from basket cases like Rwanda, Somalia or Angola to crippled entities like Ukraine, Afghanistan or Kazakhstan, often is attributed to the severe environmental frictions associated with the (un)wise (ab)use of Nature by ineffective strategies for creating economic growth.4 Consequently, environmental protection issues--ranging from resource conservation to sustainable development to ecosystem restoration--are getting greater consideration in the name of creating jobs, maintaining growth, or advancing technological development.

Taking "ecology" into account, then, creates discourses on "the environment" that derive not only from morality, but from rationality as well. As humanity has faced "the limits of growth" and heard "the population bomb" ticking away, ecologies and environments became something more than what one must judge morally; they became things that state must administer. Ecology has evolved into "a public potential; it called for management procedures; it had to be taken charge of by analytical discourses," as it was recognized in its environmentalized manifestations to be "a police matter"--"not the repression of disorder, but an ordered maximization of collective and individual forces."5

-3-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7 INC- Environmental Discourse

Impact –This new form of bio-political control seeks to expand its center in an attempt to discipline using ecology as its Trojan horse Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 142-44
The ideas advanced by various exponents of sustainable development discourse are intriguing. And, perhaps if they were implemented in the spirit that their originators intended, the ecological situation of the Earth might improve. Yet, even after two decades of heeding the theory and practice of such eco-knowledge, sustainable development mostly has not happened, and it most likely will not happen, even though its advocates continue to be celebrated as visionaries. Encircled by grids of

ecological alarm, sustainability discourse tells us that today’s allegedly unsustainable environments need to be disassembled, recombined and subjected to the disciplinary designs of expert management. Enveloped in such enviro-disciplinary frames, any environment could be redirected to fulfil the ends of other economic scripts, managerial directives and administrative writs denominated in
sustainability values. Sustainability, then, engenders its own forms of ‘environmentality’, which would embed alternative instrumental rationalities beyond those of pure market calculation in the policing of ecological spaces. Initially, one can argue that the modern regime of bio-power formation described by Foucault was not especially attentive to the role of nature in the equations of biopolitics (Foucault 1976: 138—42). The controlled tactic of inserting human bodies into the machineries

of industrial and agricultural production as part and parcel of strategically adjusting the growth of human populations to the development of industrial capitalism, however, did generate systems of bio-power. Under such regimes, power/knowledge systems bring ‘life and
its mechanisms into the realm of explicit calculations’, making the manifold disciplines of knowledge and discourses of power into new sorts of productive agency as part of the ‘transformation of human life’ (ibid. 145). Once this threshold was crossed, social experts began to recognize how the environmental interactions of human economics, politics and technologies continually put all human beings’ existence as living beings in question. Foucault divides the environmental realm into

two separate but interpenetrating spheres of action: the biological and the historical. For most of human history, the biological dimension, or forces of nature acting through disease and famine, dominated human existence, with the ever present menace of death.
Developments in agricultural technologies, as well as hygiene and health techniques, however, gradually provided some relief from starvation and plague by the end of the eighteenth century. As a result, the historical dimension began to grow in importance, as ‘the development of the different fields of

knowledge concerned with life in general, the improvement of agricultural techniques, and the observations and measures relative to man’s life and survival contributed to this relaxation: a relative control over life averted some of the imminent risks of death’ (ibid. 142). The historical then began to envelop, circumscribe or surround the biological, creating interlocking disciplinary expanses for ‘the environmental’. And these environmentalized settings quickly came to dominate all forms of concrete human reality: ‘in the space of
movement thus conquered, and broadening and organising that space, methods of power and knowledge assumed responsibility for the life processes and undertook to control and modify them’ (ibid.). While Foucault does not explicitly define these spaces, methods and knowledges as ‘environmental’, these enviro-disciplinary manoeuvres are the origin of many aspects of environmentalization. As biological life is refracted through economic, political and technological existence, ‘the facts of life’ pass into fields of control for any discipline of eco-knowledge and spheres of intervention for the management of geo-power. Foucault recognized how these

shifts implicitly raised ‘ecological issues’ to the extent that they disrupted and redistributed the understandings provided by the classical episteme for defining human interactions with nature. Living became environmentalized as humans, or ‘a specific living being, and specifically
related to other living beings’ (ibid. 143), began to articulate their historical and biological life in profoundly new ways from within artificial cities and mechanical modes of production. Environmentalization arose from ‘this dual position of life that placed it at the same time outside history, in its biological environment, and inside human historicity, penetrated by the latter’s techniques of knowledge and power’ (ibid.). Strangely, even as he makes this linkage, Foucault does not develop these ecological insights, suggesting that ‘there is no need to lay further stress on the proliferation of political technologies that ensued, investing the body, health, modes of subsistence and habitation, living conditions, the whole space of existence’ (ibid. 143—4). Even so, Foucault here found the conjunction needed for ‘the environment’ to emerge as an eco-knowledge formation and/or a cluster of eco-power tactics for an envirodiscipline. As human beings begin consciously to wager their life as a species on the products of their biopolitical strategies and technological systems, a few recognize that they are also wagering the lives of other, or all, species as well. While Foucault regards this shift as just one of many lacunae in his analysis, everything changes as human bio-power systems interweave their operations in the biological environment, penetrating the workings of many ecosystems with the techniques of knowledge and power. Once human power/knowledge formations become the foundation of industrial society’s economic development, they also become a major factor in all terrestrial life-forms’ continued physical survival. Eco-knowledge about geo-power thus becomes through enviro-disciplines a strategic technology that reinvests human bodies — their means of health, modes of subsistence, and styles of habitation integrating the whole space of existence — with bio-historical significance. It then reframes them within their bio-physical environments, which are now also filled with various animal and plant bodies positioned in geo-physical settings, as essential elements in managing the health of any human ecosystem’s carrying capacity.

-4-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7 INC- Environmental Discourse

Alternative - Domination is perpetuated by the ability of those in power to define the discursive framing of the field of contestation. Neither corporate managerialism nor traditional environmental activism has any hope of securing lasting change in contemporary environmental debates – literally the ONLY hope for change is a representational strategy like ours. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, June-July 2003, Alternatives,
p. 413-14
These new modes of existence present us with an opportunity. A world where one asks, “What are world politics?” and then fundamentally doubts all the answers about what the political world is taken to be gives both individuals and groups the opportunity to transform their spaces for effective action. Those who dominate the world exploit their positions to their advantage by defining how the world is known. Unless they also face resistance, questioning, and challenge from those who are dominated, they certainly will remain the dominant forces. Looked at by itself, the neat division of the world into the realms of international relations and environmental affairs remains somewhat colorless. Such terms continuously remediate our most common modes of interpretation, as they now prevail in the world. Indeed, this language spins particular words—globalization, sustainability, development—into either important choke points or major rights-of-way in the flows of political discourse. The connections between international relations and the environment assume considerable importance in the 2000s because much of the world’s ecology has deteriorated so rapidly during the past ten, thirty, or fifty years. This omnipolitanizing deterioration, in fact, has spread so quickly that neither green fundamentalist preservationism nor corporate capitalist conservationism can do much to solve the pressing ecological problems of the present. Now, after the industrial revolution, nowhere in the world holds out against machines; high technology is everywhere. After two world wars, few places anywhere in the world hold onto traditional formulas of authority; liberal democracy is spreading everywhere. After the Cold War, nowhere seriously holds forth as a real alternative to the market; corporate capitalism is everywhere. So only a truly critical approach to international relations and the environment can unravel why these forces interact, and maybe correct how they create ecological destruction. Improving the understanding of international relations as a scholarly discipline is one possible response to this new context. Strangely enough, the dysfunction of markets and states is a key constituent component of the contemporary world system’s environmental crisis.

-5-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Links – Alternative Energy

The affirmative’s attempt to regulate and control the environment is a method of transforming earth into a theme park for humanity. Once we sacrifice the natural unpredictability inherent to the environment, we sacrifice the very human experience created by it. Parker 96 (Kelly A. Parker, Pragmatism and Environmental Thought, in Environmental Pragmatism 21, 25 (Andrew
Light & Eric Katz eds., 1996). (1) For the pragmatist, the environment is above all not something "out there," somehow separate from us, standing ready to be used up or preserved as we deem necessary. As the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty said, "Our own body is in

the world as the heart is in the organism".17 We cannot talk about environment without talking about experience, the most basic term in pragmatism. All that we or any being can feel, know, value, or believe in, from the most concrete fact ("I am cold") to the most abstract or transcendental idea ("Justice," "God"), has its meaning, first of all, in some aspect of an immediately felt here and now. Environment, in the most basic sense, is the field where experience occurs, where my life and the lives of others arise and take place. Experience, again, is not merely subjective. It has its "subjective" side, but experience as such is just another name for the manifestation of what is. What is is the ongoing series of transactions between organisms and their environments. The quality of experience - whether life is rich or sterile, chaotic or orderly, harsh or pleasant - is determined at least as much by the quality of the environment involved as by what the organism brings to the encounter. Environment is as much a part of each of us as we are parts of the environment, and moreover, each of us is a part of the environment - a part of experience - with which other beings have to contend. In asserting the fundamental relatedness among organisms and environments, pragmatism commits us to
treating all environments with equal seriousness. Urban and rural; wilderness, park and city; ocean and prairie; housing project, hospital and mountain trail - all are places where experience unfolds. The world, in this view, is a continuum of various environments. Endangered environments perhaps rightly occupy our attention first, but environmental philosophy and ecological science are at bottom attempts to understand all the environments we inhabit. Attention to the whole continuum of environments allows us to put into perspective what is truly valuable about each. The environments we inhabit directly affect the kinds of lives that we and others can live. There is an unfortunate tendency to draw crassly instrumentalist conclusions from this line of thought. I want to caution against this tendency. If environment "funds" experience, this reasoning might go, then let us use technology to

turn the whole world into an easily manageable, convenient stock of environments that conduce to pleasant human experiences. This Theme Park: Earth line of thinking neglects our inherent limitations as finite parts of the world, and sets us up for disaster. Repeated attempts to dominate nature (e.g., our damming the Nile and its damning us right back, or our tragicomic' efforts to "tame" the atom) should have begun to teach us something about the limits of human intelligence. Such attempts to dominate nature assume that no part of the environment in question is beyond the field of settled experience. We can indeed exert remarkable control over parts of the experienced world, remaking it to suit our purposes. This may be appropriate, if our purposes make sense in the first place. (I know of no reason to object to the
prudent use of natural gas to heat our homes, for example.) But the very idea that the environment funds experience involves the notion that there is an ineffable aspect of the world. It is indeed arrogant to think that we can master nature; it is moreover

delusional and ultimately self-negating. If we have our being in the ongoing encounter with environment, then to will that the environment become a fully settled, predictable thing, a mere instrumental resource in which there can be no further novelty, is to will that we undergo no further growth in experience. The attempt to dominate nature completely is thus an attempt to annihilate the ultimate source of our growth, and hence to annihilate ourselves.

Despite their laudable goals, regimes of alternative energy frame the Earth as nothing more than a standing reserve which, instead of being exploited quickly, is preserved to be rendered perpetually useful to humanity. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 146-47
The application of enviro-discipline expresses the authority of eco-knowledgeable, geo-powered forces to police the fitness of all biological organisms and the health of their natural environments. Master concepts, like ‘survival’ or ‘sustainability’ for species and their habitats, empower these masterful conceptualizers to inscribe the biological/cultural/economic order of the Earth’s many territories as an elaborate array of environments, requiring continuous enviro-discipline to guarantee ecological fitness. The survival agenda, as Gates argues, ‘applies simultaneously to individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystems; and it applies simultaneously to the present and the future’ (Gates 1989: 148). When approached through this mind-set, the planet Earth becomes an immense engine, or the human race’s ‘ecological life-support system’, which has ‘with only occasional localised failures’ provided ‘ services upon which human society depends consistently and without charge’ (Cairns 1995). As this environmentalized engine, the Earth then generates ‘ecosystem services’, or those derivative products and functions of natural systems that human societies perceive as valuable (Westmen 1978). This complex is what must survive; human life will continue if such survival-promoting services continue. They include the generation of soils, the regeneration of plant nutrients, capture of solar energy, conversion of solar energy into biomass, accumulation/purification! distribution of water, control of pests, provision of a genetic library, maintenance of breathable air, control of micro- and macroclimates, pollination of plants, diversification of animal species, development of buffering mechanisms in catastrophes and aesthetic enrichment (Cairns 1995). As an environmental engine, the planet’s ecology requires ecoengineers to guide its sustainable use, and systems of green governmentality must be adduced to monitor and manage the system of systems which produce all these robust services. Just as the sustained use of technology ‘requires that it be maintained, updated and

-6-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

changed periodically’, so too does the ‘sustainable use of the planet require that we not destroy our ecological capital, such as oldgrowth forests, streams and rivers (with their associated biota), and other natural amenities’ (ibid.3). Survival is the key value.

-7-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Links – Alternative Energy
Protections for biodiversity are motivated by attempts to preserve “nature” for exploitation in the future Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 73-74
These aesthetic appeals, however, to preserve lands and scenery in keeping with the Conservancy’s initial organizational agendas, just mystify the organization’s more recent objectives of preserving biodiversity. Scenery provides legitimation, land creates a containment area, and rare ecosystems constitute storage sites for precious biogenetic information. Thus, these memorial parks for “nature conservancy more importantly are becoming a network of cryogennic depots. Inside their boundaries, natural wetware accepts deposits as genome banks, accumulating bioplasmic memory on the hoof, at the roots, under the bark, and in the soil of Nature Conservancy protection actions. Nature is dead, but its environmental remains are put into a cryogenic statis until some future day when science and technology can bring the full productive potential out of them that escapes human development now. At that point, they too will be released from their frozen state to become the trade lands of tomorrow, as some snail, lichen, or bug is discovered to hold a cure for cancer or the common cold. Under the guidance of Bob Jenkins’s biodiversity plan, Nature has been transmogrified from the matter and space hoarded by the Ecologist’s Union into informational codes and biospheric addresses archived by The Nature Conservancy. Plants and animals become more than endangered flowers or threatened fish; they become unknown and unexploited economic resources essential to human survival. “Of all the plants and animals we know on this earth,” as one Conservancy supporter testifies, “only one in a hundred has been tested for possible benefit. And the species we have not even identified yet far outnumber those that we have. We destroy them before we discover them and determine how they might be useful.”44 Conservancy preserves, then, are biodiversity collection centers, allowing a free-enterprise-minded foundation to suspend their native flora and fauna in an ecologically correct deep freeze until scientists can assay the possible worth of the ninety-nine untested species out of each hundred banked in these preserves.45 Meanwhile, grizzly bears, bald eagles, and spotted owls provide high visibility entertainment value in its preserves for ecotourists, Conservancy members, and outdoor recreationists all seeking to enjoy such Edenic spaces. In “preserving Eden,” the Conservancy more importantly is guarding the bioplasmic source codes that enable the wetware of life to recapitulate its existence in the timeless routines of birth, life, reproduction, and death.46 Such riches can only be exploited slowly, but they cannot be developed at all unless today’s unchecked consumption of everything everywhere is contained by Nature Conservancy protection actions bringing the world economy to an absolute zero point of inactivity in these Edenic expanses of the global environment.

-8-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link- Environmental Prohibitions
Practices of environmental protection employ governmentality and biopolitics by engaging in the disciplining and punishing of the population. Ronnie D Lipschutz, professor of politics at the university of California-santa cruz, Global Environmental Politics: Power, Perspectives, and Practice, 2004, pg. 83-85

Governnientality and Biopolitics: Bringing Power Back In? Those environmental philosophies that resist domination are linked to power relations among humans, and between humans and nature. As we saw earlier in this chapter and in Chapter 1, there is more than one dimension of power, which is not something that can be simply accumulated or distributed, as are money or artifacts or weapons. Nevertheless, all of the “antidomination” philosophies discussed so far seek to oppose and resist power in its first dimension— usually the power of capital and the state—in the view that the ideal society is one in which power is evenly and fairly distributed or from which it has been banished. If the unjust exercise of power could be eliminated, goes the implicit argument, not only would intraspecific domination cease (among people), so would interspecific domination (between people and nature). There is, however, a problem with this argument: it denatures or dismisses politics, so to speak. If politics is fundamentally about power, rather than the distribution of resources, equalizing or eliminating power would have the effect of doing away with politics. In such a society, everyone would have to hold the same beliefs and values, and all decisions would have already been made. It would be either a harmonious society or a totalitarian one. It might be both. It is useful, therefore, to examine one final approach to the problem of power, domination, and the environment, based on the work of Michel Foucault.102 Although Foucault said many relevant things about both power and nature separately, he never wrote explicitly about the environment. He did, however, write about power and domination and, in particular, the propensity of some men to manage both other men and things so as to order them. He called this practice “governmentality.” 103 Government is not the same as politics; it is better understood as those practices that constitute governing of “a sort of complex of men and things” within a state. As Foucault explained it, “The things with which in this sense government is to be concerned are in fact men, but men in their relations, their links, their imbrication with those other things which are wealth, resources, means of subsistence, the territory with its specific qualities, climate, irrigation, fertility, etc.; lastly, men in their relations to that other kind of things, accidents and misfortunes such as famine, epidemics, death, etc.” 104 In Foucault’s analysis, power is not merely something that some men wield over others, it is also something that “induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse.” 105 Power flows between people, it constitutes them, it makes them who they are, and it influences how they behave. This is the case even when power is not visible as influence, coercion, or force. Domination becomes not the exercise of power by some people over others and nature but is the result of people acting as they have been produced by power circulating through what Foucault called the “capillaries” of society. In effect, governmentality becomes a way of managing those things that are seen to threaten the welfare of that which is governed. This is accomplished through what Foucault called biopolitics. According to Mitchell Dean, a scholar of Foucault and governmentality, biopolitics “is concerned with matters of life and death, with birth and propagation, with health and illness, both physical and mental, and with the processes that sustain or retard the optimization of the life of a population.” 106 It is about management of the biological functions and social practices of homogeneous populations. Dean goes on to say: “Bio-politics must then also concern the social, cultural, environmental, economic and geographic conditions under which humans live, procreate, become ill, maintain health or become healthy, and die. From this perspective bio-politics is concerned with the family, with housing, living and working conditions, with what we call “lifestyle’ with public health issues, patterns of migration, levels of economic growth and the standards of living. It is concerned with the bio-sphere in which humans dwell.’07” To put this another way, all those institutions and practices concerned with exploiting, managing, and protecting the environment, including international environmental regimes and regulated markets, are expressions of biopolitics. They are all concerned with the management of human behavior and populations so as to maintain the material base of life, that is, the global environment. Unlike the other philosophies discussed in this section, environmental governmentality and biopolitics take power as an essential part of human social structures and relations. Power cannot be eliminated; at best, it can help to produce effects that are less dominating, less oppressive, less manipulative, and more protective of both human welfare and nature. But it does not take much to move from arrangements in which power is productive to those in which power is oppressive: one could easily imagine a system of global environmental governmentality in which nature is protected but each individual’s every action is subject to surveillance, discipline, and punishment. That might be too high a price to pay to achieve a cleaner environment.’08

The cataloguing and control of consumptive habits is the justification for massive state intervention and domination of capitalist society Timothy W. Luke, professor of political science at Virginia polytechnic institute and state university, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing from Marx, 1999, pg. 71-72

This comodifying circuit of commodified reproduction elaborates the essential logic of “consummativity,” which anchors this entire system. Instead of maintaining the irreducible tension between the public and private spheres that liberal economic and legal theory accept as true to accept the individual contingency of rational living, the public and private have collapsed into commodifying circuits of identity all across the technosphere in the coding systems of corporate-managed consummativity. The collective imperatives of the firm or the state are in turn internalized by individuals in the form of personalized tastes of consumption in the family, firm, and mass public. Such identity linkages allow the state and firm to regulate the economic and ecological existence of individuals closely, inasmuch as most persons now desire the “needs” extended to them as rewarding reified scripts of normal behavior written by the media, mass education, or professional experts and as the packages of mass-produced material goods made available by corporate commerce.20 Yet these individual “needs” also are simultaneously required by the contemporary state and corporate firm as comodifying forces of organization, direction, and value. The aggregate possibility for economic growth and the specific quality of commodity claims implied by these individual needs taken en masse are the productive forces guaranteeing further development in today’s transnational corporate system of capitalist production. The underlying codes of technified consummativity in corporate

-9-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

capitalism rarely manifest themselves openly. They are masked instead as democratic social and economic revolutions “rooted in the democratic alibi of universals,” like convenience, modernity, growth, utility or progress. As Baudrillard suggests, consummativity presents itself “as a function of human needs, and thus a universal empirical function. Objects, goods, services, all this ‘responds’ to the universal motivations of the social and individual anthropos. On this basis one could even argue (the leitmotiv of the ideologues of consumption) that its function is to correct the social inequalities of a stratified society: confronting the hierarchy of power and social origins, there would be a democracy of leisure, of the expressway and the refrigerator.”21 In a sense, then, as the inchoate mass demands for a better “standard of living” in the “velvet revolutions” of Eastern Europe during 1989—91 illustrate, corporate capital can still pose successfully as a revolutionary vanguard for those who want more bananas, autos, oranges, and washing machines. Speaking on behalf of deprived consumers, and challenging the apparently more oppressive stratification, inequality, and material deprivation of all other forms of precapitalist or anticapitalist society, the new class offers the promise of complete economic democracy, social equality, and material abundance. This pledge is legitimated by the expansive corporate collateral of sparkling new material goods, exciting cultural events, and satisfying social services.

-10-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link- Environmental Managerialism
Contemporary environmentalism discursively constructs the natural world as in need of the saving grace of state intervention, rendering “nature” vulnerable to its expert management and regimes of calculation. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,1999, Discourses of the Environment, p. 121-22
In the USA, playing off stereotypes of ‘the environmentalist’, ranging from the limousine liberal to the Sierra Club backpacker to Earth First! monkey-wrenchers, ‘wise use’ anti-environmentalism feeds on the self-evidence of mass media coverage on the environment. Because elitist do-gooders and wacko tree-sitters allegedly agitate to trade off people’s jobs against the survival of spotted owls, snail darters, or desert tortoises, the Wise Use/Property Rights movement in the USA pumps up these images from the six o’clock news as its essential credo: environmental protection is costing jobs and undermining the American economy. Therefore, it is right to have moved, as one of its key organizers, Ron Arnold, puts it, to declare a ‘holy war against the new pagans who worship trees and sacrifice people’ (Helvarg 1994: 12). The self-evidence of radical fringe environmentalists abridging fundamental property rights to realize their foolish pagan fantasies of resource non-use, as depicted in any network television send-up of such ecosubversives, gives ordinary Americans causus belli to retaliate in the name of economic rationality and sound governance. Following Michel Foucault, this study comes out against the self-evidence of the six o’clock news to breach the Wise Use/Property Rights movement’s invocation of such historical constants, obvious prerogatives or basic rights as their justification for anti-environmentalism. Rather than seeing mainstream or radical environmentalism so self-evidently as a distemper of foolish resource non-use when it comes to nature, this study provisionally suggests that most environmentalist movements now operate as a basic manifestation of governmentality. Indeed, this ‘green governmentality’, which the Wise Use/Property Rights movement occasionally decries, would seem to be the latest phase in a solid series of statist practices beginning in the eighteenth century. Thus, this analysis is ‘a breach of

self-evidence’, and particularly ‘of those self-evidences on which our knowledges, acquiescences, and practices rest’ (Foucault, in Burchell et al. 1991: 76), during a time in which the US Speaker of the House and the entire 104th Congress act as if they are Ron Arnold’s closest allies in the holy war against environmental protection. As it is
discursively constructed by contemporary technoscience, the art of government now finds ‘the principles of its rationality’ and ‘the specific reality of the state’ (Foucault 199 la: 97), like the policy programmes of sustainable development, balanced growth or ecological harmony for its many constituent populations of human and non-human beings, in the systemic requirements of ecology.

Government comes into its own when it has the welfare of a population, the improvement of its condition, the increase of its wealth, longevity, health and so on, as its object. And ecology gives rational governments all of life’s biodiversity to
reformat as ‘endangered populations’, needing various state ministrations as objects of managerial control ignorant of what is being done to them as part and parcel of ‘a range of absolute new tactics and techniques’(ibid. 100). Ecology simply crystallizes the

latest phase of the ‘three movements: government, population, political economy, which constitute. . . a solid series, one which even today has assuredly not been dissolved’ (ibid. 102) in the formations of green governmentality.

They re-establish the subject object dichotomy – in their politics, a subjectivized Nature is a blank slate that humanity draws its collective visions of salvation upon, using it as nothing more than a means to an end Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 15-16
Deep ecology’s ultimate value of self-realization claims to go “beyond the modern Western self which is defined as an isolated ego striving primarily for hedonistic gratification or for a narrow sense of individual salvation in this life or the next.”51 Real selfhood, it is claimed, derives from human unity with Nature, realizing our mature personhood and uniqueness with all other human and nonhuman forms of being. Humanity must be “naturalized”; that is, the “human self” is not an atomistic ego, but a species-being and a Nature-being as a self-in-Self, “where Self stands for organic wholeness.”52 Here, the essence of Nature, to a large extent, would appear to be a projection of an idealized humanity onto the natural world. Nature is “humanized” in a myth of subjectivity to change human behavior. The reanimation of Nature in deep ecology extends this selfhood to all natural entities—rocks, bacteria, trees, clouds, river systems, animals—and permits the realization of their inner essence. As deep ecology depicts it, and as Georg Lukacs would observe, Nature here refers to authentic humanity, the true essence of man liberated from the false, mechanizing forms of society: man as a perfected whole who inwardly has overcome, or is in the process of overcoming, the dichotomies of theory and practice, reason and the senses, form and content; man whose tendency to create his own forms does not imply an abstract rationalism which ignores concrete content; man for whom freedom and necessity are identical.53 Nature in this myth of subjectivity becomes for humanity the correct mediation of its acting that can generate a new, more just totality. Deep ecologists, however, cannot really enter into an intersubjective discourse with rocks, rivers, or rhinos, despite John Muir’s injunction to think like glaciers or mountains when confronting Nature. “The meditative deep questioning process” might allow humanity “an identification which goes beyond humanity to include the nonhuman world.”54 A hypostatization of self in human species being, whales, grizzlies, rain forests, mountains, rivers, and bacteria is no more than the individual’s identification of his/her self with those particular aspects of Nature that express their peculiar human liberation. This ideological appropriation, in turn, is always (human) self-serving. One must ask, Is humanity naturalized in such self-realization or is Nature merely humanized to the degree that its components promote human

-11-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

“maturity and growth”? This vision of self-realization appears to go beyond a modern Western notion of self tied to hedonistic gratification, but it does not transcend a narrow sense of individual salvation in this life or the next. Nature in deep ecology becomes humanity’s transcendent identical subject-object. By projecting selfhood into Nature, humans are saved by finding their selfmaturation and spiritual growth in it. These goals are found in one’s life by in-dwelling psychically and physically in organic wholeness, as well as in the next life by recognizing that one may survive (physically in fact) within other humans, whales, grizzlies, rain forests, mountains, rivers, and bacteria or (psychically in faith) as an essential part of an organic whole. Nature, then, becomes ecosophical humanity’s alienated self-understanding, partly reflected back to itself and selectively perceived as self-realization, rediscovered in selected biospheric processes.

-12-

Environmental Discourse Week 08
Link- Environmental Managerialism

Michigan 7

Link- Environmental Managerialism
Managing natural resources inevitably entails rehabilitation managerialism because of the constant need for capital to expand – protecting one resource today only ensures that another is exploited tomorrow Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Spring 2003, Aurora Online,
http://aurora.icaap.org/2003Interviews/luke.html, accessed December 10, 2004 Resource managerialism can be read as the essence of today's enviro-mentality. While voices in favour of conservation can be found in
Europe early in the 19th century, there is a self-reflexive establishment of this stance in the United States in the late 19th century. From the 1880's to the 1920's, one saw the closing of the western frontier. And whether one looks at John Muir's preservationist programs or Gifford Pinchot's conservationist code, there is a spreading awareness of modern industry's power to deplete nature's stock of raw materials, which sparks wide-spread worries about the need to find systems for conserving their supply from such unchecked exploitation. Consequently, nature's stocks of materials are rendered down to resources, and the presumptions of resourcification become conceptually and operationally well entrenched in conservationist philosophies. The fundamental premises of resource managerialism in many ways have not changed over the past century. At best, this code of practice has only become more formalized in many governments' applications and legal interpretations. Working with the managerial vision of the second industrial revolution, which tended to empower technical experts like engineers or scientists, who had gotten their degrees from agricultural schools, mining schools, technology schools like the one I work at, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, which prides itself as they say on producing the worker bees of industry. Or, on the shop floor and professional managers, one found corporate executives and financial officers in the main office, who are of course trained in business schools. Put together, resource managerialism casts corporate

administrative frameworks over nature in order to find the supplies needed to feed the economy and provision society through national and international markets. As scientific forestry, range management, and mineral extraction took hold in the U.S. during this era, an ethos of battling scarcity guided professional training, corporate profit making, and government policy. As a result, the operational
agendas of what was called sustained yield were what directed the resource managerialism of the 20th century. In reviewing the enabling legislation of key federal agencies, one quickly discovers that the values and practices of resourcification anchor their institutional missions in a sustained yield philosophy. As Cortner and Moote observe, the statutory mandates for both the Forest Service, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the National Forest Management Act, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, for example, specifically direct these agencies to employ a multiple use sustained yield approach to resource management. More often than not, however, these agencies adjusted their multiple use concept to correspond to their primary production objective -- timber in the case of the Forest Service, grazing in terms of the Bureau of Land Management. Although sustained help is not specifically mentioned in the legislated mandate of agencies such as the National Parks Service or the Bureau of Reclamation, they too have traditionally managed for maximum sustained yield of a single resource - visitor use in the case of the parks, water supply in the case of water resources. So the ethos of resourcification imagined nature as a vast input/output

system. The mission statements of sustained yield pushed natural resource management towards realizing the maximum maintainable output up to or past even the point where one reached ecological collapse, which in turn of course caused wide-spread ecological degradation, which leads to the project of rehabilitation managerialism. The acknowledgement of ecological degradation is not tremendously difficult.
Indeed, the will to manage environments arises from this wide-spread recognition back in the 19th century. One obvious outcome of building and then living around the satanic mills of modern industrial capitalism was pollution of the air, water, and land. As it continued and spread, the health of humans, plants, and wildlife obviously suffered, while soils and waters were poisoned. Yet the imperatives of economic growth typically drove these processes of degradation until markets fell, technologies changed, or the ecosystem collapsed. At that juncture, business and government leaders, working at the local, regional, and national level, were faced with hard choices about either relocating people and settlements in industry to start these cycles of degradation anew, or maybe rehabilitating those existing economic and environmental assets to revitalize their resource extractive or commodity producing potential. Rehabilitation management then is about keeping production going in one way or another. Agricultural lands that once produced wheat might be turned to dairy production or low-end fibre outputs. Polluted water courses, poisoned soils, and poverty-stricken workers can all be remobilized in environmental rehabilitation schemes to revive aquatic ecologies, renew soil productivity, and replenish bank accounts. The engagements of rehabilitation management are to find a commodifiable or at least a valuable possibility in the brown fields of agricultural excess and industrial exhaustion. Even after decades of abuse, there are useful possibilities that always lie dormant in slag heaps, derelict factories, overused soil, polluted waterways, and rust belt towns. Management must search for and then implement strategies for their rehabilitation. Such operations can shift agricultural uses, refocus industrial practices, turn lands into eco-preserves, and retrain workers. But the goals here are not return ecosystems to some pristine natural state. On the contrary, its agendas are those of sustaining the yields of production. Of course, what will be yielded and at what levels it is sustained and for which environmental ends all remains to be determined. On the one hand, the motives of rehabilitation management are quite rational, because these moves delay or even cancel the need to sacrifice other lands, air, and soil preserves at other sites. Thus nature is perhaps protected elsewhere or at large by renewing industrial brown fields in agriculturalized domains for some ongoing project of industrial growth. On the other hand, rehabilitation

managerialism may only shift the loci and the foci of damage, rehabilitating eco-systemic degradation caused in one commodity chain, while simply redirecting the inhabitants of these sites to suffer new, albeit perhaps more regulated and rational levels, of environmental contamination in other commodity chains. If one doesn't want to rehabilitate what has been ruined, one can then perhaps get into restoring it.

-13-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link- Environmental Managerialism

Environmental management is the new form of biopolitics – a discourse of control and discipline that seeks to create and monitor properly ecologically-minded subjects that internalize the operations of biopolitics. Eric Darier, Research Associate at the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University, 1999, Discourses of
the Environment, p. 22-25
This concern for life (‘biopolitics’) identified by Foucault is largely anthropocentric, in that the prime target is the control of all aspects of human life, especially the conditions for human biological reproduction. Current environmental concerns could be seen as an extension of ‘biopolitics’,

broadened to all life-forms and called ‘ecopolitics’ (Rutherford 1993). On this scenario, the normalizing strategy of ecopolitics is the most recent attempt to extend control (‘management’) to the entire planet (Sachs 1993). In this context, the promotion of ecocentrism by deep
ecology, for example, can be seen as not only a critique of prevalent, increasing instrumental control of the natural world, but as inserting itself very well into the new normalizing strategy of an ecopolitics. My point here should not be interpreted as a negative evaluation of deep ecology per se. Instead, I want to illustrate the complexity of power relations and the constant dangers — but also opportunities — lurking in the field of power. In this context, the adoption of a Manichaean approach to environmental ‘issues’ by many environmental theorists fails to acknowledge that their tactic of environmental resistance is always what de Certeau calls ‘maneuver “within the enemy’s field of vision”,’ and cannot be positioned

as a referential ‘externality’ (de Certeau 1984: 37). This is why Foucault’s genealogical approach is so important for an environmental critique. Foucault’s approach to ‘space’ is the third concept which might also be extremely relevant to an
environmental critique. Foucault explored the problematization of ‘space’ within a historical context (Foucault 1984e; 1989d: 99—106). According to the framework of governmentality, the ‘security’ of the state is guaranteed not so much directly by the control of a territory (space), but rather through the increasing control of the population living in that territory. In fact, Foucault suggested that at the beginning of the seventeenth century the government of France started to ‘think of its territory on the model of the city’. According to Foucault, The city was no longer perceived as a place of privilege, as an exception in a territory of fields, forests and roads Instead, the cities, with the problems that they raised, and the particular forms that they took, served as the models for the governmental rationality that was to apply to the whole of the territory. A state will be well organised when a system of policing as tight and efficient as that of the cities extends over the entire territory. (Foucault 1984b: 241) Consequently, one historical rupture which became a condition for the environmental ‘crisis’ was the attempt to extend the system of social control in place in the cities to the countryside. This historical analysis of the increasing control of the non-urban space (the more ‘natural’ environment) is similar to the critique of social ecologists who might agree with Foucault that the domestication of nature was part of a system of (urban) power relations among humans which had for its objective the maintenance of the given social order (Bookchin 1982). As the environmental ‘crisis’ was one of the results of specific power relations — such as social inequalities and political hierarchy — it would presumably have to be addressed before — or at least at the same time as — the environmental ‘crisis’. Obviously, deep ecologists, like George Sessions, would interpret this focus on human issues as the continuation of anthropocentrism which created the environmental ‘crisis’ in the first place (Sessions 1995b). Locating Foucault with social ecologists against deep ecologists is not accurate either. Foucault’s studies of the emergence and rise of ‘human sciences’ in the context of governmentality — as a specific ‘reason of state’ based on security — could also be the basis for a critique of anthropocentrism. However, unlike deep ecologists, Foucault would not suggest replacing anthropocentrism by ecocentricism, which also presents its own set of traps. For example, Foucault would probably agree with Timothy Luke’s

critique of ecocentrism (i.e. anti/non-anthropocentrism) as being also, ultimately, a humanly constructed category which is policed by all-too-human ecocentrists. Justifying human actions in the name of ‘nature’ leaves the unresolved problem of whose (human) voice can legitimately speak for ‘nature’ and the inherent dangers of such an approach. As Luke remarks admirably, deep ecology could function as a new strategy of power for normalising new ecological subjects — human and non-human — in disciplines of self-effacing
moral consciousness. In endorsing self-expression as the inherent value of all ecospheric entities, deep ecology also could advance the modern logic of domination by retraining humans to surveil and steer themselves as well as other beings in accord with ‘Nature’s dictates’. As a new philosophy of nature, then, deep ecology provides the essential discursive grid for a few enthusiastic ecosophical mandarins to interpret nature and impose its deep ecology dictates on the unwilling many. (Luke 1988: 85) This longing for ‘nature’, either through the self-effacement of humans before

‘wilderness’ (deep ecology)22 or through nostalgia for a simpler social order in harmony with nature (social ecology)23 is possible only in the context of an ‘intimate distance’ brought about by the ‘dislocation of nature in modernity’ (Phelan 1993). Consequently, the ‘space’
that Foucault is talking about is not the unproblematized physical and material environment of the environmentalists, but the various problematizations of ‘space’ raised, for example, by feminists (Lykke and Bryld 1994). In this sense, Foucault and the environmentalists are not located in quite the same space! However, the reconceptualization of space — for example, as ‘heterotopias’ (Foucault 1986) — enabled Foucault to create a break in our current ‘physical’ understanding(s) of space. We shall come back to the important concept of ‘heterotopias’ as two of the contributors to this volume, Thomas Heyd and Peter Quigley, apply it.

-14-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link- Environmental Managerialism

Discourses of sustainable limits to population play into the hands of capitalist globalization, relying on forming subjects as rational consumers of particular population control methods Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 87-88
That the mode of sexual subjectivity generated in, and borne by, population-talk is intimately related to the economic and social relations of (globalizing) late capitalism is not a stunning revelation: at the level of physical technologies, of course, family planning and contraceptive development provide a fantastic new global market for the provision of goods and services. But at the level of cultural technologies as well, discourses of the self associated with capitalist liberal individualism, and even particular family forms associated with capitalist productive relations, are part of the normative package sold by the global family planning movement. As Irene Diamond illustrates, these technologies are strongly tied together: In order to create a disciplined market that would find Western contraception desirable, family planning professionals utilized enticing media images that were most always supplemented by monetary and non-monetary incentives. Women of the South were told ‘contraceptives are a woman’s right’. And if in a particular district an insufficient number of women became ‘acceptors’, zealous recruiters, whose own survival within bureaucratic delivery systems depended on achieving their target goal, did not stop at tricking or compelling a woman to accept. (Diamond 1994: 73—4, emphasis added) What I would like to suggest is that contemporary population discourses, acting largely (though never entirely) through normative prescriptions of a particular form of managed sexual subjectivity, are part of the increasing global reach of capitalist market economic relations. Just as biopower was intimately involved in the development of industrial capital in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so too it is a foundational element in the globalization of monopoly capital at the end of the twentieth. At one end of the spectrum is international aid tied to the implementation of coercive birth control strategies; at the other is the even more insidious discursive linkage of (economic) well-being with small families through educational programmes sponsored by international development agencies. Whereas the former is relatively easy to condemn (if still, unfortunately, common in some places), the latter is the dominant discourse of organizations such as the United Nations, which are now beginning to speak the language of liberal feminism and women’s rights. Contemporary population management strategies of education and increasing women’s ‘rights’ of access to contraception effectively mask their imbrication in institutionalized discourses of capitalist economic development under a layer of liberal feminist concern for women’s social position. This discourse suggests a sort of reproductive structural adjustment; just as the politics of debt and aid force particular economic relations on countries of the South, so too the politics of population management, especially given their transmission via particular reproductive technologies, impose particular family and gender relations. In structural adjustment, countries are to produce themselves according to a capitalist productive logic; in reproductive structural adjustment, women and men are to produce themselves according to profoundly normative discourses about appropriate gender relations and family structures.

Practices of ecology in the context of the modern nation-state establish new regimes of biopolitics and governmentality. By constituting both the object of government, the environment, and the means of governing, scientific rationality, eco-biopolitics develops new techniques for the management not just of the environment, but of whole populations. Paul Rutherford, professor of environmental politics in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the University of Sydney, Australia, 1999, Discourses of the Environment, p. 37-38
Modern thinking about the natural environment is characterized by the belief that nature can be managed or governed through the application of the scientific principles of ecology. This chapter considers how governing the environment in this sense involves more than the familiar political activities of the modern administrative state. Environmental governance in advanced liberal societies is far more dependent on the role played by scientific expertise in defining and managing environmental problems than the more traditional state-centric notions of politics and power would suggest. Scientific ecology has become a political resource that in important respects constitutes the objects of government and, at the same time, provides the intellectual machinery essential for the practice of such government. Foucault’s ideas of biopolitics and governmentality can help provide a critical perspective on contemporary environmental problems. In this chapter I attempt to demonstrate this by developing three basic propositions: first, that the concern with ecological problems and environmental crises can be seen as a development of what Foucault called ‘the regulatory biopolitics of the population’; second, that this contemporary biopolitics has given expression to a mode of governmental rationality that is related to the institutionalization of new areas of scientific expertise, which in turn is based on a bio-economic understanding of global systems ecology; and third, that this relatively recent articulation of biopolitics gives rise to new techniques for managing the environment and the population that can be termed ‘ecological governmentality’.

Positions of environmental leadership allow the U.S. to articulate visions of disciplinary green governmentality across the globe Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 127-28
So it is through acting as an agency of environmental protection on a global scale that the United States sees itself reasserting its world leadership after the Cold War. As the world’s leader, in turn, America stipulates that it cannot advance economic prosperity and ecological preservation without erasing the dividing lines between domestic and foreign policy. In the blur of the coming Information Age and its global villages, the United States cannot separate America’s common good from the common goods of the larger world. To be truly secure in the twentieth century, each American’s personal, family and national stake in their collective future must be served through the nation’s environmental policies. Secretary of State Warren Christopher confirmed President Clinton’s engagement

-15-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

with the environment through domestic state-craft and diplomatic action thus: ‘protecting our fragile environment also has profound long-range importance for our country, and in 1996 we will strive to fully integrate our environmental goals into our diplomacy — something that has never been done before’ (Christopher 1996b: 12). Because ‘the nations of the world look to America as a source of principled and reliable leadership’, new leading principles and reliable sources for this authority need to be discovered (ibid. 9). And, to a certain extent, they can be derived from a tactics of normalization rooted within the codes of geo-power, eco-knowledge and enviro-discipline. From President Nixon’s national launch of an American Environmental Protection Agency to President Clinton’s global engagement of America as the world’s leading agency of environmental protection, one can see the growing importance of a green governmentality in the state’s efforts to steer, manage and legitimate all of its various policies. Repudiating ‘the end of history’ thesis, Secretary of State
President Al Gore, and Secretary Christopher also recognize ‘how

Christopher announced at a major address hosted by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University that the Unites States must cope instead with ‘history in fast-forward’, since it now faces ‘threats from which no border can shield us —terrorism, proliferation, crime, and damage to the environment’ (ibid. 11). Such ‘new transnational security threats’ endanger ‘all of us in our interdependent world’ (ibid. 12), 50 the United States will step forward in the post-Cold War era to combat these threats as an integral part of its anti-isolationist policies. As it runs headlong ahead on fast-forward, the United States now pledges through its Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gases, ratify biodiversity conventions, and approve the Law of the Sea. Even so, President Clinton, Vice-

we can make greater use of environmental initiatives to promote larger strategic and economic goals . . . helping our environmental industrial sector capture a larger share of a $400-billion global market’ (ibid.). Consequently, Secretary Christopher directed the staffs of Global Affairs, Policy Planning and the New Bureau of Oceans, International Environment and Scientific Affairs to identify environmental, population and resource issues which affected key US interests during February 1996. Along with naming a new Assistant Secretary for Oceans, International Environment and Scientific Affairs, Christopher also ordered that each American embassy now have an environmental senior officer, and that all bureau and mission planning have an environmental element in their agenda (1996a). As he told the House International Relations Committee, in 1996 things would change at the State Department, because he was ‘fully integrating environmental goals into our daily diplomacy for the first time’, and ‘making greater use of environmental initiatives to promote our larger strategic and economic goals’ (1996c: 160).

-16-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link-Environmental Managerialism

Green govermentality rests on a series of scientific “truths” that assume technocratic language to submit both the earth and its inhabitants. Claims to create sustainable environments serve to increase the states bio-political control Eva Lövbrand is a PhD candidate in environmental science at Kalmar University, Planting Trees to Mitigate Climate Change: Contested Discourses of Ecological Modernization, Green Governmentality and Civic Environmentalism February 2006
Alongside the market-oriented approach to environmental problem-solving proposed by ecological modernization, a discourse of green governmentality predominates in industrialized societies. This discourse epitomizes a global [End Page 53] form of power tied to the modern administrative state, mega-science and big business. It entails the administration of life itself--individuals, populations and the natural environment.12 According to the original account proposed by Michel Foucault in the late 1970s, governmentality is associated with a multiplicity of rationalities, authorities and agencies that seek to shape the conduct of human behavior. By affecting the choices, aspirations and lifestyles of individuals and groups, these disciplining practices involve the power over and through the individual.13 Knowledge and various forms of expertise are intrinsically linked to this bio-political fostering or management of life. In the late 18th century Europe, when governmentality was associated with the administration of human health, biology, criminology and medicine represented authoritative areas of expertise.14 In more recent years global environmental threats have given rise to a new set

of "eco-knowledges" that extend government control to the entire planet.15 The current green twist to governmentality is manifested through a notion of stewardship of nature and an all-encompassing management of its resources.16 In the name of sustainable development and environmental risk management a new set of administrative truths have emerged that expand biopolitics to all conditions under which humans live. These new eco-knowledges and practices organize and legitimize common understandings of the environmental reality and enforce "the right disposition of things" between humans and nature.17 The numerous scientific expert advisors that have emerged on the environmental arena during the past decades play an authoritative role in the construction of these eco-knowledges. Resting upon a notion of sound science, these well-trained environmental professionals provide credible definitions of environmental risks as well as legitimate methods to measure, predict and manage the same risks.18 Since the growth of "big"
science in the mid 20th century, a world-wide techno-scientific infrastructure has developed that today enables environmental experts to monitor and, in many cases, even manage the Earth's biogeochemical cycles, hydrological flows and human patterns of pollution and environmental degradation. In the field of climate change, this physical manifestation of the green

governmentality discourse is particularly pronounced. Satellite supervision of the Earth's vegetation cover, advanced computer modeling of atmospheric and oceanographic processes, a global grid of meteorological stations and carbon flux towers exemplify the resource-intensive infrastructure used by expert groups to study, monitor and predict the trajectories of human-induced climate change. [End Page
54]

In its technocratic expression green governmentality can be understood an elitist and totalizing discourse that effectively marginalizes alternative understandings of the natural world.19 Through a detached and powerful view from above--a "global gaze"--nature is approached as a terrestrial infrastructure subject to state protection, management and domination.20 In the attempt to rationalize human and natural conditions of life, this instrumental control over the natural world forms the basis of a large-scale "terraforming" project that is in the process of reshaping the Earth into a planetary order of complex socio-technical systems.21

-17-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link - Managerialism
Ensuring planetary survival is not a benign goal – survival formulated in ecological terms gives the state carte blanche to violently enforce its model of sustainability across the globe, resulting in devastating environmental colonialism Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 147
This command to go anywhere at anytime to defend the cause of survival may direct enviro-discipline to pursue other equally problematic values on a global level with the full force of state power and positive science: namely, stability, diversity and interdependence. A powerful nation-state is no longer empowered simply to defend its territory to protect its population. As Clinton and Gore claim, it must now also identify and police the surroundings in all of its many operational environments, to guarantee ecological stability, biological diversity and environmental interdependence. Because some states are more sustainable than others, their survival imperatives may become guide-lines for environmental colonialism. In order to survive, the state may choose to impose the status of a green belt, forest preserve, nature reservation or environmental refuge upon other societies as part of its Strategic Environmental Initiatives. To serve and protect the values of the ecosystem, Gates claims that the ecological ethic of stability as ‘a steady state’ will not result in ‘stagnation’. Such an outcome would, of course, offend the growth fixations of consumers and citizens living in liberal capitalist democracies. On the contrary, he believes that it would mean ‘directing growth and change in nondestructive ways, generated within the standing pattern that supports life’ (Gates 1989: 152). But who directs growth and change for whom? Is there a standing pattern that directs life? Does anyone really know enough about it to direct growth in accord with it? In practice, Global Marshall Planners in Washington could use ecological criteria to impose their sustainable development of economic growth at home as they also force an ecological steady state upon others abroad. If India’s hundred millions stay on foot or bicycles, then Germany’s tens of millions would stay in their cars. If Indonesia keeps growing trees, then Japan can keep consuming lumber. And if Brazil’s ranchers keep turning rain forest into cattle ranges, then America’s suburbanites will get their cheeseburgers.

Even laudable goals like ensuring the survival of the planet employ discursive frames that trap their operations in violent representations and the application of disciplinary power Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 94
The health of global populations as well as the survival of the planet itself necessitate that a green spreadsheet be draped over Nature, generating an elaborate ecomarket of global reach and scope. Hovering over the world in a scientifically centered surveillance of health, disease, poverty, wealth, employment, and joblessness, Brown, Flavin, and Posrel declare that “the once separate issues of environment and development are now inextricably linked.”56 Indeed, they are, at least, in the discourses of Worldwatch Institute disciplines, which then survey this envelopment of Nature-in-crisis by auditing levels of topsoil depletion, air pollution, acid rain, global warming, ozone destruction, water pollution, forest reduction, and species extinction. Worldwatching engages in a continuous global surveillance sweep, searching over patterns of energy use, artifact manufacture, food production, shelter construction, waste management, and urban design for technical, managerial, and economic inefficiencies. Once these searches are concluded, the results indicate, as the Worldwatch Institute reads them, there is a need for a permanent perestroika, or an ongoing, unending restructuring of everything artificial that extracts matter and energy from Nature in order to more rightly dispose of things and more conveniently arrange ends.57 Here, once again, the peculiar environmental project of the Worldwatch Institute shows its hand. The goal of sustainability, on one level, has many laudable intentions driving its designs; yet, on another level, its discursive framing, its intellectual articulation, and its action planning already provide a power formation, a discursive center, and a rhetorical foundation to empower worldwatchers to stand watch over everything and everyone else in the name of their resource managerialism to attain bioeconomic efficiency.

-18-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link – Ends Focused Policy Making
Ends focused environmental approaches are created by insular groups that pervert those policy versions discussed in the green sphere Nick Garside, The Obscured Potential of Envvironmental Politics, Environments December 2002
In a recent article in the journal Environmental Politics, Douglas Torgerson (2000) argues that one of the biggest problems

with green political thought is that while the language of politics is consistently used it is rarely, if ever, defined. The result is an unfortunate reduction of intrinsically valuable politics to instrumentally necessary movements. The former is oriented toward becoming a part of the democratic forces of freedom and equality or what Hannah Arendt (1963: 1) has called the most ancient cause of all, "the one, in fact that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the causes of freedom versus tyranny." This non-instrumental aspect of green political thought relies on conversation and debate within what Torgerson (1999: 129) has called the green public spheres where "the very process takes on value for those who participate in it." Within these sphere(s) of discourse green political theorists begin to realise their own particularity in relation to other green theorists, and if opened to a wider audience, their own particularity in relation to broader democratic goals of increased freedom and equality. The purpose of this discursive sphere is not to achieve a desired end point but to understand others' positions and engage in creative conversation with those others. "The promise" of this type of intrinsically valuable politics, Torgerson (1999: 130) explains, "gains credibility as a historical possibility for the simple reason that a discourse has emerged, making it possible to formulate and discuss ideas that industrial discourse formerly excluded or marginalized." The latter is necessarily concerned with achieving desired ends, be they the creation of
the conditions for harmonious relationships with non-human nature, or less lofty desires for access to decision-making bodies in order to ensure concerns for the non-human are taken into account by those authorised to directly influence or make policy. These end-

focused approaches rely on knowledge usually pre-constituted in places free from public debate or interaction with others who can challenge the singularity and inevitable limitation of the knowledge generation. The substantive, instrumental, and end focused environmental movement -- regardless of its apparent benign purposes -- tends to justify its actions through reliance on knowledge emerging from a perverted version of a green public sphere. The claim that substantive end-focused goals of green political theorists have
outweighed less urgent and immaterial arguments surrounding a "rethinking of political action," is not controversial, and should come as no surprise. The blurring of with political action and environmental discourse Nick

Garside, The Obscured Potential of Envvironmental Politics, Environments December 2002

In the face of very real threats to ecological well-being, it seems irrational or irresponsible not to push for a more ecologically benign society (Carter 1993) by any means available. In fact, it appears, as Michael Saward (1993: 65) points out, that "our choice is no choice -- survival or self-administered destruction." The real significant point in Torgerson's (2000: 1) argument lies in his recognition that even with the focus on purposeful movements there is a challenge to, and rethinking of, political action "already present in green politics." By recognising this, he is able to convincingly argue that without allowing the political side of environmentalism to appear and act within green political discourse, an endorsement of the environmental position (1) can easily lead to the endorsement of a new fundamentalism. This partnership eliminates the opportunity for participation in the "forces of
freedom" replacing discussion and debate with the need for well administered and managed individuals, groups and societies. Without space for critical engagement and interaction amongst environmentally, and, more broadly, democratically concerned citizens, there appears to be little chance of resisting the inevitable move towards greater dependence on the new elites and new authoritative languages needed to legitimise green positions in elite decision-making and managerial bodies. As the critique of

political action is already present, the blurring of these two distinct aspects of green political thought -politics and movement -- has consequences well beyond the boundaries of environmentalism. (2) The costs are also of a democratic nature as general challenges to present day politics, which are implicit in environmental discourse, are replaced with strong directional strategies that call for "extended management, but disregard[s] intelligent self-limitation" (Sachs 1999: 67). These strategies either bypass political critiques or replace democratic ideals of freedom and equality with disciplinary requirements necessary for the realisation of end desires for harmonious relations between humans and non-humans. These two options have always guided the reform/revolution, shallow/deep, environmentalism/ecology debates and unfortunately still haunt present day environmental politics.

-19-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link – Images
Images of environmental utopias are artificial images designed to further consummativity Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm) The Sierra Club deserves much credit for the good work that it has done to preserve many natural sites in the United States since 1892. Its highly effective lobbying campaigns have saved countless natural places from permanent destruction, while highlighting the vital importance of environmental agendas to larger national audiences. If the Sierra Club did not already exist, then it perhaps would be necessary to invent something like it. From its early days and in its current activities, however, one can find several causes for

the Sierra Club's fairly extensive involvement in transnational capitalism's consummational reimaging of Nature as environment. The signs are everywhere, but they are particularly suggestive in its cultural acts and artifacts. We only need to
reread the Sierra Club's Sierra magazine, its popular calendars, or some Sierra Club direct mail appeals to find traces of these deeper contradictions. Since 1892, the Sierra Club has doggedly defended it original programs for valorizing "the Great Outdoors" as sites for leisure pursuits by popularizing outdoor activities, organizing wilderness outings, and defending particularly important natural sites. Outings into California's High Sierras were first organized by John Muir and Will Colby, as David Brower suggests, "to get people into the wilderness where they could have fun and fall in love with the wild. Becoming much more national in scope after the 1960s, the Sierra Club also became an important player in many different wilderness protection actions all over the nation through the 1990s in Alaska, Florida, Appalachia, and California. All of these actions simply continue the 1951 Sierra Club charter: "to explore, enjoy and protect the Sierra Nevada and other scenic resources of the United States," amending its original goals of exploring, enjoying and rendering accessible the mountain regions of the Pacific Coast.105 Here, one finds what is the essence of the Sierra Club as a environmental organization today. While the World Wildlife Fund or Nature Conservancy have devoted many of their energies to the cultivation of "charismatic megafauna," like tigers, whales, or rhinos, to preserve Nature, the Sierra Club has identified special environmental sites, like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, California Redwood forests, as "mediagenic ecotopes" to be projected as endangered nature to the nation's consumers and voters. Despite its newfound engagements at protecting wilderness across the United States, the most enduring commitment of the Sierra Club seems to be this unending devotion to protecting Nature from being reduced to "agro-industrial resources" by transforming it through vivid image-riven projections into "scenic resources," which, in turn, need to be explored and enjoyed in those special ways that the Sierra Club renders accessible.

"Of all modes of representation," as Shapiro asserts, photography clearly is the one "most easily assimilated into the discourses of knowledge and truth, for it is thought to be an unmediated simulacrum, a copy of what we consider 'real'."106 Few ideological formations have exploited this property in photography as expertly as the green gaze of the contemporary Sierra Club in its coffeetable books, wildlife calendars, magazine photolayouts, or direct mail. Indeed, the Sierra Club's own celebration of Nature through spectacular nature photography is particularly problematic. On one level,
there is no denying many of these images are striking evocations or breathtaking clarity. Hoping to see such sights in person and up close moves many to aid in the protection of Nature. Yet, on another level, Nature is continually reinvented through light and shadow manipulations, or color and contrast machinations; it is how and where a Sierra Club vision of the good life and paradise brings into life a perfected set of images, symbols, and signs to stir up interest, devotion and loyalty. The modern Sierra Club, as it forced its way onto the national stage, has generated a popular sense of greater Nature accessibility through mass-run photography-and-prose print products. This strategy began in 1960 with This is the American Earth by Ansel Adams and Nancy Newcall, which were followed quickly by Cedric Wright's Words of the Earth, Ansel Adams These We Inherit: The Parklands of America, Eliot Porter's "In Wildness Is the Preservation of the World" (a match of Thoreau with Nature photography), and Richard Kauffman's Gentle Wildness: The Sierra Nevada (a mix of Muir's writings with color shots of the Sierras). Brower saw how effective these media were as mechanisms for propagating the green gaze of the Sierra Club among the powerful and/or influential: When you have photographers like Ansel Adams and Eliot Porter, and writers like Wallace Stegner, Loren Eiseley, Nancy Newhill, and Rachel Carson appearing an organization's magazine and publishing books under the environmental banner, the high ground is easily captured. Those special books won many of our battles for us, sitting there on the coffee tables until people of great power looked into them and began to understand.107

, this new way of seeing Nature through ecotopian mediagenesis became popularized as a potent power/knowledge formation. The photographic reimagination of Nature, in fact, is one of the Sierra Club's most potent consummational weapons. Since the 1950s and 1960s, when its
Without such supreme visions of Nature, its benefits often are overlooked; yet, with the green gaze of Sierra Club photography, and in spite of its many problems

first photographic books were used to show why conservation now is so vital by presenting perfect images of what might be lost to hydroelectric dam building, clearcutting loggers, or ski resort developers, the Sierra Club uses high-quality photography for many purposes: constructing pristine images of Nature, mobilizing political support, affirming organizational values, guiding outdoorsmanistic practices, popularizing outing destinations, defending environmental sites. One of the well-meaning Sierra Club member's prime directives is centered on the fusion of nature outing with nature photography: "leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures." The Sierra Club green gaze looks through camera viewfinders, which finds views of Nature as "great pictures." Getting outside by foot, horseback or canoe to be somewhere worthy in the green gaze of being photographed constitutes, in many ways, the essence of Sierra Club membership as members work to preserve places that can still be recognized as being as natural, wild or pristine as various Sierra photographers have composed them. Photography also permits Nature's often very unscenic raw stuff to be represented with the right lighting and camera angles as "scenic resources." The Sierra Club's real ideological task,

therefore, has been reconstructing the manifold appearances of real Nature as very unscenic stuff to conform to its particular fetishization of green signs and symbols as hyperreal "scenic resources." Nature cannot simply exist as such; it must be constructed, distributed, and stabilized to fit those categories of pristine spectacularity which Sierra Club has chosen to assign to the great outdoors. The Sierra Club has resisted the raw consumptive industrialization of Nature in order to advance its more sophisticated informationalization of Nature as scenic consummational images.
Instead of being a storehouse of materials, it becomes a terminal destination with aesthetic values and symbolic worth, because its "renewing resources" provide an entertainment site, a communications resource, an informational utility. These applications can unfold alongside the industrial economy; indeed, an informational sector needs material inputs and outputs from its engines of growth to function. Nonetheless, this organization does not stand for appropriating and processing Nature as atoms; instead, it works to transform it into images, signs, ideologies that can serve many profit agendas in other ways. Thus, "the Sierra Club"/"wise use movement" contradiction perhaps is more of an odd internal capitalist contradiction between "tertiary" informational and "secondary" industrial sectors of the same overdeveloped advanced economy rather than a real face-off between pre-industrial forces of "the environment" versus hyper-industrial partisans of "the economy." To reinterpret the corporate colonization of everyday life over the last century, Leach maintains that "whoever has the power to project a vision of the good life and make it prevail has the most decisive power of all. In its sheer quest to produce and sell goods cheaply in constantly growing volume and at higher profit levels, American business, after 1890, acquired such power and, despite a few wrenching crises along the way, has kept it ever since."108 The Sierra Club often is tagged as one of the most effective opponents of this Revolution, but a closer look raises doubts. Leach suggests that many hands were needed to turn America

into a consumer society; indeed, it clearly developed as a "consequence of alliances among diverse institutions, noneconomic and economic, working together in an interlocking circuit of relationships to reinforce the democraticization of desire and the cult of the new."109
From big banks to hotel chains, major corporations to national universities, trade unions to department stores, America changed after the 1890s. Indeed, "after 1895, stores, museums, churches, and government agencies were beginning to act together to

-20-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

create the Land of Desire, redirecting aspiration toward consumer longings, consumer goods, and consumer pleasures and entertainments."110 On one level, the modern Land of Desire was constructed "in-doors" within the modern industrial city in contradistinction to the traditional "out-doors" pursuits of rural agrarian life. On another level, however, Nature too has been remanufactured as consumer longings, consumer goods, or consumer entertainments, appearing as "outdoors" activities. Of the many brokers promoting this change, the Sierra Club obviously has been overlooked. Yet, at the end of the day, the Sierra Club's "nature outing" relies upon its own uniquely outdoorsmanistic spectacularization of Nature; like corporate consumerism, its mediagenic ecotopes offer "a vision of the good life and of paradise" in images, symbols, and signs that stir up interest at the very least, and devotion and loyalty at the most."111 Sierra Club members are devoted to Nature, but their devotion
typically assumes outdoorsmanist forms as their loyalties often rest more with "nature outings" than with Nature as such. In many Sierra Club activities, the Land of Desire is sublated into a desire for land, a fixation upon accessing the most desirable lands, or a desiring of new lands whose undeveloped wild status equals fine sites for the good life of getting what John Muir called Nature's "good tidings." Getting out there, preparing for being there, and equipping for special kinds of a sport-based becoming once there all tap deeply into "the transformation of American society into a society preoccupied with consumption, with comfort and bodily wellbeing, with luxury, spending, and acquisition, with more goods this year than last, more next year than this."112 As counterintuitive as it may seem at first blush, the Sierra Club is basically about consummativity--getting more nature outings this year than last, and more next year than this. The Sierra Club member is an outdoorsmanist, or one who consumes his or her time and energy to get outdoors where comfort and well-being are realized as a hiker/rock climber/kayaker/camper/photographer who acquires miles walked/first ascents/rivers run/camps made/pictures taken. Gradually in the Land of Desire, the Sierra Club's outdoormanistic leisure outings have moved toward something new: a place or space that is much more like "Club Sierra." Like Club Med's bid to its clients to "go native" or "get wild," Club Sierra is a national organization for an elite group of high-minded, outdoorsmanistic individuals intent upon enjoying themselves outdoors, particularly at special, select, secluded sets of limited access Nature sites. In fact, Nature reverence is mobilized to serve this desire of such lands. For a world of perpetual motion in motion, Sierra Club photographs offer outdoors-minded consumers compelling images of high-profile places to go, things to do, sights to see in a geographic imaging system of pristine purities. Disingenuously, the Sierra Club poses as being conservationist, or anti-market in orientation, when it is, in fact, niche marketing for Club Sierra at its most superlative pitch.

Sierra Club culture is the perfected culture of consumption conducted outdoors. At one level, this organization can pose credibly as a green force, pretending to oppose the advanced industrial ecologies of energy-intensive, resourcewasting, overdevelopment-centered cities, growing by leaps and bounds around the planet. Such industrial lifestyles often
are portrayed by big business or desperate politicians as the foundational bedrock of contemporary urban life in which anything worth doing is done indoors; indeed, "wise use" movement culture is often simply the culture of consumption conducted indoors.113 Whether one simply becomes a couch potato at home in the big-screen TV room, a sports fan in some urban domed stadium, or a mall rat at the regional shopping center, the only life worth living happens inside. Hence, Nature must be (un)wisely (ab)used to maintain it. Of course, more importantly, the consumptive industrial order with its own powerful bloc of owning and managing classes, depends upon cultivating and then supplying the needs required to sustain this system. But, on a second level, the getting to these outdoors regions, the sporting practices approved once one arrives, and the imagination of Nature as places to go or things to do in the Sierra Club's consummational culture all are four-square centered upon the same consummativity that drives indoorsmanistic being.

Sierra photos unfortunately look too good, because they are too good. While things appear natural, trees often are pollution stressed, the soils are laced with heavy metal deposits, the streams are dying from acid rain, and the skies are shot through with ozone holes. Sierra photos must be contested as the utopian projections of ecotopian mediagenesis, creating images of a somewhere so perfect they really are nowhere.114 The Sierra Clubs' outdoorsmen
pretend to be able to secure this perfection, even though each one of their eco-tourism trips to New Zealand, the Yukon, Nepal, the Galapagos, or New Guinea in search of these goals is little more than a slickly packaged industrial pollutant wrapped up as a high-end personal statement "to protect the biosphere."

-21-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link- Protecting Biodiversity

Protections for biodiversity are motivated by attempts to preserve “nature” for exploitation in the future Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 73-74

These aesthetic appeals, however, to preserve lands and scenery in keeping with the Conservancy’s initial organizational agendas, just mystify the organization’s more recent objectives of preserving biodiversity. Scenery provides legitimation, land creates a containment area, and rare ecosystems constitute storage sites for precious biogenetic information. Thus, these memorial parks for “nature conservancy more importantly are becoming a network of cryogennic depots. Inside their boundaries, natural wetware accepts deposits as genome banks, accumulating bioplasmic memory on the hoof, at the roots, under the bark, and in the soil of Nature Conservancy protection actions. Nature is dead, but its environmental remains are put into a cryogenic statis until some future day when science and technology can bring the full productive potential out of them that escapes human development now. At that point, they too will be released from their frozen state to become the trade lands of tomorrow, as some snail, lichen, or bug is discovered to hold a cure for cancer or the common cold. Under the guidance of Bob Jenkins’s biodiversity plan, Nature has been transmogrified from the matter and space hoarded by the Ecologist’s Union into informational codes and biospheric addresses archived by The Nature Conservancy. Plants and animals become more than endangered flowers or threatened fish; they become unknown and unexploited economic resources essential to human survival. “Of all the plants and animals we know on this earth,” as one Conservancy supporter testifies, “only one in a hundred has been tested for possible benefit. And the species we have not even identified yet far outnumber those that we have. We destroy them before we discover them and determine how they might be useful.”44 Conservancy preserves, then, are biodiversity collection centers, allowing a free-enterprise-minded foundation to suspend their native flora and fauna in an ecologically correct deep freeze until scientists can assay the possible worth of the ninety-nine untested species out of each hundred banked in these preserves.45 Meanwhile, grizzly bears, bald eagles, and spotted owls provide high visibility entertainment value in its preserves for ecotourists, Conservancy members, and outdoor recreationists all seeking to enjoy such Edenic spaces. In “preserving Eden,” the Conservancy more importantly is guarding the bioplasmic source codes that enable the wetware of life to recapitulate its existence in the timeless routines of birth, life, reproduction, and death.46 Such riches can only be exploited slowly, but they cannot be developed at all unless today’s unchecked consumption of everything everywhere is contained by Nature Conservancy protection actions bringing the world economy to an absolute zero point of inactivity in these Edenic expanses of the global environment.

-22-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link-Individualized Approaches
Individual approaches to limiting consumption depoliticize the environmental crisis because they locate the solution within the realm of consumption rather than production, thereby neglecting a wider critique of capital and squandering opportunities at wide-scale political action Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 119122
Saving the earth and preserving the environment are extremely complex challenges, and there are no easy or simple solutions for today’s ecological problems. Yet, in complete fulfillment of the fallacy of generalization— namely, if every X did Y, then Z would certainly follow—the Berkeley, California-based Earth Works Group confidently markets a whole series of self-help manuals based upon “50 simple things” that everyone can do to “save the Earth.” The first book, 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, alleges that it “empowers the individual to get up and do something about global environmental problems.”7 “Most of the 50 Things,” the reader is told, “are unbelievably easy. They are the kind of things you would do anyway to save money—if you knew how much you could save.”8 The book claims that, rather than allowing negative media coverage of the environmental crisis to drive one to despair, each consumer can do some “unbelievably easy” things to conserve cash as well as to solve “intractable environmental problems.”~ If every consumer bought this one book and followed its directions, ecological salvation would surely follow. How does the Earth Works Group’s solution hope to work? First, by acknowledging the real powerlessness of consumers; and, second, by whittling away at major supply-side irrationalities through urging consumers to make slightly more frugal and marginally more rational choices about obtaining the material wherewithal needed for their day-to-day survival. Instead of thinking about how to reconstitute the entire mode of modern production politically in one systematic transformation to meet ecological constraints, the book, like most tracts of green consumerist agitation, bases its call for action on nonpolitical, nonsocial, noninstitutional solutions to environmental problems “that cumulate from the seemingly inconsequential actions of millions of individuals. My trash, your use of inefficient cars, someone else’s water use—all make the planet less livable for the children of today and tomorrow.”10 Consequently, the corporate institutions that produce goods wrapped in this trash, that restructure cities to require travel in their inefficient cars, and that build appliances, homes, and cityscapes based on wasting water are automatically excused almost from the outset, except inasmuch as individuals might effect change by choosing to use less of their products or deciding to purchase alternative merchandise. The logic of these corporate institutions’ resistance, then, just like the logic of the average consumer’s initial compliance, is centered on the still largely passive sphere of consumption rather than on the vital sites of production. The ecological battle lines are drawn at the gas pump or in the supermarket aisles not at the factory gates or in the corporate boardrooms. The Earth Works strategy asserts: Few of us can do anything to keep million-barrel oil tankers on course through pristine waters. All of us can do something, every day, to insure that fewer such tankers are needed. None of us can close the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. All of us can help prevent its spread to populated areas by reducing our use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).1’ This characterization of environmental conflicts rightly notes, on one level, that using less gasoline and underarm sprays in the United States might well lessen oil tanker traffic and reduce the hole in the ozone layer. But, on another level, it wrongly suggests that people cannot really expect to use collective political means to keep tanker accidents from happening or to totally eliminate CFCs. The whole ecological crisis ultimately is reinterpreted as a series of bad household and/or personal buying decisions: “as much as we are the root of the problem, we are also genesis of its solution.”12 The aggregate effects of the ecological crisis, therefore, can only be framed in terms of the accumulated collective impact of consumers choices. The key dimensions of the crisis, according to Earth Works, are the greenhouse effect, air pollution, ozone depletion, hazardous waste, acid rain, vanishing wildlife, groundwater pollution, garbage, and saving energy. In turn, allegedly reckless individual consumption, which now supposedly causes all of these problems, can, at the same time, solve them by individuals shifting consciously to patterns of reasonable individual conservation. Conservation, ecological sustainability; frugality “can be accomplished by simple, cost-effective measures that require little change in lifestyle.”’3 Here is the other major flaw in the Earth Works approach. In fact, more reasonable patterns of individual consumption were once quite common, but corporate imperatives to stimulate mass consumption of mass-produced goods have overridden these traditional restraints with today’s throwaway lifestyles. Corporations have spent decades developing complex, cost-effective techniques that have required massive changes in each consumer’s lifestyle, which is based on wasting large amounts of energy and resources by purchasing corporate-provided commodities.

Green consumerism treats corporations just like individual consumers, precluding an assault on the production process itself and allowing capitalism to commodify its ecological sensibilities. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 121-22
Indeed, the Earth Works Group implicitly recognizes these limitations since it also has produced a follow-up book, The Next Step: 50 More Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, that suggests “snipping six-pack rings may be a start, but it’s not the solution. . . . It’s time to reach out to the community.”15 This handbook does begin to ask some political questions, but its style of politics is posed almost entirely in the tame dialects of Naderite public interest insurgency.16 The “next step” of “fifty more things to save the earth” simply takes green consumerism down already familiar tracks, such as using affinity-group charge cards, pushing for local curbside recycling programs, starting a ride-sharing system, buying only recycled goods, urging retailers not to sell ozone-damaging goods, or starring a municipal yard composting program. It hints at promising political action, but the political activities being advanced mainly are directed at motivating more people to start doing the first fifty simple things to save the earth. This weak reformist strategy even is affirmed in the Earth Works Group’s appeal to more radical youth audiences, The Student Environmental Action Guide: 25 Simple Things We Can Do.17 To paraphrase Marx, Earth Works environmentalism fails inasmuch as it has only thus far been recycling one tame interpretation of the world, when the real point is to discover how to change it. The real intellectual limits of the Earth Works Group’s tame interpretations of environmental transformation become more obvious in one of its latest works, 50 Simple Things Your Business Can Do to Save the Earth.18 Rather than directly attacking the obvious ecological irrationalities in most businesses’

-23-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

production processes, this manual “recognizes the realities of business” by claiming that its Earth Works approach “can yield dividends in this fiscal year—in cost savings, lower taxes, improved company image, and in increased employee satisfaction and productivity. This is a textbook case of ‘doing well by doing good.”’19 Each business is treated mainly as “a superconsumer” that can, like other individual consumers or private households, also contribute to ecological change by doing the same “simple things,” such as reorganizing the office coffee pool to use ceramic mugs, recycling office paper, buying green cleaning supplies, changing to lowenergy light fixtures, fixing company toilets to use less water, composting landscape by-products, or remodeling the office with plants, nonrain-forest wood products, and solar climate control.

-24-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link-Individualized Approaches
Individualized limitations on consumption allow capitalist elites to dominate the policy deliberations that actually effect the environment Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 122-24
Unfortunately, the logic of resistance behind these changes is totally defensive. The Earth Works Group accepts the modes of industrial production as they operate now, but urges that employees engage in their own environmental policing to avoid running afoul of the prevailing legal, bureaucratic, and public relations problems that regularly befall many companies. Green is good because it saves money, it is good public relations, and, finally, of course, it is good for the environment to boot. Rather than pushing waste elimination, the Earth Works Group stands for waste reduction. Instead of advocating total economic transformation, it accepts weak bureaucratic regulation of present-day polluting processes. Unable to support the total reconstitution of today’s productive forces, it advocates piecemeal reforms to lessen, but never end, their most environmentally destructive activities. The Earth Works Group also fails to identify the key potentialities of workers and management in modern businesses for realizing ecological changes. For example, Earth Works notes that “if you work in an office, a workshop, a factory, you are the backbone of your company. You and coworkers can use your collective influence to mold policy decisions.”20 This claim sounds, at first, quite impressive, but with this allegedly immense collective influence, it directs workers to debate making decisions about essentially insignificant choices: “Should you throw out that piece of paper.., or recycle it? Is it too much trouble to wash out a mug so you don’t have to use a disposable cup? Should you leave a light or copier running.., or turn it off?”21 If the backbone of corporate America is misdirected into agonizing over policy decisions like these, then critical ecological choices about what to produce, how to produce it, when to market it, and where to distribute it will all be left to those managers in high positions who know “it’s not possible to turn well-honed products and processes topsy-turvy to protect the environment and still function as a business.”22 The Earth Works Group, then, winks at prevailing practices of antiecological management, privileging the passive acceptance of corporate managers’ expertise and the legitimacy of not troubling dedicated executives as they discharge their tough decisionmaking tasks. Instead, it pushes ineffectual window-dressing practices on ordinary employees to green marginal aspects of their firm’s office ecologies or their company’s public image. The fact that everyone in a company uses an ecologically correct ceramic mug and recycles office memos does not lessen the environmental destruction that this same firm might be spreading by building gas-guzzlers, selling CFCs, mowing down rain forests, or manufacturing plastic playthings.

Locating the most important site for changing consumption as the individual consumer ignores institutional centers of power that ensure overall consumptive practices remain unchanged Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 125-28

How these hitherto unattained radical advances toward global ecological harmony will be wrought “is designed to generate the greatest impact in the least amount of time” and, miraculously, “results are guaranteed without marching on Washington, quitting your job, or giving away your life savings.”31 On one level, Hollander’s endorsement of Naderite public-interest lobbying tactics ensures that his readers will learn “how to help build low-income housing, use recycled products, contribute to a food bank, invest money in a socially responsible manner, free prisoners of conscience, pass legislation through the U.S. Congress, and encourage world peace.”32 And, even more fortunately for today’s harried average consumer, Hollander claims, like an ad for taped foreign language lessons or some new tummy-reducer gizmo, that “only a few minutes are needed for many of the actions that will result in positive social change.”33 On another level, Hollander makes the ultimate radical claim for today’s socially concerned, but fundamentally passive, consumer: the ecological revolution really can be made essentially by doing nothing more than ordinary everyday things. In other words, you can learn how “to make the world a better place as you wheel your cart down the aisle of a supermarket, travel on business or pleasure, select an insurance policy, open a bank account, prepare dinner, relax around the house, and even as you soap up in the shower.”34 It may be true that “the actions of those now living will determine the future, and possibly the very survival of the species,”35 but it is, in fact, mostly a mystification. Only the actions of a very small handful of the humans who are now living, namely, those in significant positions of decisive managerial power in business or central executive authority in government, can truly do something to determine the future. Hollander’s belief that thousands of his readers, who will replace their light bulbs, water heaters, automobiles, or toilets with ecologically improved alternatives, can decisively affect the survival of the species is pure ideology. It may sell new kinds of toilets, cars, appliances, and light bulbs, but it does not guarantee planetary survival. Hollander does not stop here. He even asserts that everyone on the planet, not merely the average consumers in affluent societies, is to blame for the ecological crisis. Therefore, he maintains, rightly and wrongly, that “no attempt to protect the environment will be successful in the long run unless ordinary people—the California executive, the Mexican peasant, the Soviet [sic] factory worker, the Chinese farmer—are willing to adjust their life-styles and values. Our wasteful, careless ways must become a thing of the past.”36 The wasteful, careless ways of the California executive plainly must be ecologically reconstituted, but the impoverished practices of Mexican peasants and Chinese farmers, short of what many others would see as their presumed contributions to “overpopulation,” are probably already at levels of consumption that Hollander happily would ratify as ecologically sustainable if the California executive could only attain and abide by them. As Hollander asserts, “every aspect of our lives has some environmental impact,” and, in some sense, everyone, he claims, “must acknowledge the responsibility we were all given as citizens of the planet and act on the hundreds of opportunities to save our planet that present themselves every day.”37 Nevertheless, the typical consumer does not control the critical aspects of his or her existence in ways that have any major environmental impact. Nor do we all encounter hundreds of opportunities every day to do much to save the planet. The absurd claim that average consumers only need to shop, bicycle, or garden their way to an ecological future merely moves most of the responsibility and much of the blame away from the institutional centers of power whose decisions actually maintain the wasteful, careless ways of material exchange that Hollander would end by having everyone recycle all their soda cans. Marjorie Lamb takes the demands of mounting a green revolution from within the sphere of everyday life down almost to the bare minimum in her Two Minutes a Day for a Greener Planet:

-25-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Quick and Simple Things You Can Do to Save Our Earth.38 Her manifesto speaks directly to the harried but still very guilty modern suburbanite: “We are all busy people. Let’s face it, we don’t have the time or desire to climb smokestacks or confront whaling vessels. But there are lots of things we can do differently every day. Without effort and with very little thought, we can make a difference to our planet Earth.”39 This astounding revelation is precisely what every consumer wants to hear. Like ecological destruction itself, ecological salvation is possible “without effort” and “with very little thought.” Only “two minutes a day” are needed by today’s oneminute managers to execute the “quick and simple things” needed to save “our Earth.” To fill the bookstores at the mall with yet another cookbook for ecological transformation, Lamb has expanded her original “Two Minute Ecologist” radio spots, first developed for the CBC’s Metro Morning radio broadcast, into a pocketbook guide to green liberation. And, once again, she stresses the vital importance of recycling aluminum, refusing to buy overpackaged goods, and composting kitchen/household waste. But, interestingly enough, Lamb also honestly remarks that much of her advice is essentially remedial consumer education. Indeed, many, if not most, of the simple hints that she, Hollander, Rifkin, and the Earth Works Group are spelling out were once widely practiced forms of popular common sense. Lamb credits “the Depression generation,” or those who grew up prior to 1945, with an ethic of thriftiness that actually approximates many of the virtues she assigns to the coming “Age of the Environment.” On the other hand, “the baby boom generation,” and now their offspring, have embraced all of the unsustainable habits of mass consumption that corporate capital once encouraged but now recognize are at the root of today’s ecological crisis. In part, Lamb’s analysis is true, but it ignores how corporate capital, big government, and professional experts pushed the practices of the throwaway affluent society on consumers after 1945 as a political strategy to sustain economic growth, forestall mass discontent, and empower scientific authority. People did choose to live this way, but their choices were made from a very narrow array of alternatives presented to them as rigidly structured, prepackaged menus of very limited options. And, now ironically, all of these green guides to ecological consumption are moral primers pitched at resurrecting—through their own green but still nicely designed plans of commodified ecological revitalization—the responsible habits of more frugal consumers or autonomous citizens that corporate capital and the mass media have been struggling to destroy for nearly a century.

-26-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Green Consumerism Link – The Earth Day Example

Consuming in a more ecologically-friendly way is just like celebrating Earth Day – ecological awareness becomes displayed in a ritual of mass consumption, which empowers the very capitalist economics that cause the harms of consumption Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 132-34
Making ecological revolution through green marketing and ecological consuming feeds directly into the organization and administration of spectacles like Earth Day to occasionally affirm, or even permanently ritualize, the many diverse practices of green consumerism. Just as mainstream consumer society finds its most complete affirmation in the highly commercialized festival day of Christmas, green consumerism has been woven into the mythologies and rituals of its own extremely commercialized festival day, or Earth Day. Arguably, the Earth Day celebration does serve to promote worthwhile environmental changes and popularize meaningful ecological lessons among mass audiences that might otherwise ignore the concerns of new ecological movements. Yet it also feeds directly into the same destructive logic of consumer festival days like Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, or Columbus Day, as well as Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Grandparents’ Day, or Secretary’s Day, that corporate marketing departments seize on to encourage consumers to make another trip to the mall to show someone that they care enough to convey their caring through more commodities. As a specially valorized day to boost consumption by “showing you care” or “telling someone how much you love them,” Earth Day becomes a day to mark how we can save the planet by producing and consuming spectacles about planetary salvation. In turn, major retailers rack up huge sales of can crushers, composters, newspaper bundlers, bicycles, and green guidebooks to fulfill consumer desires to possess the correct icons for observing the day’s rituals. Otherwise, like the 1980 celebration, it is totally ignored or marked only by a few nature lovers in total obscurity out in the woods. Ironically, what began as a festival to call planned mass consumption into question now can survive only if its designers allow it to be packaged by contemporary corporate capitalist society as yet another organized event based on specially planned mass consumption. Wendell Berry’s fear that environmentalists are too cautious in their protests as they approach the earth as “nature under glass” is not a problem here. Instead, Earth Day commodifies nature and concern for nature as still another set of carefully coded products to circulate in the contemporary marketplace as “nature under plastic.” Most important, Earth Day, which began as a popular green resistance to unfettered capitalist markets, in its mainstream manifestations today has ironically shifted its basic meanings. Increasingly, it takes the form of promoting a very much fettered green capitalism as if it were, despite its artfully managed and slickly packaged commodification, an effective style of meaningful political resistance. As James Speth, the president of World Resources Institute, observed in 1989 about the first Earth Day in 1970, there has been a “steady and sometimes spectacular growth of worldwide public concern about environmental degradation, and of citizen action and participation to meet these challenges.”46 Perhaps, but such mass-mediated measurements of spectacularly growing concern do not translate into ecological revolution. Earth Days might mark new levels of “intense public interest,” as marked by thousands of marchers in Earth Day parades or by pro-environmental sound bites on the nightly news, but, in practice, most consumers’ behavior, beyond recycling soda cans or refusing to buy African elephant ivory products, is not radically changing. In part, there only can be minor changes, because change can happen only if the products offered in the marketplace are manufactured in a more environmentally correct manner; and, in part, there will be no radical change, because the broadly mobilized version of green consumerism still is a very passive form of corporate capitalist consumerism. After nearly two decades of post-Earth Day ecological consciousness, for example, the average per capita daily discard rate of garbage had risen from 2.5 pounds in 1960 to 3.2 pounds in 1970 to 3.6 pounds in 1986. By 2000, despite decades of recycling experience, this figure is expected to rise to 6 pounds a day.48 Similarly, even though ecological concern is rising, the average gas mileage of new cars declined 4 percent from 1988 to i99o, and the number of miles driven annually has continued to rise by 2 percent every year.49 Forty-seven thousand square miles of tropical rain forest were cut down in 1979; eighty-eight thousand square miles were cut down in 1989.50 Japan more than doubled its per capita output of carbon from fossil fuel emissions from 1960 to 1987, Saudi Arabia almost quadrupled its levels, and the United States increased its output by almost 25 percent. Consequently, it becomes apparent that “worldwide public concern” merely may be the contemporary consumer society’s Green Cross packaging, wrapped around many of the same old antienvironmental goods and services.

-27-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Individual Green Consumerism Bad

Any micro-level benefit to green consumerism is far outweighed by the ecological costs of consumption, even if it’s in a more ecologically-friendly form Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 134-36

As dogmas for attaining not only personal but also planetary salvation, some of today’s most common discourses about ecological activism in North America ironically express and unconsciously elaborate a series of unintended consequences, whose unanticipated implications reaffirm tenets of consumption rather than conservation. In the ruse of recycling, green consumerism, rather than leading to the elimination of massive consumption and material waste, appears instead only to be revalorizing the basic premises of material consumption and massive waste. By providing the symbolic and substantive means to rationalize resource use and cloak consumerism in the appearance of ecological activism, the cult of recycling as well as the call of saving the earth are not liberating nature from technological exploitation. On the contrary, they simply are providing a spate of rolling reprieves that cushion, but do not end, the destructive blows of an economy and culture that thrive on transforming the organic order of nature into the inorganic anarchy of capital. The essential irony of this entire approach to ecology change by green consumerism is that it actually has been at work daily for many years in many millions of households and thousands of firms, at least since the energy crisis of 1973, as a form of do-it-yourself worldwatching that has sustainably developed a green consumer industry. And, after decades of careful ecological concern, more campaigns for recycling, many days of rational shopping, and much thinking about source reduction only have left the biosphere still ravaged by intense ecological exploitation.52 The earth is not greener or safer, but deader and more endangered. On one level, one must acknowledge that green consumerism actually may have had a slight positive impact on the global environment. After all, and if only for a short time, the planet probably is better off with a few more people using fewer resources at slower rates of consumption. Yet, on another level, these marginal benefits are counterbalanced by the substantial costs of remaining structurally invested in thoroughly consumerisric forms of economy and culture. The “greening” of product advertising, merchandise packaging, or even certain limited technical aspects of the production cycle does nothing to alter the fundamentally antiecological qualities of production in contemporary capitalist society. This variety of environmentalism is virtually meaningless as a program for radical social transformation because it serves an agenda of conservative ideological containment that also is almost completely anthropocentric. The well-being and survival of other animal species, plant life-forms, or bioregions are virtually ignored. Shoppers for a better world enjoin themselves and others not to buy consumer products made from endangered species or rain-forest beef, but this injunction is driven by other green consumerist needs that parallel these goals. One cannot be a happy ecotourist if there are no longer any rhinos, hippos, or elephants in African game parks, and the rain forests probably contain exotic plants that someday will cure cancers for ailing green consumers. When every group from the Worldwatch Institute to the American Forest Council, Greenpeace to Exxon, the Sierra Club to the Chemical Manufacturers Association claims to be on the same ecological path to green salvation, as today’s green consumerism handbooks or Earth Day celebrations indicate, then the most threatening specter haunting the world today is no longer ecologism. Instead, this era of reconciliation shows how decades of rhetorical exorcism directed against radical ecologism have successfully worked their spell by caging this surly antagonistic spirit and refracting its radical revolutionary animus out into the ghostly moonbeams of friendly green consumerism.

-28-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link- Science

The application of scientific modeling and systems ecology attempt to normalize particular ways of relating to the environment – in so doing, they reduce nature to a system of systems that can be broken down, calculated, analyzed, and recombined. Paul Rutherford, professor of environmental politics in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the University of Sydney, Australia, 1999, Discourses of the Environment, p. 59-60

Systems ecology and the highly mathematized natural sciences (such as atmospheric chemistry and physics) involved in global ecosystem modelling exert a powerful influence across a wide range of environmental policy and social planning areas. The ecological sciences are fundamental to key aspects of contemporary biopolitics: ecological discourse both problematizes numerous areas of life and at the same time elaborates programmes of environmental intervention aimed at normalizing the social relation to nature in particular, ecologically benign ways. The contemporary notion of the environment is constituted as inherently problematic by the development of specialized scientific (as well as legal and moral) discourse on ecology. This specialized discourse provides what Rose and Miller (1992) have described as ‘the intellectual machinery of government’, whereby social relations with nature are thematized and brought into the domain of ‘conscious political calculation’ through the formation of programmes of government. Such programmes presuppose that the real is programmable, that it is a domain subject to certain determinants, rules, norms and processes that can be acted upon and improved by authorities. They make the objects of government thinkable in such a way that their ills appear susceptible to diagnosis, prescription and cure by calculating and normalising intervention. (Ibid. 182)

Because of the alleged objectivity and value-neutrality of science, it and technology are open to manipulation and use for more malignant ends. The open embrace of technology is intrinsically linked to domination and discipline of the self, others, and over nature. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 14345, Marcuse’s reading of science and technology in one-dimensional society rearticulates much of the Frankfurt School’s critique of the Enlightenment26 Ultimately, Marcuse sees science, as it operates in contemporary advanced industrial society, in terms that underscore its intrinsic instrumentalism. The procedures of abstraction, calculation, formalization, and operarionalization lead him to contest “the internal instrumentalist character of this scientific rationality by virtue of which it is a priori technology, and the a priori of a specific technology—namely, technology as a form of social control and domination.”27 This inherent instrumentalism is problematic, because the value-free objectivism of science leaves it open to adopt and serve substantive ends that are external to it. Emerging along with modern European entrepreneurial capitalism and nationalistic statism in Europe, the inherent technological instrumentalism of science soon integrated destructive social ends into its operations. The principles of modern science were a priori structured in such a way that they could serve as conceptual instruments for a universe of self-propelling, productive control; theoretical operationalism came to correspond to practical operationalism. The scientific method which led to the ever-more-effective domination of nature thus came to provide the pure concepts as well as the instrumentalities for the evermore-effective domination of [hu]man by [hu]man through the domination of nature. Theoretical reason, remaining pure and neutral, entered into the service of practical reason. The merger proved beneficial to both. Today, domination perpetuates and extends itself not only through technology but as technology and the latter provides the great legitimation of the expanding political power, which absorbs all spheres of culture.28 Caught up within these operational constraints and goals, science works so that “the liberating force of technology—the instrumentalization of things—turns into a fetter of liberation; the instrumentalization of man. “29 Humanity’s increasing control over the environments of Nature through technological means necessarily results in a greatly increased ability to dominate human nature. The two spheres are intimately connected inasmuch as the complex technical controls implicit in advanced technology demand that everyone exercise greater discipline over his or her own labor and patterns of consumption. By preconditioning the behavior of individuals, Marcuse sees technological reason introjecting its technical demands into each person’s somatic-psychic constitution, which “becomes the psychological basis of a threefold domination: First, domination over one’s self, over one’s nature, over the sensual drives that want only pleasure and gratification; second, domination of the labor achieved by such disciplined and controlled individuals; and third, domination of outward nature, science, and technology.”30Science and technology become an antienvironmental system of domination with its own subpolitics of instrumental control. This recognition is critical: Science, by virtue of its own method and concepts, has projected and promoted a universe in which the domination of nature has remained linked to domination of [hu]man—a link which tends to be fatal to this universe as a whole. Nature, scientifically comprehended and mastered, reappears in the technical apparatus of production and destruction which sustains and improves the life of individuals while subordinating them to the masters of the apparatus.31 Consequently, a rationalizing technical hierarchy based on humans dominating Nature merges with a disciplinary social hierarchy of humans dominating other humans in the abstract machinery of one-dimensional society. Marcuse also sees a possibility for changing the negative trends in the scientific project. The reconciliation of science and technology as a global system, or Logos, within a new metaphysics of liberation, or Eros, might assist science in developing essentially different concepts of nature, facts, and experimental context. Beyond the reification of technology, which reduces humans and Nature to fungible objects of organization, neither the worlds of Nature nor the systems of society would be the stuff of total administration. Marcuse believes that this break would be possible if a new idea of Reason attuned to a new sensibility capable of guiding its theoretical and practical workings could be developed. This moment, which would reverse the relationship between existing science and a metaphysics of domination, would come with the completion of technological rationalization, or “the mechanization of all socially necessary but individually repressive labor.”32 This moment of technological liberation also would make possible the pacification of existence—a new social condition marked by qualitatively different relations between humans as well as between humans and nature—if such newly freed individuals would work effectively to finally realize this emancipatory moment.

-29-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link- Science and Climate Models
Attempting to model and predict the environment on a global scale inevitably fails – science can’t take into account the chaotic nature of ecological variables. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 140-141 To begin with, eco-knowledges often look to a planetary scale for answers. How much more can human beings sustainably take from nature? One can appraise this sustainability issue roughly in terms of human impact on the planet’s biosphere. Vitousek and colleagues look at the biosphere’s net product of photosynthesis, seeing net primary production (NPP) as all energy transformed via photosynthesis by primary producers (photosynthesizing life-forms) minus energy they use to reproduce themselves (Vitousek et al. 1986). By the mid-1980s, human beings were consuming 40 per cent of terrestrial NPP, and 25 per cent of total NPP (including marine, aquatic and terrestrial sources). These figures, in turn, reflect not only levels of direct resource utilization, but also levels of indirect resource degradation due to anthropogenic causes (ibid.). Two more doublings of human population, again assuming only a 1980s level of resource use, would mathematically exhaust all NPP needed by all other life-forms (ibid.). While this event may be one or two generations away, and it would obviously be the ultimate catastrophe of sustainability, it seems apparent that we are already at a critical juncture of sustainability. Rich communities and powerful states still have the clout to buy and/or force their way past some of the material constraints: this is ‘the e-factor’ for Clinton and Gore. But there are millions living in deforested, desertified, eroded and salinated zones of Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe — Rwandans, Sudanese, Chadians, Bolivians, Brazilians, Belizians, Cambodians, Bengalis, Kashimiris, Ukrainians, Russians, Armenians — already suffering from ecologically unsustainable development in their territorial spaces. Soon, unless nature is preserved, will everyone be a Rwandan, will every place be in Aralsk, will everything be Love Canal? This is Secretary of State Christopher’s transnational security threat, so now the CIA, DIA, State Department and Defense Department are developing ‘early warning systems’ to detect environmental catastrophes (e.g. Greenhouse 1995). Yet, eco-knowledge of nature is tenuous. By what rules can the environment be somehow gauged as normal or at least subjected to normalizing criteria that will reveal year-in, year-out predictable levels of rain, soil creation, timber growth, fish population, agricultural output or human settlement. Once these factors have been identified and tracked, ecological monitors may watch such variables, and maybe manage the global ecosystem. But other scientific analyses indicate that there may be incredible variations in all these ecological factors from year to year or decade by decade. Nature may well be far more chaotic, much less predictable, and not as normal as many scientists hitherto have believed. As a result, technocratic efforts to capture its energies as geopower in normalizing models, which artlessly assume levels of docile predictability and stable replicability in ecological dynamics, may reduce any Strategic Environmental Initiative to administer nature to complete meaninglessness.

-30-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link-Population Crunch
While the physical violence involved in classical overt limitations to population is no longer en vogue, contemporary discourses on limits to population invoke a more insidious type of power-knowledge: one that makes the biopolitical aspects of its operation invisible, seeking instead to cause subjects to internalize its logic of control. Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 82-84
In this context, the very logic of population management is that its goals cannot be reached merely through the external imposition of codes of appropriate behaviour. While optimal levels and standards may be the terrain of expert negotiation and statistical analysis, efficient management (of reproduction, of eroticism) is really a question of normativity or, more precisely, the mobilization of individual pleasure to the goals of rationality and limitation. As Singer puts it, ‘capitalism works not by opposing itself to the pleasure principle, but by finding strategic ways to mobilize it, a form of control by incitement, not by... repression but by the perpetual promise of pleasure’ (1993: 36). Population discourse thus involves questions of organizing pleasure in particular ways. As a form of biopower, producing and controlling the sexuality of collective and individual human subject-bodies, it operates by enticement, not just by repression; in the case of population limitation, voices whisper a common arriculatory thread: ‘You will enjoy your small(er) family; you will enjoy your new-found economic prosperity; you will enjoy the process of controlling your fertility.’ This is not to say that population management efforts have never been, or do not continue to be, repressive or coercive. Far from it: one could speak of not-long-past trades of transistor radios for vasectomies among Indian men; one could speak of instances in which poor pregnant women in the USA have been refused hospital obstetric treatment unless they give ‘consent’ for post-partum sterilization; one could speak of countries in which women are currently lured into trying Depo-Provera, and are refused treatment to have the implants removed when side-effects arise (Trombley 1988, 1996). Early population discourses, including family planning, were overtly tied to eugenic strategies, which resulted in the elimination of reproductive rights for many poor women, women of colour, and women with disabilities (Davis 1981, Mies and Shiva 1993). These and other gross injustices remain, and are soundly condemned by many feminist and social justice activists, and even by some of the more enlightened environmentalists. But what is perhaps more disturbing is the fact that population management itself remains significantly unchallenged as a goal, a discourse or a disciplinary practice. While some authors are critical of the attribution of singular or even primary causality to population as a source of environmental degradation, even some of the most militant critics of coercive population control measures seem relatively content with family planning education, despite the fact that such normative ‘planning’ remains a significant instrument of control, and bears the hallmarks of profoundly gendered, racialized and heterosexualized normativity. In many ways, contemporary family planning measures — education, health promotion, access to birth control technologies, etc. — are much more efficient bearers of specifically modern, rational and capitalist relations of reproduction than any bribery or threat could be, at least in part because the power relations involved are largely invisible.

Participation in the discourses of population extends the managerial imperative of science and the project of governmentality. Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 86-7
Leaving aside (for the moment only) some of the glaring conclusions that can be drawn about social inequality, there seem to be a number of specific assumptions about human/nature relations going on in recent population—environment discourse. One is that the only possible relationship between humans and nonhuman nature is antagonistic, as nature exists only as a ‘resource’ for human use; more people inevitably means more degradation. Following from this, there are only two courses of action to ‘save’ nature: reduce the number of people or reduce their consumption. Either option signals the necessity of intervention; both imply the invocation of specific notions of natural limits (carrying capacity, etc.) as ways of drawing a line beyond which humans cannot go. A second, related assumption is that nature’s primary appearance in human life is as a limit to human excess, including, potentially, an excess of human freedom (especially in the context of a crisis).4 In the context of the fact that population discourse is also concerned with the achievement of rationality and progress (both of which are discursively opposed to nature in modernity), this seems somewhat paradoxical. But the paradox is easily explained: where the ‘ideal’ subject of population discourse is rational and has proved capable of subordinating desire to the common good of population control (normative self-limitation), it seems that there are ‘other’ subjects not so willing or capable. In other words, population discourse at this historical conjuncture relies on the bifurcation of the world into two: ‘good’ ecological citizens, who have listened to and understood the call for limits and do not require (further) regulatory intervention, and unruly bodies, who have not, might not, and/or do.5 Numerous commentators have pointed to the fact that population management strategies differ according to who it is that is being managed. The discrepancy between white, middle-class North American women, who are encouraged to utilize highly invasive new reproductive technologies to conceive, and poor rural women of countries such as Bangladesh, who are often sterilized without their consent, is too glaring to ignore. The point is not only that racism is a strong feature of population management (unsurprisingly, given the early linkages of family planning to eugenics). The point is also, as authors such as Mies and Shiva allude to (1993: 277—95), that all people (especially women) are in some way or another accountable to the discourse, subject to its prescriptions and prohibitions, made subjects through its normative inspirations in the context of economic and political relations that discriminate considerably among different kinds of subjects. It is my contention that environmentalist discourse often works to amplify both the normativity and the discrimination, by emphasizing the ‘natural requirement’ of population limitation — the ‘natural requirement’ of the subordination of human needs to an abstract notion of ‘carrying capacity’ that passes as an ecological common good. Combined with the fact that so much is absent from population discourse, the patina of scientific legitimacy gives the managerial imperative all the more power. And in so far as environmental

-31-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

discourse understands itself to be a continuation of rationalization and modernity,6 management plus risk science plus nature equals a very powerful normative imperative indeed.

-32-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link – Population- Resource Crunch
Discourses of sustainable limits to population play into the hands of capitalist globalization, relying on forming subjects as rational consumers of particular population control methods Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 87-88
That the mode of sexual subjectivity generated in, and borne by, population-talk is intimately related to the economic and social relations of (globalizing) late capitalism is not a stunning revelation: at the level of physical technologies, of course, family planning and contraceptive development provide a fantastic new global market for the provision of goods and services. But at the level of cultural technologies as well, discourses of the self associated with capitalist liberal individualism, and even particular family forms associated with capitalist productive relations, are part of the normative package sold by the global family planning movement. As Irene Diamond illustrates, these technologies are strongly tied together: In order to create a disciplined market that would find Western contraception desirable, family planning professionals utilized enticing media images that were most always supplemented by monetary and non-monetary incentives. Women of the South were told ‘contraceptives are a woman’s right’. And if in a particular district an insufficient number of women became ‘acceptors’, zealous recruiters, whose own survival within bureaucratic delivery systems depended on achieving their target goal, did not stop at tricking or compelling a woman to accept. (Diamond 1994: 73—4, emphasis added) What I would like to suggest is that contemporary population discourses, acting largely (though never entirely) through normative prescriptions of a particular form of managed sexual subjectivity, are part of the increasing global reach of capitalist market economic relations. Just as biopower was intimately involved in the development of industrial capital in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so too it is a foundational element in the globalization of monopoly capital at the end of the twentieth. At one end of the spectrum is international aid tied to the implementation of coercive birth control strategies; at the other is the even more insidious discursive linkage of (economic) well-being with small families through educational programmes sponsored by international development agencies. Whereas the former is relatively easy to condemn (if still, unfortunately, common in some places), the latter is the dominant discourse of organizations such as the United Nations, which are now beginning to speak the language of liberal feminism and women’s rights. Contemporary population management strategies of education and increasing women’s ‘rights’ of access to contraception effectively mask their imbrication in institutionalized discourses of capitalist economic development under a layer of liberal feminist concern for women’s social position. This discourse suggests a sort of reproductive structural adjustment; just as the politics of debt and aid force particular economic relations on countries of the South, so too the politics of population management, especially given their transmission via particular reproductive technologies, impose particular family and gender relations. In structural adjustment, countries are to produce themselves according to a capitalist productive logic; in reproductive structural adjustment, women and men are to produce themselves according to profoundly normative discourses about appropriate gender relations and family structures.

Environmentalism is not a benign discourse seeking mere harmony and life within natural limits. Rather, discourses like that of limits to population are articulated in ways that reinforce existing axes of domination. Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 80-81
In environmentalism, calls for limitation can be crude or subtle, physically violent or juridico-political, coercive or normative. Although it is quite clear that other modes of ensuring deference to a notion of limits are in operation in contemporary environmental struggles (economic coercion is common unfortunately), it is normativity that especially concerns me in this chapter. For while some (unfortunately not all) environmentalists see social justice as a critical aspect of ecological politics, and thus tend to rail against obviously coercive strategies of compliance, few speak of the ways in which environmentalism is itself a normalizing discourse, and thus produces specific power relations, rather than eliminates them, in a (supposedly) transparent, common quest for natural harmony. In particular, the organization of environmentalism around a central notion of limitation, as if these limits were given in nature, tends to produce a form of ‘environmentality’ that is entirely consistent with the perpetuation of highly exploitative social relations. Specifically, much contemporary environmentalism relies on a discourse of self-limitation and self-denial. This discourse is omnipresent; it is apparent in everything from the ‘voluntary simplicity’ of deep ecologists to industrialized nations’ (hypocritical) calls, via the normative prescriptions of international eco-regimes, for ‘Third World’ governments to exercise self-restraint in their ‘unruly’, ecologically destructive aspirations. The point, it seems, is to produce both individuals and nations as responsible ecosubjects, not by overt repression or regulation, but by the invocation of a notion of ‘the common good’ in which ‘limit’ is the primary discursive term around which people are to organize their ecological practices, self-concepts and pleasures. To the usual list of particular limits in this general constellation (growth, consumption, affluence, etc.), I would like to add ‘limits to sex’. In my view, one of the most disturbing sites of ‘selflimiting’ ecological wisdom lies in discourses around population. That discipline is inherent in population-talk is neither new nor surprising; as Foucault wrote, ‘one of the great innovations in techniques of power in the eighteenth century was the emergence of “population” as an economic and political problem: population as wealth, population as manpower [sic] or labor capacity, population balanced between its own growth and the resources it commanded’ (Foucault 1976: 25). While the ecological invocation of population discourse rests on a long tradition of regulatory practice — there are few differences between Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich — its contemporary imbrication in North/South, gendered, racialized and heterosexualized power dynamics suggests a particular series of inflections.

-33-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Link – Populations Crunch
Population discourse is an operation of the worst of capitalism and biopolitics – it creates disciplined consumer-subjects while hiding and normalizing the power-knowledge regimes that its operations mobilize. Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the Environment, p. 89-91
Of course, given the fact that all of this is, at some level, about management, the only ‘informed’ choice that there is to be made seems to be the choice to limit family size. Especially when one takes into account the environmental degradation that is impinging on women’s subsistence and other activities in some parts of the world (these are the scenarios that get talked about, never the ones where standards of living actually rise — even if only temporarily — due to increasing environmentally destructive activities), what other choices could a ‘rational’ person make? Nafis Sadik, then executive director of the United Nations Population Fund, makes this narrative quite explicit; given the choice, women will have smaller families. She writes: Many women, especially in developing countries, have few choices in life outside marriage and children. They tend to have large families because that is expected of them. Investing in women means widening their choice of strategies and reducing their dependence on children for status and support. Family planning is one of the most important investments because it represents the freedom from which other freedoms flow. (Sadik 1994: 209) So, under the apparently emancipatory guise of liberal feminism, women (and men) in so-called developing nations are enticed to adopt managerial-capitalist modes of sexual subjectivity, as part of their path toward well-being. Indeed, when this insight is also viewed in light of the strong normativity of environmentalism, we see that under the banner of ‘our common future’, ecological discourses are co-opted to the task of producing women as self-disciplining, eco-capitalist subjects (Sadik suggests that women’s more acute experiences of environmental degradation only confirm the necessity of their rational choice to limit child bearing). In my view, this is the key narrative: most environmental discourses on population are embedded in a normative sexuality that is intimately involved in capitalist penetration. Population management is a form of globalizing environmentality, and that environmentality is inextricably linked to capital. Notable in this environmentality is the fact that population discourse, and even the feminisms that appear to be in dialogue with it, mask their status as normative sexualities that accompany liberal capitalism. As Foucault notes, ‘power is tolerable only on condition that it mask a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms’ (Foucault 1976: 86). So it is no great surprise that it is through a series of ‘disappearing tricks’ that population discourse is made palatable. In emphasizing (particular kinds of) education, freedom, health care and standard of living, population discourse works to seduce, to entice, and to create; these modes of subjectivation rely on hiding their workings and the normative constraints that appear throughout them. The first disappearing trick lies in the complete absence of any overt talk about sex whatsoever in most population discourse. Foucault speaks about the regulation of sexuality through its production in discourse (scientia sexualis), not its banishment from discourse. I consider the absence of overt talk about sex (qua sex) entirely consistent with this characterization, in so far as population discourse does not operate by repressing sex but by rendering it discursive in a particular way that conceals its location in the realm of sexual activity. Sexuality is reduced to heterosexual reproduction; reproduction is reduced to the rational behaviours of individuals in the context of complex expert negotiations around regional and global ‘carrying capacity’, a very particular discursive existence indeed. The second disappearing trick lies in the submergence of the profound racism of population discourse in Western-derived assumptions about rational ecological behaviour. Population is a problem of the regulation of certain kinds of bodies, specifically exoticized, racialized bodies that are figured as unruly, uncontrolled, and incapable of submerging their desires to the common good of sustainability. The notion of reproductive choice is not only constituted according to a very particular definition of rational choice, but is also produced according to racist, colonialist assumptions about the self-regulatory abilities of particular bodies and hidden under an apparently self-explanatory ‘common good’ of sustainability in which all are to participate as willing subjects. The final — and perhaps most complete — disappearing trick involves the assumption of heterosexuality that constitutes the entire discourse. Think of it this way: if the problem of population is simply one of ‘too many people’, then why not encourage a greater variety of non-heterosexual, non-reproductive sexual practices? The fact that this is completely unthinkable in the minds of most suggests that population discourse isn’t about limiting numbers of people on the planet, but about instituting a form of ecological management through sexuality.

Regimes of population limits steer environmentalism away from any liberatory potential and into the arena of just another fundamentalist operation of biopolitics Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the Environment, p. 91
All of these disappearances are part of an ecological disciplinary discourse: in the face of natural limits, the appropriate, rational action is self-control. The problematization of population as an (for some, ‘the’) ecological question translates ‘natural limits’ into ‘sexual limits’ in a way that renders invisible the views of nature underscoring the former, the views of bodies permeating the latter, and the racialized, gendered and heterosexualized power relations involved in both. That sexual asceticism is so strongly tied to ecological subjectivity makes it almost impossible to argue that there may be places where resistance to sexual regulation may be tied to resistance to ecological degradation. But that is where resistance must begin: in a non-fundamentalist environmental-sexual ethics. As Eric Darier argues in the last chapter of this volume, ‘if environmentalism is to retain its radical and critical features, it has to avoid becoming just another fundamentalism’. Certainly, the power effects of population discourse show what happens when ‘nature’, in the guise of natural limit, is understood as the template for human sexual conduct. The kind of sexual fundamentalism that appears at the core of population-talk bears a rather disconcerting resemblance to other profoundly conservative normative (and frequently naturalized) sexualities. Sexuality is translated into the erasure of sex as environmentalism includes yet another dimension into its ‘just say no’ campaigns. And this asceticism is particularly acute in the absence of a countervailing ethical sexual practice. Thus, to borrow again from Darier, this suggests the need for an ‘environmental ethics a la Foucault [that] implies constant self-reflection, self-knowledge, self-examination, of transforming one s life into an aesthetic of existence’ in the realm of sexual and environmental conduct.

-34-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Internal Link- Subject- Object Dichotomy
heir form of politics necessitates viewing nature as a subjectified entity Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 11-12
In addition to reducing a broad range of primal cultures into one complex univocal tradition, deep ecologists construct Nature as an active subject that can teach people, if they cultivate their intuition or introspective consciousness, a special redemptive “Earth Wisdom.”38 As Devall and Sessions maintain, “we may nor need something new, but need to reawaken something very old, to reawaken our understanding of Earth Wisdom. In the broadest sense, we need to accept the invitation to the dance—the dance of unity of humans, plants, animals, the earth. We need to cultivate an ecological consciousness.”39 Nature is seen as speaking, knowing, having needs, suffering, sharing selfhood, expressing, and growing. Primal traditions are vital because they have remained open to Nature’s subjectivity, following its wisdom and sharing in its being. Therefore, deep ecology stresses its antimodern disposition by calling for a reinhabitation of varying bioregions in the future along the primitive lines of primal societies. The myth of humanity’s fall from primitive grace arguably is quite false, but this is what justifies deep ecology’s antimodern, future primitive vision of social change.

They re-establish the subject object dichotomy – in their politics, a subjectivized Nature is a blank slate that humanity draws its collective visions of salvation upon, using it as nothing more than a means to an end Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997, Ecocritique, p. 15-16

Deep ecology’s ultimate value of self-realization claims to go “beyond the modern Western self which is defined as an isolated ego striving primarily for hedonistic gratification or for a narrow sense of individual salvation in this life or the next.”51 Real selfhood, it is claimed, derives from human unity with Nature, realizing our mature personhood and uniqueness with all other human and nonhuman forms of being. Humanity must be “naturalized”; that is, the “human self” is not an atomistic ego, but a species-being and a Nature-being as a self-in-Self, “where Self stands for organic wholeness.”52 Here, the essence of Nature, to a large extent, would appear to be a projection of an idealized humanity onto the natural world. Nature is “humanized” in a myth of subjectivity to change human behavior. The reanimation of Nature in deep ecology extends this selfhood to all natural entities—rocks, bacteria, trees, clouds, river systems, animals—and permits the realization of their inner essence. As deep ecology depicts it, and as Georg Lukacs would observe, Nature here refers to authentic humanity, the true essence of man liberated from the false, mechanizing forms of society: man as a perfected whole who inwardly has overcome, or is in the process of overcoming, the dichotomies of theory and practice, reason and the senses, form and content; man whose tendency to create his own forms does not imply an abstract rationalism which ignores concrete content; man for whom freedom and necessity are identical.53 Nature in this myth of subjectivity becomes for humanity the correct mediation of its acting that can generate a new, more just totality. Deep ecologists, however, cannot really enter into an intersubjective discourse with rocks, rivers, or rhinos, despite John Muir’s injunction to think like glaciers or mountains when confronting Nature. “The meditative deep questioning process” might allow humanity “an identification which goes beyond humanity to include the nonhuman world.”54 A hypostatization of self in human species being, whales, grizzlies, rain forests, mountains, rivers, and bacteria is no more than the individual’s identification of his/her self with those particular aspects of Nature that express their peculiar human liberation. This ideological appropriation, in turn, is always (human) self-serving. One must ask, Is humanity naturalized in such self-realization or is Nature merely humanized to the degree that its components promote human “maturity and growth”? This vision of self-realization appears to go beyond a modern Western notion of self tied to hedonistic gratification, but it does not transcend a narrow sense of individual salvation in this life or the next. Nature in deep ecology becomes humanity’s transcendent identical subject-object. By projecting selfhood into Nature, humans are saved by finding their selfmaturation and spiritual growth in it. These goals are found in one’s life by in-dwelling psychically and physically in organic wholeness, as well as in the next life by recognizing that one may survive (physically in fact) within other humans, whales, grizzlies, rain forests, mountains, rivers, and bacteria or (psychically in faith) as an essential part of an organic whole. Nature, then, becomes ecosophical humanity’s alienated self-understanding, partly reflected back to itself and selectively perceived as self-realization, rediscovered in selected biospheric processes.

-35-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Internal Link  Militarization
The plan will be appropriated by discourses of sustainability to justify hoarding of resources by the military Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 123-25
A political, economic and technical incitement to talk about ecology, environments, or nature first surfaced in the 1960s, but it has become far more pronounced in the 1990s. Not much of this talk takes the form of general theory, because its practices have instead been steered toward analysis, stock-taking and classification in quantitative, causal and humanistic studies. The project of ‘sustainability’, whether one speaks of sustainable development, growth or use in relation to Earth’s ecologies, embodies this new responsibility for the life processes in the American state’s rationalized harmonization of political economy with global ecology as a form of green geopolitics. Taking ‘ecology’ into account creates discourses on ‘the environment’ that derive not only from morality, but from rationality as well. Indeed, as humanity faced ‘the limits of growth’, and heard ‘the population bomb’ ticking away, ecologies and environments became more than something to be judged morally; they became things the state must administer. Ecology, then, has evolved into ‘a public potential; it called for management procedures; it had to be taken charge of by analytical discourses’, as it was recognized in its environmentalized manifestations to be ‘a police matter’ — ‘not the repression of disorder, but an ordered maximization of collective and individual forces’ (Foucault 1976: 24—5). After 1992, this geopolitics has assumed many intriguingly green forms.’ Discourses of ‘geo-economics’, as they have been expounded by Robert Reich (1991), Lester Thurow (1992), Edward Luttwak (1993) and others (Kennedy 1993; McLaughlin 1993; Oates 1989), as well as rearticulations of geopolitics in an ecological register, as they have been developed by President Bill Clinton or Vice-President Al Gore (1992), both express new understandings of the Earth’s economic and political importance as a site for the orderly maximization of many material resources. Geo-economics, for example, transforms through military metaphors and strategic analogies what hitherto were regarded as purely economic concerns into national security issues of wise resource use and sovereign property rights. Government manipulation of trade policy, state support of major corporations, or public aid for retraining labour all become vital instruments for ‘the continuation of the ancient rivalry of the nations by new industrial means’ (Luttwak 1993: 341). The relative success or failure of national economies in head-tohead global competition is taken by geo-economics as the definitive register of any one nation-state’s waxing or waning international power, as well as its rising or falling industrial competitiveness, technological vitality and economic prowess. In this context, many believe that ecological considerations can be ignored, or at best given only meaningless symbolic responses, in the quest to mobilize as many of the Earth’s material resources as possible. In the ongoing struggle over economic competitiveness, environmental resistance can even be recast as a type of civil disobedience, which endangers national security, expresses unpatriotic sentiments, or embodies treasonous acts.

-36-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Internal Link – Capitalism
The eco-managerialism of the affirmative is a means to commodify the environment to be utilized as a mode of production forced upon the public. Their incentivization of environmental sustainability furthers a forced collapse of the public and private spheres to embody a logic of consummativity where all the needs and desires of individuals are controlled by corporate interests to become a desire to consume Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

As large firms claimed a monopoly over planning purposive-rational action in the work place in the Second Industrial Revolution over a century ago, individuals and families increasingly accepted new disciplinary definitions given by the state and corporate capital to their individual ecological wants and private material goals. Organic needs for air, drink, food, clothing, shelter, and productive labor, hitherto defined by the homespun crafts of the pre-capitalist or entrepreneurial capitalist household in Earth's many bioregions, underwent rapid commercial redefinition through scientifically engineered transformations by embedding incessantly commodified satisfactions for organic needs within everyone's purchasing of corporate products. These rationally designed corporate interventions into the ecological reproduction of society, in turn, enabled the aggregate planning system of corporate production "to organize the entire society in its interest and image" in the diverse technoregions of corporate design.45 Such systems of mass production presume a regime of mass consumption: masses of consumers consuming massed arrays of energy, information and material to close the circulation and accumulation of capital posed by mass production.46 Few consumers, however, are aware of the frightful significance lurking in the roots of their most prized economic labels. To consume, following from the Latin consumere, means to take up completely or lay hold of altogether. It also is to devour, waste, destroy, squander, or devastate. Consumers make away with food, drink, land, capital, or wealth, wearing out by use or spending without heed. Consumers exhaust exchangeable value or devour useful goods. Consumers counterbalance producers, or those who, in keeping with the Latin producere, lead, bring forth, extend or promote things. Producement leads to consumptiveness, the consumptuous follow from the producent. What has been brought forth must be
taken up: production presumes consumption, and consumption assumes production. As a result of this collaboration, Horkheimer notes that

for all their activity men are becoming more passive; for all their power over nature they are becoming more powerless in relation to society and themselves. Society acts upon the masses in their fragmented state, which is exactly the state dictators dream of. 'The isolated individual, the pure subject of self-preservation,' says Adorno, 'embodies the innermost principle of
society, but does so in unqualified contrast to society. The elements that are united in him, the elements that clash in him--his 'properties'--are simultaneously elements of the social whole.47 Starting first in the affluent upper-class core and middle-class suburbs of the major industrial cities and then spreading unequally at various rates of speed into more marginal market zones in the inner-city ethnic neighborhoods, racial ghettos, small towns and rural areas in advanced capitalist states, the new consumerist forms of personality and society emerged on the diverse terrains

of corporate technoregions from within the bioregional wreckage of the pre-capitalist and bourgeois social orders. Whether it is defined as "Americanization," "development," "modernization," or "progress," the Second Industrial Revolution granted to the managers of corporate capital and the state power to decide the ground rules of a new ecology.48 They planned what particular material packages and behavioral scripts could be produced and provided in their various technoregions along a multiple spectra of quality and quantity-graded and limited-quantity alternatives to the masses of consumers. Consumers simply exercise their "free choice" among many buying alternatives sourced through corporate hyperecology. In turn, individuals would not look beyond these packaged material alternatives or back to more organically-grounded bio-regions for more natural options. Hyperecologies deliver the commodified needsatisfactions required to fulfill individual need-definitions as each consumer might have imagined them. Massed consumption by the consuming masses is brute energy, information, and matter consumption as corporations and technoscience roughly organize it. Through this developmental path, the individual personality becomes an integral part of the collective means of

production, and the modern family becomes yet another service delivery node in the hyperecologies of this global fast capitalism culture. This circuit of economic reproduction expresses the essential logic of "consummativity" that now anchors the transnational economic system. Instead of maintaining the irreducible tension between the "public" and "private" spheres that

-37-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

liberal economic and legal theory hold to be true for the individual contingency of rational living, the public and private have

collapsed in circuits of identity all across the coding systems of corporate-managed consummativity, while the collective imperatives of the firm and/or the state are internalized by individuals as personalized lines of consumption in the family, firm and mass public.49 Such linkages, in turn, allow the state and firm to more closely regulate the economic and ecological existence of individuals inasmuch as most persons allegedly now desire the "needs" extended to them as the rewarding reified scripts of normal behavior by the media, mass education or professional experts and as the packages of mass-produced material goods made available by corporate manufacture and commerce. Yet, these individual "needs" also are simultaneously required by the contemporary state and corporate firm. The aggregate possibility for economic growth and the specific quality of commodity claims, implied by these individual needs taken en masse, are the productive forces guaranteeing further development in today's transnational corporate system of capitalist production. The underlying codes of consummativity in corporate capitalism rarely manifest themselves openly. They are masked instead as an on-going democratic social and economic revolution "rooted in the democratic alibi of universals," like convenience, modernity, growth, utility or progress. As Baudrillard suggests, consummativity presents itself, ...as a function of human needs, and thus a universal empirical function. Objects, goods, services, all this "responds" to the universal motivations of the social and individual anthropos. On this basis one could even argue (the leitmotiv of the ideologues of consumption) that its function is to correct the social inequalities of a stratified society: confronting the hierarchy of power and social origins, there would be a democracy of leisure, of the expressway and the refrigerator.50 As inchoate mass demands for a better "standard of living" illustrate, corporate capital still can pose successfully as a revolutionary vanguard for those who want more bananas, autos, oranges, and washing machines out of life. Speaking on behalf of deprived consumers and challenging the apparently more oppressive stratification, inequality, and material deprivation of all other forms of precapitalist or anticapitalist society, fast capitalism offers hyperecological promises of complete economic democracy, social equality and material abundance through consumption. This pledge, in turn, is legitimated by the
expansive corporate collateral of new sparkling material goods, exciting cultural events, and satisfying social services.

-38-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Internal Link – Managerialism

The elevation of the human perspective to that of the astropanopticon makes planetary managerialism inevitable Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

While many remember 1968 for the May events in Paris, a far more significant development unfolded during December on the flight of Apollo 10 to the Moon and back. Even though this space craft did not actually land on the lunar surface, its crew

provided the first photographs and video images captured by human beings on an astronautical mission into space. The impression made these images of a sun lit, cloud-swatched blue/green/brown ball floating in the dark cosmos is still recasting humanity's sense of place; indeed, the quite common circulation of these and many other similar images now constitutes a thematic center for new "astro" panoptic disciplinary discourses. Because we can see Earth from space, like aliens arriving on Mars or Venus, our worldwatching abilities from a space craft presumably empowers such technoscientific worldwatchers with special worldacting responsibilities to craft space on Earth by reaching for its most optimal ecologized performance as "Spaceship Earth." At some point during the next century, human beings might, as some astronautical scientists advocate today, terraform Mars, a Jovian moon or some asteroids. Until then, however, environmentalists and others speaking ex cathedra from this photographically-mediated astropanopticon advance their own unique and varied projects for terraforming the Earth.
This astropanopticon has effects: the reaffirmation of environmental vigilance in geo-economic discourses in the 1980s and 1990s arguably is altering the behavior of some corporate and state agencies toward Nature. Because the Earth, as Al Gore asserts, is in the balance, the raw externalization of some environmental costs to generate economic benefits is becoming less common in some countries around the world, if not in fact then, at least, as principle. Yet, this more refined internalization of ecological debits and credits also implicitly articulates a new understanding about Nature. One must push past the gratifying green glow emanating from documents like the Brundtland Report or Agenda 21 in which humanity often appears ready to call an end to war against Nature in order to launch a new era of peaceful coexistence with all the Earth's wild expanses and untamed creatures. In fact, these initiatives, like many other visions of sustainable development, balanced growth or ecological modernization, simply underscore the validity of Jameson's take on postmodernity. That is, our postmodern condition flows out of transnational networks of global

production and consumption, a situation in which "the modernization process is complete and Nature is gone for good."25 Gore's Strategic Environmental Initiative culminates in the infrastructuralization of the planet. The wild autogenic otherness or settled theogenic certainty of "Nature" is being replaced by the denatured anthropogenic systems of "the environment." The World Commission of Environment and Development admits humanity is unable to fit "its doings" into the "pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils" that is the Earth. The hazards of this new reality cannot be escaped, but they "must be recognized--and managed."26 Through astropanoptic technoscience, "we can see and study the Earth as an organism whose health depends on the health of all its parts," which gives us "the power to reconcile human affairs with natural laws and to thrive in the process."27 This reconciliation rests upon understanding "natural systems," expanding "the environmental resource base," managing "environmental decay," or controlling "environmental trends."27 As the Rio Declaration asserts, Earth's "integral and
interdependent nature" can be, and then is, redefined as "the global environmental and developmental system" in which what was once God's wild Nature becomes technoscientific managerialists' tame ecosystems.28 The hazards of living on Earth cannot be avoided or escaped, but Earth itself can be escaped in rededicating human production and consumption to hazard avoidance by reimagining Nature as terrestrial infrastructure. The astropanopticon's epiphany of seeing the Earth from space--remember the Brundtland Report's opening line, "In the middle of the 20th century, we saw our planet from space for the first time" has ironically become a self-fulfilling prophecy by exerting "a greater impact on thought than did

the Copernican revolution of the 16th century."29 Like those humans of our spacefaring future who will not let Mars, be Mars, Luna, be Luna, or some other off-world, be a world-off, Earth no longer can be allowed to just be the Earth. Instead Terra is being terra(re)formed by seeing for the first time from space its "natural ecosystems" and "environmental resource base" which humans can see, study and manage in their quest to optimize the processes of surviving and thriving. The Preamble to Agenda 21 reverberates the impact of these thoughts for the Brundtland Report's future historians:

-39-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Internal Link – Securitization

The geo-economic discourse promoted by the affirmative results in a securitization of the environment Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

Discourses of "geo-economics," as they have been expounded more recently by voices as diverse as Robert Reich, Lester Thurow,
or Edward Luttwak, as well as rearticulations of "geo-politics" in an ecological register, as they have been developed by President Bill Clinton or Vice President Al Gore, both express new understandings of the earth's economic and political importance as a site for the orderly maximization of many material resources.6 Geo-economics, for example, often transforms through

military metaphors and strategic analogies what hitherto were regarded as purely economic concerns into national security issues of wise resource use and sovereign property rights. Government manipulation of trade policy, state support of major corporations, or public aid for retraining labor all become vital instruments for "the continuation of the ancient rivalry of the nations by new industrial means."7 The relative success or failure of national economies in head-to-head global competitions typically are taken by geo-economics as the definitive register of any one nationstate's waxing or waning international power as well as its rising or falling industrial competitiveness, technological vitality, and economic prowess. In this context, many believe that ecological considerations can be ignored, or given at best only meaningless symbolic responses, in the quest to mobilize as private property as many of the earth's material resources as possible. This hard-nosed response is the essence of "wise use." In the on-going struggle over economic
competitiveness, environmental resistance even can be recast by "wise use" advocates as a type of civil disobedience, which endangers national security, expresses unpatriotic sentiments, or embodies treasonous acts.

Geo-economics takes hold in the natural resource crises of the 1970s. Arguing, for example, that "whoever controls world resources controls the world in a way that mere occupation of territory cannot match," Barnet in 1979 asked, first, if
natural resource scarcities were real and, second, if economic control over natural resources was changing the global balance of power.8 After surveying the struggles to manipulate access to geo-power assets, like oil, minerals, water, and food resources, he did see a new geo-economic challenge as nation-states were being forced to satisfy the rising material expectations of their populations in a much more interdependent world system.9 Ironically, the rhetorical pitch of Reich, Thurow and Luttwak in the geo-economics debate of the 1990s mostly adheres to similar terms of analysis. Partly a response to global economic competition, and partly a response to global ecological scarcities, today's geo-economic reading of the earth's political

economy constructs the attainment of national economic growth, security, and prosperity as a zero-sum game. Having more material wealth or economic growth in one place, like the U.S.A., means not having it in other places, namely, rival foreign nations. It also assumes material scarcity is a continual constraint; hence, all resources, everywhere and at any time, are private property whose productive potentials must be subject ultimately to economic exploitation.

-40-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Internal Link – Securitization

Viewing earth from the position of the astropanopticon results in paranoiac securitization from all possible perceived threats Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

'Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but
together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.'30 Plainly, the Preamble to Agenda 21 could as easily be named the Terraforming Compact inasmuch as its basic sentiments sum up "humanity's" managerial imperatives in the Earth's infrastructuralization, integrating environmental and developmental systems in "global partnership" to better protect all ecosystems and improve living standards for all through technoscientic terraforming. Under this terraforming horizon, what seems little more than an a pious aside in Agenda 21, in fact, reveals a great deal more. When this document would have us recognize "the integral and interdependent Nature of the Earth," it emphasizes how the Earth is "our home."31 Terraforming, then, is a form of globalized "home building," whose processes and progress should be monitored from two sets of now commonly-denominated books: the registers of oikonomia as well as the ledgers of oikologos. The

infrastructuralization of the Earth reimagines it as a rational responsive household in which economically action commodifies everything, utilizes anything, wastes nothing, blending the natural and the social into a single but vast set of household accounts whose performativities must constantly weigh consumption against production at every level of analysis from suburbia to the stratosphere in balancing the terrestrial budgets of ecological modernization. The infrastructuralization of Nature through environmentalizing movements and discourses propels contemporary societies and economies beyond the autogenic giveness of Nature into terraformative anthropogenesis, dissolving the formal boundaries between inside/outside, Nature/Culture, or earth/economy. As Baudrillard observes, "it implies practical computation and conceptualization on the basis of a total abstraction, the notion of a world no longer given but instead produced--mastered, manipulated, inventoried, controlled: a world, in short, that has to be constructed."32
The workings of "the environment" as a concept now bring many contemporary terraforming efforts to rescue the Earth's ecology back to the sources of its original meanings. To note this ironic conjunction does not uncover some timeless semantic essence; it merely reaccentuates aspects in the term's origins that accompany it from its beginnings into the present. As a word, environment is brought into English from Old French, and in both languages "an environment" is a state of being produced by the verb "environ." And, environing as a verb marks a type of strategic action, or activities associated with encircling, enclosing, encompassing or enveloping. Environing, then, is the physical activity of surrounding, circumscribing, or ringing around something or someone. Its first uses denote stationing guards, thronging with hostile intent, or standing watch over a place or person. To environ a site or a subject is to beset, beleaguer or besiege. Consequently, an environment--either as the means of these activities or the product of such actions-should be treated in a far more liberal fashion.

An environmental act, even though the connotations of most contemporary greenspeak suggests otherwise, is a disciplinary move.33 Environmentalism in these terms strategically polices space in order to encircle sites and subjects captured within these enveloping maneuvers, guarding them, standing watch over them, or even besieging them. And, each of these actions aptly express the terraforming programs of sustainable development. Seen from the astropanopticon, Earth is enveloped in the managerial designs of global commerce, which environmentalize once wild Nature as now controllable ecosystems. Terraforming the wild biophysical excesses and unoptimized geophysical wastes of the Earth necessitates the mobilization of a worldwatch to maintain nature conservancies and husband the worldwide funds of wildlife. Of course, Earth must be put first; the fully rational potentials of second nature's terraformations can be neither fabricated
nor administered unless and until earth first is infrastructuralized.34 This is our time's Copernican revolution: the anthropogenic demands of terraforming require a biocentric worldview in

which the alienated objectivity of natural subjectivity resurfaces objectively in managerial theory and practice as "ecosystem" and "resource base" in "the environment." Terraforming the Earth environmentalizes a once wild piece of the cosmos, domesticating it as "humanity's home" or "our environment." From narratives of world pandemics, global warming, or planetary pollution, global governance from the astropanopticon now runs its risk analyses and threat scenarios to protect Mother Earth from home-grown and foreign threats, as the latest security panics over asteroid impacts or X-File extraterrestrials in the United States express in the domains of popular culture. Whether it is space locusts from Independence Day or space rocks snuffing out Dallas in Asteroid, new security threats are casting their shadows over our homes, cities, and biomes for those thinking geo-economically in the astropanopticon. From such sites of supervision, environmentalists see from above and from without, like the NASA-eyed view of Earth from Apollo spacecraft, through the enveloping astropanoptic designs of administratively controllable terraformed systems.35

-41-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Encircled by enclosures of alarm, environments can be disassembled, recombined, and subjected to expert managers' disciplinary designs. Beset and beleaguered by these all-encompassing interventions, environments as ecosystems and
terraformations can be redirected to fulfill the ends of new economic scripts, managerial directives or administrative writs.36 How various environmentalists might embed different instrumental rationalities into the policing of ecosystems is an intriguing question, which will be explored below.

-42-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Impact- Value to Life
Attempts to regulate and control the environment are methods of transforming earth into a theme park for humanity. Once we sacrifice the natural unpredictability inherent to the environment, we lose the value to life Parker 96 (Kelly A. Parker, Pragmatism and Environmental Thought, in Environmental Pragmatism 21, 25 (Andrew
Light & Eric Katz eds., 1996). (1) For the pragmatist, the environment is above all not something "out there," somehow separate from us, standing ready to be used up or preserved as we deem necessary. As the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty said, "Our own body is in

the world as the heart is in the organism".17 We cannot talk about environment without talking about experience, the most basic term in pragmatism. All that we or any being can feel, know, value, or believe in, from the most concrete fact ("I am cold") to the most abstract or transcendental idea ("Justice," "God"), has its meaning, first of all, in some aspect of an immediately felt here and now. Environment, in the most basic sense, is the field where experience occurs, where my life and the lives of others arise and take place. Experience, again, is not merely subjective. It has its "subjective" side, but experience as such is just another name for the manifestation of what is. What is is the ongoing series of transactions between organisms and their environments. The quality of experience - whether life is rich or sterile, chaotic or orderly, harsh or pleasant - is determined at least as much by the quality of the environment involved as by what the organism brings to the encounter. Environment is as much a part of each of us as we are parts of the environment, and moreover, each of us is a part of the environment - a part of experience - with which other beings have to contend. In asserting the fundamental relatedness among organisms and
environments, pragmatism commits us to treating all environments with equal seriousness. Urban and rural; wilderness, park and city; ocean and prairie; housing project, hospital and mountain trail - all are places where experience unfolds. The world, in this view, is a continuum of various environments. Endangered environments perhaps rightly occupy our attention first, but environmental philosophy and ecological science are at bottom attempts to understand all the environments we inhabit. Attention to the whole continuum of environments allows us to put into perspective what is truly valuable about each. The environments we inhabit directly affect the kinds of lives that we and others can live. There is an unfortunate tendency to draw crassly instrumentalist conclusions from this line of thought. I want to caution against this tendency. If environment "funds" experience, this reasoning

might go, then let us use technology to turn the whole world into an easily manageable, convenient stock of environments that conduce to pleasant human experiences. This Theme Park: Earth line of thinking neglects our inherent limitations as finite parts of the world, and sets us up for disaster. Repeated attempts to dominate nature (e.g., our damming the Nile and its damning us right back, or our tragicomic' efforts to "tame" the atom) should have begun to teach us something about the limits of human intelligence. Such attempts to dominate nature assume that no part of the environment in question is beyond the field of settled experience. We can indeed exert remarkable control over parts of the experienced world, remaking it to suit our purposes. This may be appropriate, if our purposes make sense in the first place. (I know of no reason to object to the prudent use of natural gas to
heat our homes, for example.) But the very idea that the environment funds experience involves the notion that there is an ineffable aspect of the world. It is indeed arrogant to think that we can master nature; it is moreover delusional and

ultimately self-negating. If we have our being in the ongoing encounter with environment, then to will that the environment become a fully settled, predictable thing, a mere instrumental resource in which there can be no further novelty, is to will that we undergo no further growth in experience. The attempt to dominate nature completely is thus an attempt to annihilate the ultimate source of our growth, and hence to annihilate ourselves.

-43-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Impact – Colonialism
Ecological activism culminates in capitalist ecocolonialism where western values take priority in deciding which habitats survive Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm) The work of the WWF as a result is often ironically seen by its American managers as a kind of "green man's burden" spreading the advances made by conservationists in the United States abroad because, as Train notes, "there has been almost total neglect of the problems outside our borders until the WWF came along."93 Under the presidencies of Russell E. Train, Bill Reilly and Kathryn Fuller, the WWF grew from 25,000 members with an annual budget of about $2 million in 1978 to a membership of 1.2 million and an annual budget of $79 million in the mid-1990s by pushing this ecocolonialist agenda.94 The WWF has specialized in propagating its

peculiar global vision in which experts from advanced industrial regions, like the United States, Great Britain, or Switzerland, take gentle custody of biological diversity in less advanced regions, like Third World nations, as benevolent scientific guardians by retraining the locals to be reliable trustees of Earth's common endowments in their weak Third World nation-states.
In many ways, the WWF is one of the world's most systematic practitioners of eco-colonialism to reshape Nature consumption. From its initial efforts to protect Africa's big fame trophy animals in the 1960s to the ivory ban campaigns of the 1990s, WWF wildlife protection programs have been concocted by small committees composed mostly of white,

Western experts, using insights culled from analyses conducted by white, Western scientists that were paid for by affluent, white, Western suburbanites. At the end of the day, many Africans and Asians, living near those WWF parks where the endangered wildlife actually roam wild, are not entirely pleased by such ecological solitude. Indeed, these Third World peoples see the WWF quite clearly for what it is: "white people are making rules to protect animals that white people want to see in parks that white people visit."95 At some sites, the WWF also promotes sustainably harvesting animals for hides, meat, or other
by-products, but then again these goods are mostly for markets in affluent, white, Western countries. As Train argues, these ecocolonial practices are an unavoidable imperative. The WWF came to understand that "the great conservation challenges of today and of the future mostly lie in the tropics where the overwhelming preponderance of the Earth's biological diversity is found, particularly in the moist tropical forests and primarily in the developing world. Although the problems may often seem distance from our own shores and our own circumstances, we increasingly understand that the biological riches of this planet are part of a seamless web of life where a threat to any part threatens the whole."96 In mobilizing such discursive understandings to legitimize its actions, the WWF has empowered itself over the past thirty-five years to act as a transnational Environmental Protection Agency for Wildlife Consumption to safeguard "the Earth's biological diversity," internationalizing its management of "the biological riches of this planet" where they are threatened in territorialities with very weak sovereignty to protect their sustainable productivity for territories with quite strong sovereignty as parts of "a seamless web of life where a threat to any part threatens the whole."97

On one level, the American WWF frets over biodiversity, but many of its high Madison Avenue activities actually aim at developing systems of "biocelebrity." From the adoption of the panda bear as its official logo to its ceaseless fascination with high-profile, heavily symbolic animals, or those which are most commonly on display in zoos or hunter's trophy
rooms, the WWF-US has turned a small handful of mediagenic mammals, sea creatures, and birds into zoological celebrities as part and parcel of defending Nature. Whether it is giraffes, elephants, rhinos or kangaroos, ostriches, koalas or dolphins, humpbacks, seals, only a select cross-section of wild animals with potent mediagenic properties anchor its defense of Nature. Special campaigns are always aimed at saving the whales, rhinos or elephants, and not more obscure, but equally endangered fish, rodents, or insects. This mobilization of biodiversity, then, all too often comes off like a stalking horse for its more entrenched vocations of defining, supplying, and defending biocelebrity. On a second level, however, the WWF is increasingly devoted to defending biodiversity, because it is, as Edward O. Wilson asserts, "a priceless product of millions of years of evolution, and it should be cherished and protected for its own sake."98 Even though it should be saved for its own safe, it is not. Wilson provides the key additional justification, indicating implicitly how the World Wildlife Fund actually presumes to be the long-term worldwide fund of Nature as the unassayed stock of biodiversity is saved "for other reasons," including "we need the genetic diversity of wild plants to make our crops grow better and to provide new foods for the future. We also need biodiversity to develop new medicines....a newly discovered insect or plant might hold the cure for cancer or AIDS."99 Wilson argues, "you can think of biodiversity as a safety net that keeps ecosystems functioning and maintaining life on Earth."100 But, as the organization operating as the green bank with the biggest deposits from a worldwide fund of Nature, the WWF aspires to hold many of these bioplasmic assets in ecological banks as an enduring trust for all mankind. Fuller, is quite explicit on this critical side of the association's mission. Because "the biological riches of the planet are part of a seamless web of life in which a threat to any part weakens the whole," the WWF must ensure the integrity and well-being of the Earth's "web of life," giving it a most vital mission: Because so much of the current biodiversity crisis is rooted in human need and desire for economic advancement, it is essential that we work to bring human enterprise into greater harmony with nature. Shortsighted efforts at economic development that come at the expense of biodiversity will impoverish everyone in the long run. That is why, in addition to establishing protected areas and preserving critical wildlife populations, WWF uses field and policy work to promote more rational, efficient use of the world's precious natural resources."101 Faced by an extinction wave of greater pervasiveness than any confronted during recorded history, the WWF-US mobilizes the assets of biocelebrity to leverage its limited guardianship over the planet's biodiversity, because we may see as much as one quarter of the

-44-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Earth's biodiversity going extinct in twenty or thirty years. Even so, the WWF fails to realize how closely its defense of the

rational, efficient use of precious natural resources as third wave environmentalism may contribute to the extinction of biodiversity. And, the conspicuous consternation of the WWF permits a focused fixation upon biocelebrities to occlude this fact for those who truly care about Nature--as long as it is equated with rhinos, tigers, and elephants. WWF ecotourism remanufactures Nature into consummational reserves, transforming habitat into assets, flora and fauna into operating plant, and indigenous communities into entrepreneurial stakeholders or, even worse, underpaid site managers, for global ecoconsummation. Nature conservation becomes a game, and everyone involved becomes a player for the
WWF. In fact, the WWF's worldwide banking powers over Nature's biological riches as interdependent mutual funds collateralizes the ecotourism bargain. As the WWF declares, the deal is dangerous, but potentially very rewarding, inasmuch as "for many rural communities and local and national governments, the booming travel industry is a rich resource for cash-starved economies and an important development tool that can foster conservation by giving communities an economic stake in the nonconsumptive use of their natural resources."102 The WWF-US believes pushing economies beyond primary and secondary sectors of production into tertiary "nonconsumptive uses of natural resources" in the leisure and recreation business will provide jobs that offer "people financial incentives to protect, rather than exploit or destroy, natural resources."103 From the WWF's global perspective of providing local regulation via global conservation, these planned means of consummational appropriation are the "wise use" of Nature, because "these jobs are often better and last longer than occupations like logging and mining because they focus on the preservation and wise use of natural resources, not their extraction."104 From a WWF's regulationist perspective, these jobs are usually worse and longer suffering, because they pay much less than logging or mining, and lock local economies into low-yield, low-value adding, lowstatus service sector activities. Nonetheless, the ecotouristic strategy does reveal how one dimension in the WWF's vision of nature's "wise use" works. An (un)wise (mis)use of extractive industries promoting the hyperconsumptive use of natural resources cannot be taken seriously as "wise use." Instead, the protection of ecosystems in Nature preserves, which host low-impact sustainable cultivation of flora and fauna in traditional economies or high-traffic flows of conscientious ecotourists, becomes the sine qua non of "wise use" for WWF wildlife fund managers worldwide.

As coequals in the circle of life coevolving in the webs of biodiversity, human beings nobly become another animal being responsible for other animal beings. Thus, the World Wildlife Fund, becomes the key trustee of an international family of mutual funds for creating and operating these little wildlife worlds all over the planet. Its consummational agenda for a transnational ecocolonialism pays out as a post-consumptive environmental reservation system where the Earth's last remaining wilderness and wildlife become the tamelife habitats and inhabitants of exotic biodiversity.
This is pathetic, but it is where whatever was once "wild nature" is now left. The wise use of Nature boils down to containing only a few of the most egregious instances of the unwise abuse of select charismatic megafauna by detaining a few survivors in little wildlife worlds all over the planet. And, in the current political environment, which increasingly favors legislative moves to rollback any serious Nature preservation initiative, even this ecocolonialist work of the WWF now can only be applauded. The WWF is caught

within the same global capitalistic economy that promotes pollution, poaching, and profit, but its consummational good deeds advance the reproduction of global capitalism at all other unpreserved sites, shifting the role of the WWF from that of anti-consumptive resistance on a local level to one of pro-consummational rationalization on a global scale.

-45-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Impacts – Turns Case

These attempts at an anthropogenic environment result in a technoregionalization of the planet where all efforts to preserve it become commodified into methods to promote capitalism, making the environment a second priority - this turns case Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

To preserve the various ecologies of the planet on a global scale, as many environmental groups assert, the inhabitants of each human community must rethink the entire range of their economic and technological interconnections to their local habitats, as national discourses of green geo-politics and grey geo-economics illustrate, in terms of how they are meshed into the regional, national, and international exchange of goods and services. Beginning this strategic review immediately poses the question of protecting all existing concrete "bioregions" in first nature, or the larger biosphere of the planet, within which the ecologies of any and all human communities are rooted.
Bioregions historically have constituted the particular spatial setting of human beings' social connections to specific lands, waters, plants, animals, peoples, and climates from which their communities culturally constitute meaningful places for themselves in the "first nature" of the natural biosphere.37

The "domination of nature" is not so much the total control of natural events in the environment as much as it is the willful disregard of such localized ecological conditions in building human settlements.38 The abstract "technoregions" constructed within the human fabrications of "second nature," or the always emergent technosphere of the planet, within which modernizing human communities are now mostly embedded, operate by virtue of environmental transactions that often are over, beyond, or outside of rough equilibria of their natural habitats. These transactions create new anthropogenic ecological contexts, which typically generate an artificial hyperecology of an ultimately unsustainable type.39 A great deal of time and energy might be expended in core capitalist countries upon environmental regulations, resource surveys, ecological studies, and conservation policies, but these initiatives almost always are consumerist campaigns, aiming to reform the costs and regulate the benefits of these unsustainable flows of goods and services through the hyperecologies of second nature.40
Consumer society constitutes an entirely new system of objects out on the terrains of second nature. Baudrillard shrewdly aspires to be recognized as second nature's Linneaus, asserting that second nature plainly has a fecundity or vitality of its own: Could we classify the luxuriant growth of objects as we do a flora or fauna, complete with tropical and glacial species, sudden mutations, and varieties threatened by extinction? Our urban civilization is witness to an ever-accelerating procession of generations of products, appliances and gadgets by comparison with which mankind appears to be a remarkably stable species. This pollulation of objects is no odder, when we come to think about it, than that to be observed in countless natural species.41 Finding a rationality and systematicity in this quickening procession of products, Baudrillard believes his new technified taxonomies for every object (products, goods, appliances, gadgets, etc.) of the system permits us to plumb the system of

objects propounded by contemporary economies of mass production/mass consumption. To do so, however, one must push past the silences of the silent majorities, and decipher the meanings of mass consumption as the consuming masses reveal them. Exploring consumption of objects in particular might disclose "the processes whereby people relate to them and with the systems of human behavior and relationships that result thereform," and thereby allowing
anyone to reach "an understanding of what happens to objects by virtue of their being produced and consumed, possessed and personalized."42 Here is where habitus emerges from the systems of objects and objects of systems compounded with the technosphere. Bourdieu asserts habitus emerges out of "the capacity to produce classifiable practices and works, and the capacity to differentiate and appreciate these practices and products (taste), that the represented social world, i.e., the space of life-styles, is constituted."43 Yet,

the dual dimensionality of habitus as a structured and structuring structure parallels the properties of habitat, which when taken in environmental terms, provides a scheme of systems generating classifiable practices and products as well as a scheme for systems of appreciating and comprehending within and amidst specific settings. Consequently, the habitats of second nature out on the technoregionalized ranges of anthropogenic technospheres are formed out of habitus, or the system of distinctive signs in practices and works driving lives styled by the system of objects. In these new spaces, terraformative hyperecologies can be monitored to judge their relative success or failure in terms of abstract mathematical measures of consumption, surveying national gains or losses by the density, velocity, intensity, and quantity of goods and services being exchanged for mass consumption. Here one finds geo-economists pushing for wiser uses of all biotic assets in all anthropogenic exchanges. Consumption is outsourced from many different planetary sites by using varying levels of standardized energy, natural resources, food, water and labor inputs drawn from all over the Earth through transnational commodity, energy, and labor markets.44 Geo-economic forms of state power and/or market clout, in turn, allegedly will provide the requisite force needed to impose these costs on the many outside for the benefit of the few inside. By substituting "Earth Days" for real ecological transformation, the hyperecologies of transnational exchange are successfully repacking themselves in green wrappers of ecological

-46-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

concern; but, they still often involve the profligate waste of energy, resources, and time to maintain the abstract aggregate subjectivity of "an average consumers" enjoying "the typical standard of living" in the developed world's cities and suburbs. Yet, if this is indeed happening, then how did these patterns develop?

-47-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Impact – Turns Case
Environmental sustainability within the capitalist system is impossible – the mitigation of growth from regulating the environment must be made up somewhere else by inevitably more damaging expansion, turning the case Eckersley 04 (Robyn Eckersley, Professor in the School of Politics, Sociology, and Criminology @ University of Melbourne, 2004.
The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Pg. 57-59) Yet, during the 1980s and 1990s, the basic analysis of the contradictions of the capitalist welfare state was firmed in the face of the sustainable development debate.15 James O’Connor’s ecosocialist theory of the “second contradiction of capitalism”

continued the long-standing Marxist understanding of the dynamics of capitalism as essentially contradictory and therefore containing the potential seeds of its own destruction or transformation. This potential, O’Connor argued, is
manifested in the emergence of new social movements (notably environmental movements) that seek to challenge the destructive tendencies of capitalism. However, the environmental demands on the state are typically deflected, ignored, or dampened down by the capitalist state whenever they threaten the imperative of capital accumulation.16 For O’Connor, the basic dynamic of capitalism is one that continually undermines the social and ecological conditions for its own ongoing existence, a process that he articulated in terms of two fundamental contradictions. The first contradiction of capitalism refers to the contradiction between social production and private appropriation (the demand side), whereas the second contradiction refers to “the conditions of production” (the supply side), which O’Connor takes to be nature, labor, and

infrastructure. Given the expansionary dynamic of capitalism and the limited supply/character of the conditions of production, he reasons that we can expect the costs of production to increase over time. This is exacerbated by the demands of labor, environment, and welfare movements to improve working conditions, protect the environment, and improve social infrastructure. For O’Connor, the so-called limits to growth do not appear as physical shortages but rather as higher costs. The contradiction arises from capital’s
standard response to the profit squeeze: to externalize costs. Yet such a response only serves to further reduce or undermine the profitability of the conditions of production and thereby raise the average costs of production.17 The second contradiction of capitalism is held up as providing the most likely second road to socialism, although this time around it would be ecological socialism. O’Connor argued that the combined effect of the first and second contradictions of capitalism is falling demand (from unemployment) and rising costs (from the limited supply of the conditions of production)— a problem that capital seeks to avoid by, for example, investing in nonproductive financial markets, which increases the vulnerability of economies. In all, he argued that there are few incentives for capital to be ecologically responsible in boom times, and even less so in recession or depression. The grow-or-die rationality of capitalism makes it crisis-ridden. Against this background, the role of the state—and of policy makers

generally—is to “rationalize” the conditions of production by improving the productivity of labor, protecting and regulating access to nature, or producing capitalist infrastructure.18 The more the state undertakes such rationalization, however, the more the costs of production increase and the conditions of production become socialized in the form of more coherent state environmental planning and the technology-led restructuring of industry. But the outcome is uncertain, since the conflictual character of the pluralist
policy process in capitalist states (which also favors the powerful and tends toward messy compromises) is such that no systemic resolution is likely. Resolving the contradictions requires integrated and coherent social and ecological planning on a scale that is beyond the motivation and capacity of the capitalist state. O’Connor argued that not only is the policy

process too conflict ridden to achieve sufficient political unity, the bureaucratic state is also too fragmented and democratically insensitive to carry out such a momentous task.19 Carrying forward the functionalist analysis of his early work, such a full-scale resolution of the ecological crisis is understood to lie beyond the policy limits of the capitalist state. While O’Connor acknowledged that capitalism has the potential to become more efficient in terms of material energy use and waste production, he suggested that this is likely to be overshadowed by capitalism’s attempt to “remake nature” to ensure sustainable profitability (e.g., by enlisting new technologies, such as those used to produce genetically modified crops). In short, capitalism is not, and cannot become, ecologically sustainable because capitalism can only expand or contract—“it cannot stand still.”20

Capitalism promotes a method of problem displacement which only mitigates symptoms, making their impacts inevitable Eckersley 04 (Robyn Eckersley, Professor in the School of Politics, Sociology, and Criminology @ University of Melbourne, 2004.
The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Pg. 59-60) John Dryzek’s analysis of the ecological potential of the liberal capitalist state is broadly similar to that of O’Connor’s, although Dryzek was even more sceptical than O’Connor about the prospects of the state ever acting as an agent of ecological emancipation. For example, Dryzek argued that capitalism, liberal democracy, and the administrative state work together to compound ecological problems.21 In particular, the capitalist economy “imprisons” both liberal democracy and the administrative state, restricting its margins of successful policymaking and “punishing” those policy makers when they seek to step outside these margins. And within these narrow margins, the respective problem solving rationalities of liberal

democratic policy making and state administration tend toward problem displacement rather than

-48-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

problem resolution.22 More recently Drzyek has pressed further his analysis of state imperatives, using it to explain the degree
to which the inclusion of social movements in state processes of policy making is likely to be effective in terms of policy outcomes and democratization. In effect he argues that the democratization of the state via the inclusion of civil society actors is only really possible to the extent that the interests and claims of civil society actors accord with the state’s functional imperatives. If the interests and claims of civil society actors do not accord in this way, then one can expect inclusion in the state to amount to cooptation, leading to the depletion of the unrestricted interplay of critical opposition in the public sphere.23 O’Connor’s and Dryzek’s basic analysis has been echoed by other political ecologists who have worked the familiar “contradictions” argument of critical theory at many more levels. For example, Colin Hay has argued that there is a fundamental mismatch between the level at

which ecological contradictions are generated (based on the growth imperative of globalized capital accumulation) and the level at which political responsibility and crisis management is allocated (the liberal democratic nation-state).24 And it is precisely because states, acting alone, are seen as incapable of resolving the crisis that they must develop instead “a complex repertoire of environmental responsibilitydisplacement strategies.” 25 In effect, they seek ways of securing the state’s legitimacy without actually resolving the underlying problems. Echoing Ulrich Beck’s critique of contemporary risk management practices and Martin
Jänicke’s case of “state failure,” Hay seeks to expose the limitations of “symptom alleviation, gesturing and responsibility displacement downwards (to individuals), upwards (to supranational institutions) or side-ways (other states).”26 Whereas O’Connor and Dryzek hold out some hope for the redeeming qualities of the critical public sphere and for the possibility of new social movements acting back upon the state (a point I explore in more detail in chapter 6), Hay’s ecological critique of the state is more devastating and his conclusions more pessimistic.

-49-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Impact – Turns Case

The capitalist system precludes the possibility of an international environmental ethic Eckersley 04 (Robyn Eckersley, Professor in the School of Politics, Sociology, and Criminology @ University of Melbourne, 2004.
The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Pg. 48-50) However, any deeper greening of states presupposes the alleviation of other systemic, anti-ecological pressures on states. I refer here not to the systemic pressures that arise from a Hobbesian or Lockean anarchic system of states per se but rather to the systemic pressures arising from the development of global capitalism, which

are increasingly being expressed through the state system in economic multilateral arrangements covering trade, finance, debt relief, technology, and development. The biggest challenge to the development of green states comes not from pressure generated by the state system but rather from the competitive pressures of global capitalism. The potential for more innovative initiatives in environmental multilateralism is therefore likely to be limited until such time as the ecological contradictions generated by dominant economic multilateral arrangements are resolved by more reflexive, and hence more ecologically sensitive, modernization.

Capitalism’s constant strive to produce an excess makes it impossible to save the environment faster than it destroys it Eckersley 04 (Robyn Eckersley, Professor in the School of Politics, Sociology, and Criminology @ University of Melbourne, 2004.
The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Pg. 54-56) Critiques of the capitalist welfare state in the 1970s focused on the state’s fundamentally contradictory tasks.5 On the one hand, the state was seen as having an institutional interest in safeguarding the interests of capital. This was not because of any ruling class conspiracy but rather because of its functional dependence on the flow of revenue (principally taxation) that private capital accumulation provides.6 In this respect the state was understood as defending and upholding the interests of a capitalist society, including workers, investors, and consumers, rather than merely the interests of the capitalist class standing alone. Capitalist states typically do this by providing the necessary legal and social infrastructure for businesses to flourish, as well all those facilities and services that contribute to the growth of capitalist society. On the other

hand, the state was posited as having to respond to public pressure to redress the negative social and ecological “side effects” generated by private capital accumulation (including the commercial activities of stateowned instrumentalities). If the liberal capitalist state was to be seen as representing all of society, then it had to be responsive not only to the demands of capital but also to the demands of all those who are exploited or otherwise harmed by capitalism’s tendency to privatize gains and socialize costs. Yet the state’s capacity to secure its legitimacy by alleviating these problems via its welfare and protective services is typically dependent on its also performing successfully the function of maintaining private capital accumulation. So while the
formal rules of liberal representative democracy enable this legitimation function to be discharged (to some extent), the boundaries of successful policies are invariably set by the buoyancy of the economy. The upshot was that any concerted attempt to

regulate private investment and business activities to the point where negative ecological externalities are eliminated or made negligible was believed to bring about a set of multiple crises, for instance, inflation, capital strike or flight, and labor unrest. The core claim in my highly schematic account of this body of state theory was that these contradictions—to provide for the interests of private capital and to dampen social unrest by ironing out the negative social externalities of capitalist accumulation—cannot all be resolved simply by pursuing more efficient or more effective economic management and administration. Rather, these tensions can only be “politically
managed” because few governments are prepared to risk serious economic dislocation or any cessation or major curbing of economic growth in the name of environmental protection: to do so would merely hasten their political demise. The systems-theoretic approach employed in the early work of leading theorists such as James O’Connor, Claus Offe, and Jürgen Habermas focused on the functional interdependencies between the capitalist state and the capitalist economy. That is, the basic unit of study is not the state as an independent or historical entity but rather the state capitalist system.7 (This may be contrasted with non-Marxist theories of the state that approach the state as an “autonomous” organization or source of power “controlling, or attempting to control, territories and people.”8) These functional interdependencies are examined with a view to ascertaining the policy limits and policy failures of the capitalist state.9 Since policies are understood in terms of the functions they serve vis-àvis the broader system of which they are part, policy failure (whether in the domains of social or environmental policy) may be understood as one particular instance of system failure. For example, environmental policy failure can be traced to structural contradictions in the capitalist economy, which are analyzed as giving rise to crisis tendencies.10 It is precisely this functional dependence on the processes of private capital accumulation that makes the welfare state a “capitalist state” and sets limits to the scope and substance of state policy making.11

The welfare state is understood to be in crisis because these contradictory requirements of accumulation and legitimation can never be resolved within the system’s own boundaries.12

-50-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Impact- Mass Death
Capitalism devastates the Third Word and causes massive environmental destruction Barry Weisberg, no qualification, Beyond Repair: the Ecology of Capitalism, 1971, pg. 181-182

Liberation depends more than anything upon breaking the chain of domination at its strongest link here in the United States. There should be no illusion by any among the Left that the liberation movements of the developing countries will at some point cripple the United States. The new array of technological and chemical warfare agents being developed by the United States could under present conditions selectively devastate much of the Third World. At best, we in the United States must learn from the Vietnamese and other liberation movements the lessons of courage and dedication, and most important, the lesson of hope. In an age in which much is said about the overpowering effects of technology, the lesson of the Vietnamese people who have for a decade withstood the most intensive technological assault of all time is a truly miraculous example of the triumph of the collective human spirit against the will of the machine and those humans who are more machinelike in their actions that the machines they employ. If it is true, as Heidegger and others have suggested, that technology is essentially nihilistic because it represents the ultimate expression of the will to power, it has been demonstrated in our own day as well that the collective will to defend a life of meaning has resisted the mechanical madness of American imperialism. Here perhaps is the most potent lesson for America today. The Vietnamese have withstood the pressure of death only because they resisted with life. By contrast, the gallows humor of almost any New Yorker reeks of the acceptance of a dead and decaying environment. This attitude of acceptance and resignation is manifold in the fear of the nuclear weapons or the inability to react to the biological destruction of the environment. The acceptance of death in the modern world stems from the ignorance of life. In other words, the failure for many in America to experience a truly human and creative environment, a life of meaning, robs a person of understanding the meaning of death as well. What the struggle of the Indochinese people suggests is that only the struggle to defend life can counter the imminence of death. What this entails is the creation of a language and a program which can reach out and embrace the American public, which can serve as a source of gravity away from the banality of American life, away from the American way of death. There must be no denying that the present moment and the one immediately ahead are full with awesome prospects. The French poet Pierre Emanuel at an American symposium perhaps captured the overwhelming contradiction, “America is prophet of the tension of the modern age and will have to suffer through it. America will help humanity to rediscover the meaning and necessity of suffering in a world of change.” The prophetic tension of America is the contradiction between what exists and what is being born, between the cry for more survival on the part of frightened liberals, and the cry for life emanating out of the thousands of new life forms and -experiments across America. In the short run, the contradiction between death and life can only be heightened. The division of those who rule from those who are ruled is the first step toward liberation. That may well mean that in order to bring into being a new morning that a night of darkness more intense than anything yet endured will cover America. As long as the bombing of Indochina continues bombs will continue to explode in America. Certain critical installations of production, particularly chemical and petroleum sources, should be destroyed in the United States. It would be a grave miscalculation to believe that those who rule the American colossus will abandon their positions of power. The only way that the production of lethal agents will be terminated is if force is applied. In some cases shortterm organizing strategies may disable key centers of production.

-51-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Impact- War and Colonialism

Biopolitics is the ultimate form of control which treats life as if it has no value and justifies colonialism and war Timothy W. Luke, professor of political science at Virginia polytechnic institute and state university, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing from Marx, 1999, pg. 165-166

This command to go anywhere at any time to defend the cause of survival also directs ecodisciplinarians to pursue other equally problematic values on a more global level with the full force of state power and positive science, namely, stability, diversity, and interdependence. A powerful nation-state is no longer empowered simply to defend its territory to protect its populations. It also must identify and police the surroundings of all its many environments to guarantee ecological stability, biological diversity, and environmental interdependence. Because some states are more sustainable than others, their survival imperatives can become guidelines for environmental colonialism. So to survive, the state may choose to impose the status of a green belt, forest preserve, nature reservation, or environmental refuge on other societies. Qates claims that the ecological ethic of stability as “a steady-state” would notresult in stagnation. Such outcomes would, of course, offend the growth fixations of consumers and citizens living in liberal capitalist democracies. On the contrary, he believes that this ethic would mean “directing growth and change in nondestructive ways, generated within the standing pattern that supports life.”6’ But who directs growth and change for whom? Is there a standing pattern that directs life? Does anyone really know enough about it to direct growth in accord with it? In practice, Global Marshall Planners in Washington or New York could use ecological criteria to impose sustainable development of economic growth at home as they also force ecological steady states on others abroad. If India’s millions stay on foot or bicycles, then Germany’s millions will stay in their cars. If Indonesia keeps growing trees, then Japan can keep consuming lumber. And if Brazil’s ranchers keep turning rain forest into cattle ranges, then U.S. suburbanites will get their cheeseburgers. Obviously, a “steadying state” designed and managed by green bureaucrats will be needed to enforce environmentalized stable states of dynamic ecological equilibrium, which Gates identifies as the sine qua non of stability. Ironically, then, green bureaucrats, who are directed to stabilize everyone’s fitness and health, should restructure populations and growth by planning for sustainable patterns in timber harvesting, oil production, agricultural output, land use, and consumer marketing to contain but not end the growth fetishism of mass-consumption capitalism. Gates concurs with Gore and McLaughlin that all present geo-economic national economies run on a paradox: “Whatever is achieved instantly becomes inadequate when measured against the ethic of continual consumption. Satisfaction only creates dissatisfaction, in an accelerating cycle. ‘More’ is an unrealizable goal.”62 Since these consumerist values continually cause more and more damage, the environmentalizing strategies of ecodisciplinary regimes must enforce a new social commitment to their opposites, namely, the willing acceptance of “less” as the moral basis for new ecological values on a social and individual level. For survival’s sake, “the ethical consciousness of earth’s human population must therefore be as ecologically well regulated as the size of the earth’s population.”63 Protecting the whole, in the practice of environmentalizing green bureaucracies, also can become a strange administrative credo of biophilia, or love of life, in a framework of biocentrism, or placing earth-life-nature at the core of green thought and bureaucratic practice. If environments are to be protected, then all the life within them would, of course, anchor the practical forms of human engagement with the world. Yet this emotional commitment to “life,” or life seen as the superorganism of Earth in ecology, might entail a condemnation of humanity in open misanthropy by containing, destroying, or limiting some traditional forms of human living in favor of the earth’s ecological survival. It is not that geo-environmentalists love their lives less but that they might love other animal and plant life more—so green bureaucrats will reason as they prevent some human communities from developing to enhance environmental survivability. Such contradictions actually make sense, because they stand for placing limits on geo-economic excesses in those cases where the survivalist operatives of the green steady state see everyday social policies threatening nonhuman life’s survival and stability. “Where survival of the whole seems threatened,” Gates concludes, “as in issues of extinction and pollution, then the basic ethos of protecting the whole predominates.”64

-52-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Alternative Solvency
Biopolitical administration of populations depends upon the successful administration of the environment that the population depends on. Contemporary discourses of ecological risk mobilize particular forms of expert knowledge that are used as extensions of disciplinary power in the fight to define the proper administration of the environment for the biopolitical state. Paul Rutherford, professor of environmental politics in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the University of Sydney, Australia, 1999, Discourses of the Environment, p. 43-45
Foucault suggests a continuity between this modern right to life and the contemporary concern about risks to the environment. He claims that the ‘biological risks’ confronting the human species ‘are perhaps greater and certainly more serious, than before the birth of microbiology’ (ibid. 143). He further suggests that the economic and social conditions that, since the eighteenth century, allowed the West a measure of relief from the struggle against famine, etc. do not necessarily apply ‘outside the Western world’, and goes on to link the notion of modernity directly with biopower and the conditions under which it emerged: But what might be called a society’s ‘threshold of modernity’ has been reached when the life of the species is wagered on its own political strategies. For millennia, man remained what he was for Aristotle: a living animal with the additional capacity for a political existence; modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being in question.6 (ibid., emphasis added) These comments can be seen as an indication that Foucault’s work on biopolitics is capable of addressing the notion of ecological risk and the problem of the social relation to nature, which are emerging as key problems for contemporary social theory. As will be discussed in another chapter, social theorists Ulrich Beck and Klaus Eder both understand ecological threats as the result of global processes of modernization and rationalization, which have created new ecological fields of conflict within contemporary society. Beck in particular points to a link between the success of economic growth and the consolidation of welfare state mechanisms in providing an unprecedented level of security for life in the West. From a different, yet not unrelated perspective, Eder emphasizes the rise of a new, post-industrial ‘politics of class’ involving competition for the symbolic definition of the social relation to nature. These perspectives inextricably link ecological problems with social systemic processes of modernization. One useful way of approaching Foucault’s notion of biopower is to follow Brian Turner, who has argued that, notwithstanding his apparent hostility to systematic theorizing, Foucault’s work nevertheless implicitly embraces a particular causal explanation of the modern world (Turner 1984: 159). Turner identifies the ‘unifying theme’ of Foucault’s work as a dual focus on the ‘rationalisation of the body and the rationalisation of populations by new combinations of power and knowledge’, and argues that these rationalizations are the effect of increasing population densities, which in the nineteenth century came to threaten ‘the political order of society’ (ibid. 163, emphasis added). Turner rightly emphasizes the role which population pressures played in Foucault’s analysis of the development of biopower, pointing out that it is this factor which stands behind the expansion and development of new regimes and regimens of control — a profusion of taxonomies, tables, examinations, drills, dressage, chrestomathies, surveys, samples and censuses. The pressure of men in urban space necessitates a new institutional order of prisons, asylums, clinics, factories and schools in which accumulated bodies can be made serviceable and safe. Just as the space of knowledge experiences accumulations of new discourses, so the social space is littered with bodies and the institutions which are designed to control them. (ibid. 160—1) The point I would stress is that not only is knowledge pivotal to practices of power; it is also central to the constitution of the objects upon which bio power operates — that is, to the ‘making up’ of both people and things. Biopolitics is therefore inherently linked to the development and elaboration of specific forms of expertise. This is an issue I will return to later in the chapter. For the present, suffice it to say that the definition and administration of populations simultaneously requires the constitution and management of the environment in which those populations exist and upon which they depend. Such a conclusion is implicit in Foucault’s approach, although not developed, and as a consequence Foucault does not adequately deal with the way in which the political and economic problematization of populations also gave rise, in more recent times, to a similar problematization of nature and the environment.7 However, it is clear from Foucault’s discussions of the biopolitical regulation of populations that this assumes not only the disciplining of individuals and populations, but also, necessarily, a concern with the administration of ‘all the conditions of life’ as represented by the environment. For Foucault biopolitics, the task of administering life at the level of the ‘species body’, represents the multiple points of application to the body (both individually and collectively) of disciplines such as public health, medicine, demography, education, social welfare, etc. (Barret-Kriegal 1992: 194). Ecology and environmental management can also be regarded as expressions of biopolitics, as these originate in, and operate upon, the same basic concerns for managing the ‘continuous and multiple relations’ between the population, its resources and the environment. Contemporary ecological discourse, in other words, is an articulation of what Foucault calls the ‘population—riches problem’. This suggests a specifically ecological or environmental dimension to biopolitics, which renders more complex the way in which we understand the body as the target and site of power. Not only are we forced to deal with the individual ‘anatomical’ body and the social body, and the relations between these, but we must also take into account an ecological dimension in which the focus is on the relationship between the social body and the biological species body.8 This is not to suggest that there will not be new forms of discipline and normality directed at the body at the individual level (indeed, these would appear to be a necessary component in ecological governmentality9), but that, as with areas of social policy such as public health, the ecological is primarily biopolitical in nature — that is, it is manifested in specific regulatory controls aimed at the population, albeit from a somewhat different perspective.

-53-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Alternative – Discursive Re-Framing/Resistance
In contrast to disciplinary formulations of population discourse, we should engage in a discursive reframing that unmasks the operations of power hidden in population discourse itself. This strategy allows for a space in which new subject-positions can emerge, and allows environmentalism to become emancipatory rather than simply the Draconian extension of biopolitics Catriona Sandilands, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, 1999, Discourses of the
Environment, p. 92-94 For Darier, as for Foucault, ‘resistance . . . is an illustration of the self-critical affirmation of ways of relating to the world rather than an instrumental strategy for a teleological purpose’. The point is not to create a series of sexual norms to ‘save the Earth’, but to engage in practices of critical self-reflection against precisely such norms — here especially those that create unproblematic, ‘natural’ linkages among sex, knowledge and nature — in order to ‘become something different from what we were made’. Resistance to ecosexual normativity, then, begins in questioning and discursive disruption, rather than in an easy acceptance of the assumption that environmentalism requires ‘saying no’ to sex. It begins in a process of discursive exposure: making visible the workings of the racist, sexist and heterosexist inflections of population discourse, making clear the assumptions of a particular sort of rational subjectivity that accompany discourses of ‘appropriate’ global ecological citizenship for individuals and nations alike. It begins in a process of calling
into question the ‘naturalness’ of any sexual talk or practice, testing and shaking up the grounds of both calcified and emergent articulations. Tempting though it might be, resistance to eco-sexual normativity is not a mere matter of ‘just saying yes’. Nor is an ethics made by finding or confessing one’s ‘true~ sexuality beneath layers of repression, environmentally induced or otherwise. It cannot be a simple question of ‘doing the right thing’ according to an abstract set of expert-derived principles. This uncertainty, this lack of a strategic or normative ethics, makes the development of a collective response to eco-sexual normativity quite difficult. ‘However,’ writes Darier ‘as any action is situated in a specific context of power relations, it is possible to know if — strategically and at a given time — a green act of resistance merely legitimizes the existing system of power relations or undermines it.’ Although there may be no easy answers, and although it may not be desirable to replace an ascetic eco-sexual normativity with (say) a hedonistic one, I do think that in this particular context a possible avenue for resistance is in the reassertion of an

overt sense of ‘polymorphous’ pleasure into environmentalist discourses, toward a multiplicity of sexual and natural discursive articulations. While it is clear that part of the success of population discourse is its mobilization of pleasure in the relationship between reducing
reproduction and increasing living standard, it is also clear that this is a pleasure born of denial in the context of a series of other denials, a reduction of multiple possibilities to one. So what other pleasures are possible? I alluded above to a process of questioning reproductive heterosexual penetrative normativity as part of a strategy of resistance to the assumption that population control equates with the limitation of all sexual activity. In this case, both heterosexuality and ascetic ecological subjectivity are called into question, separately and in their ‘natural’ articulation.

Such a questioning would create spaces for the exploration of others. Further, it might be possible to consider some contemporary Foucauldian-inspired queer analysis and politics — specifically that which tries to ‘denature’ sexual identity — as a site from which to incorporate a variety of different understandings of nature in sexual discourse. What might it be like to ‘try on’ different natures as part of a process of pleasurable, creative self-understanding? Or the reverse: what might it be like to ‘try on’ different sexualities in the interpretation of nature for ecological discourses (e.g. Sandilands 1994)? The point is not to arrive at some non-heterosexual normative practice, but to mobilize resistances to heterosexuality with resistances to eco-normativity as a way of using each to call into question the ‘naturalness’ of the other. Of course, this kind of anti-normative questioning does not guarantee that the planet will be saved, in either the short or the long term. Such a quest would result in precisely the kind of ecofundamentalism that has been generated by the articulation of ecological with population discourses. What this type of process of resistance does suggest is that space be made for the possibility of a genuinely ethical self-transformative practice as part of the point of the environmental movement itself. If environmentalism is to go beyond ‘just saying no’, if it is to lead to something other than a series of Draconian codes governing ever more intimate aspects of individuals’ lives, then spaces for exploration must be allowed to flourish and proliferate. Polymorphous sexualities and multiple natures are thus at the heart of green resistances. Where population control, despite its claims to the contrary, fails to free humans and non-humans alike from normative constraints, self-questioning and disruption may be more promising.

-54-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Alternative- Micro Resistance
Alternative- enacting micro-resistances to the dominant environmental discourses can abolish the basis for the discourse and fracture state control Timothy W. Luke, professor of political science at Virginia polytechnic institute and state university, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing from Marx, 1999, pg. 245-246
Nothing, or at least very little, necessarily remains settled forever in the economic, governmental, and social institutions of advanced capitalist economies. Advanced urban industrial life is never necessarily the way that we find it simply because it grows in accord with invariant laws of modernization and development. Rather, what is taken to be modern and developed represents the latest winning political coalition or ascendent market logic prevailing over all the others that have lost these battles, if only temporarily. The collectives behind modernity are full of alternative formations, untested possibilities, and potential innovations simply not yet implemented as lived activities. There are few inevitabilities or necessities beyond the constant struggle over who will dominate whom, with those in power then pretending afterward that political contingency was in fact structural inevitability. Populism today is a complex, variegated, multidimensional phenomenon that no one analysis can fully articulate—much of it stands on the right, some of it veers to the left, a bit of it is a step back, a piece of it strikes out ahead. This book has touched on only a few of its ecological implications, examining how American populism in the 189os stood for one sort of social ecology against a new alternative, as well as how the deteriorating macroenvironments of the 1990S suggest that another mode of collectivization, or a whole new social ecology, might now emerge to restructure the megatechnical polyarchies that have operated for over a century. One might aver that ecology is insignificant in the current scheme of things. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. One kind of human relationship with the environment presumes collectives rooted in microecologies of independent producership, regionalistic cornmunitarian exchange, and personal citizenship. Another entails collectives chained to a hyperecology of dependent consumerism, globalistic corporate exchange, and personal clientage. Habitat is shaped by habitus. For ecologically minded populists to reorder the economy and society, another set of collectives in this new social ecology, which is basically another alternative modernity potentially quite different from the one that has prevailed for over a century, must be developed as forms of individual competence from within the universal incompetence engendered by this failing modernity. Even this is no surefire recipe for realizing the future. Following Marx and his warnings about the future vis--vis stock recipes for communism, each populist ecological community must ultimately craft its own cuisine in its own kitchen, although some ingredients for the best mix—as this book concludes—should be taken from the shelves of Marxian critical theory, localist democratic populism, and ecotechnical social ecology.

-55-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Representations Key
Representations and discursive framings of the environment are the only way to base actual environmental policy – without our framework you have no means to evaluate the affirmative. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Spring 2003, Aurora Online, http://aurora.icaap.org/2003Interviews/luke.html, accessed December 10, 2004
So the book of nature then remains for the most part a readerly text. Different human beings will observe its patterns differently; they will choose to accentuate some while deciding to ignore others. Consequently, nature's meanings always will be multiple and fixed in the process of articulating eco-managerialist discourses. In the United States, the initial professionalized efforts to resourcify nature began with the second industrial revolution, and the original conservation movements that emerged over a century ago, as progressively minded managers founded schools of agriculture, schools of engineering, schools of forestry, schools of management, and schools of mining, to master nature and transform its materiality into goods and services. By their lights, the entire planet was reduced through resourcifying assumptions into a complex system of inter-related natural resource systems, whose ecological processes in turn are left for certain human beings to operate efficiently or inefficiently as the would-be managers of a vast terrestrial infrastructure. Directed towards generating greater profit and power from the rational insertion of natural and artificial bodies into the machinery of global production, the discourses of resource management work continuously to redefine the earth's physical and social ecologies, as sites where environmental professionals can operate in many different open-ended projects of eco-system management. The scripts of eco-system management imbedded in most approaches to environmental policy, however, are rarely rendered articulate by the existing scientific and technological discourses that train experts to be experts. Still, a logic of resourcification is woven into the technocratic lessons that people must acquire in acquiring their expert credentials. In particular, there are perhaps six practices that orient how work goes here. Because I have a weakness for alliteration, I call them Resource Managerialism, Rehabilitation Managerialism, Restoration Managerialism, Renewables Managerialism, Risk Managerialism, and Recreationist Managerialism.

-56-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Alternative- Ecological Revolution
Ecological revolution will change current attitudes towards capitalism and solve the impending catastrophe John Bellamy Foster, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, Ecology Against Capitalism, 2002, pg. 89-90
Declining civilizations, Arnold Toynbee once observed, are invariably marked by a “tendency toward standardization and uniformity” and by a loss of “differentiation and diversity.” In that respect the current biosphere culture of global capitalism exhibits the main symptoms of decline even as its global empire expands. It is the global expansion of this reductionist system, in fact, that threatens its existence. Problems such as environmental destruction were at one time localized and bounded; they are no longer so. “If we continue to act on the assumption that the only thing that matters is personal greed and personal gain,” Noam Chomsky has stated, “the [ecological] commons will be destroyed. Other human values have to be expressed if future generations are going to be able to survive.” Indeed, if society continues to be dominated by the narrow ethic of exploitation built into the present political-economic system, it is only a matter of time—a few decades or a few centuries—before the ecology of the planet as a whole will have been so compromised as to undermine the essential means of supporting life as we know it.’2 There is of course nothing inevitable about such an outcome. “Wherever human beings are concerned,” the great biologist Rena Dubos once observed, “trend is not destiny.” Everything depends on social struggle and the movements and organizations that people are able to build. What is needed in the current historical conjuncture, as the Worldwatch Institute has declared, is an “environmental revolution” on the scale of the earlier agricultural and industrial revolutions. Such an ecological revolution—if it is to succeed—will need to transcend the present biosphere culture of capitalism and the higher immorality that it engenders, replacing it with a world of ecological and cultural diversity—a world of more complete and universal freedom because rooted in a communal ethic and in accord with the earth and its habitat.’3

Only an ecological revolution can bring about broad based social change through the rejection of capitalist methods of accumulation John Bellamy Foster, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, Ecology Against Capitalism, 2002, pg. 132

A shift toward a broad movement for ecological conversion and the creation of a sustainable society also means that the partnership between the state and the capitalist class, which has always formed the most important linchpin of the capitalist system, must be loosened by degrees, as part of an overall social and environmental revolution. This partnership must be replaced, in the process of a radical transformation of the society, by a new partnership between democratized state power and popular power.46 Such a shift requires revolutionary change that must be more than simply a rejection of capitalist methods of accumulation and their effects on people and the environment. Socialism—as a positive, not just a negative, alternative to capitalism—remains essential to any conversion process, because its broad commitment to worldwide egalitarian change reflects an understanding of “how the needs of the various communities can fit together in a way that leaves nobody out, and that also satisfies global environmental requirements. Within a socialist framework, the sources of the largest-scale and most severe environmental destruction could be dealt with head-on, in a way that has already shown itself to be beyond the capacity—not to say against the interests—of capital.”47 From an eco-socialist perspective there is no difficulty in seeing that the rapid destruction of the old-growth forest is not about owls versus jobs but ecosystems versus profits. Ecology tells us that the destruction of a complex ecosystem rooted in a climax forest that took centuries and even a millennium or more to develop involves thresholds beyond which ecological restoration is impossible. We must therefore find our way to a more rational economic and social formation, one that is not based on the amassing of wealth at the expense of humanity and nature, but on justice and sustain-ability. Whether the issue is species extinction, death on the job, women’s control of their own bodies, the dumping of toxic wastes in minority communities, urban decay, Third World poverty, the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming, nuclear contamination, desertification, soil erosion, or the pollution of water resources, the broad questions and answers remain the same. As the authors of Europe’s Green Alternative have written, we must choose between two logics: “on the one side, economics divorced from all other considerations, and on the other, life and society. ~~48

-57-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Alternative- Eco- Resistance

Only a restructuring of ecology can disrupt disciplinary technologies and rationalization of nature Timothy W. Luke, professor of political science at Virginia polytechnic institute and state university, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing from Marx, 1999, pg. 22-23

This reconstruction and contestation of ecology as a new critical sensibility could revitalize political debates over the key issues of who decides, who pays, and who benefits in the complex economic and technological relations of people with nature. A renewal of nature, ecologically constituted and mediated as free sites for self-created being, promises to reorder the relations of the individual to the collective, of personality to society, and of these dual social relations to nature. This ecological sensibility, then, must

reinvest individuals with the decision-making power to order their material relations to the environment in smaller-scale, nonhierarchical, ecologically sound technical relaions between independent producers in local and regional
commonwealths. States and businesses will not act responsibly in every instance. Therefore, ecological populism must reaffirm the responsibility of all individuals for preserving their ecological inheritance and passing it on to future generations. To confirm the virtues of self and social discipline in living within the renewable cycles of natural reproduction, this ecological sensibility should point to the most promising paths out of the megatechnical consumerism of corporate capitalism. Rather than encourage passivity, dependence, and purposelessness, which social theorists have criticized the corporate technocracy for fostering and perpetuating, the theory and praxis of ecological populism should presume greater social activity, personal autonomy, and reasonable balance to preserve nature. With these goals the labor of competent, conscious communities could be guided to

ecologically reconstitute their social, economic, and political mediations with each other by interacting reasonably with nature.52 Furthermore, the successful establishment of new social relations organized along these ecological lines might radically alter the social constructions of nature in relation to society, making nature again into a subject, not an object; an agency, not an instrumentality; and a more than equal partner, not a dominated subaltern force. Many living and inorganic constituents of nature could be entitled to rights and privileges as worthy of defense as many human rights and social privileges. At the same time, no rationalizations of nature’s continued destruction could be countenanced in exchange for the false promise of more jobs, greater prosperity, added growth, or closer technological control. Guarantees of ecological security should in turn ramify into greater freedom, dignity, and reasonability for the human beings whose own autonomy suffers in nature’s abusive indenturing to corporate enterprises’ instrumental rationality.

Ecological resistance challenges corporate-economic representations and powers of activity Timothy W. Luke, professor of political science at Virginia polytechnic institute and state university, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing from Marx, 1999, pg. 23-24
For centuries the industrial approach toward nature has emphasized a relation of instrumentally driven mining, the brutal appropriation of resources with little concern for the ways in which the never-ending growth of consumption overloads and exhausts stocks of natural resources, degrading the environment for all beings who occupy it. Shifting from these relations of “mining,” which prevail in most contemporary technologies of mineral utilization, corporate agriculture, water usage, timber exploitation, commercial fishing, and atmospheric pollution, to a relationship of contextually anchored minding is a pressing need. Such caring collaboration between nature and culture, which could survive an equitable exchange between social resource utilization and natural resource renewal, might better balance the currently unbalanced cycles of growth and decay, present consumption and future production, and technical efficiency and ecological reasonability. A popular local culture for “minding” nature should assume human coevolution with nonhuman life in the environment.53 As each of the following chapters asserts, these practices of nature minding also should evince several principles: the necessity of planning for permanence rather than obsolescence; the worth of maintaining natural and social diversity over the ill-fated imposition of a monological uniformity on nature; the importance of sustaining renewal, reusability, and reasonability as central principles of nature-culture linkages; and the need to balance past environmental destruction against present communal use and future ecological renewal in one common set of accounts. In developing these principles, new discursive representations of ecology should guide local communities hoping to make the transition from economies subjected exclusively to narrow corporate profit to ecologies rooted more closely in a broader democratic communalism.

Micro-resistances to dominant discourses of the environment can fracture hegemonic consent for power and state control Timothy W. Luke, professor of political science at Virginia polytechnic institute and state university, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing from Marx, 1999, pg. 245-246

Nothing, or at least very little, necessarily remains settled forever in the economic, governmental, and social institutions of advanced capitalist economies. Advanced urban industrial life is never necessarily the way that we find it simply because it grows in accord with invariant laws of modernization and development. Rather, what is taken to be modern and developed represents the latest winning political coalition or ascendent market logic prevailing over all the others that have lost these battles, if only temporarily. The collectives behind modernity are full of alternative formations, untested possibilities, and potential innovations simply not yet implemented as lived activities. There are few inevitabilities or necessities beyond the constant struggle over who will dominate whom, with those in power then pretending afterward that political contingency was in fact structural inevitability. Populism today is a complex, variegated, multidimensional phenomenon that no one analysis can fully articulate—much of it stands on the right, some of it veers to the left, a bit of it is a step back, a piece of it strikes out ahead. This book has touched on only a few of its ecological

-58-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

implications, examining how American populism in the 189os stood for one sort of social ecology against a new alternative, as well as how the deteriorating macroenvironments of the 1990S suggest that another mode of collectivization, or a whole new social ecology, might now emerge to restructure the megatechnical polyarchies that have operated for over a century. One might aver that ecology is insignificant in the current scheme of things. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. One kind of human relationship with the environment presumes collectives rooted in microecologies of independent producership, regionalistic cornmunitarian exchange, and personal citizenship. Another entails collectives chained to a hyperecology of dependent consumerism, globalistic corporate exchange, and personal clientage. Habitat is shaped by habitus. For ecologically minded populists to reorder the economy and society, another set of collectives in this new social ecology, which is basically another alternative modernity potentially quite different from the one that has prevailed for over a century, must be developed as forms of individual competence from within the universal incompetence engendered by this failing modernity. Even this is no surefire recipe for realizing the future. Following Marx and his warnings about the future vis--vis stock recipes for communism, each populist ecological community must ultimately craft its own cuisine in its own kitchen, although some ingredients for the best mix—as this book concludes—should be taken from the shelves of Marxian critical theory, localist democratic populism, and ecotechnical social ecology.

-59-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

A2 Permutation

They’re putting the cart before the horse- using the system to attempt to solve its symptoms only legitimizes capitalism’s actions and serves as a way for those who have damaged the environment to assuage their guilt Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm) Compared to so many other environmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) plainly is doing something

immediate and significant to protect Nature--buying, holding and guarding large swatches of comparatively undisturbed natural habitat. Yet, it does this in accord with the consumeristic ground rules of the global capitalist economy. Millions of acres, occupying many diverse ecosystems now are being held in trust by the Nature Conservancy. This trust is
being exercised not only for future generations of people, but also for all of the new generations of the plants and animals, fungi and insects, algae and microorganisms inhabiting these plots of land. Beginning with the 60 acres in the Mianus River Gorge, this organization has protected by direct acquisition and trust negotiations over 7.5 million acres of land in North America as well as Central America, South America, and the Caribbean in over separate 10,000 protection actions. In the past forty years, on pieces as small a quarter an acre to as large as hundreds of square miles, the Nature Conservancy in the United States has arranged for the ongoing protection of an area the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island.84 Given that so many ecological initiatives fail so frequently, this string of successes cannot be entirely ignored. Nonetheless, one must admit the Nature Conservancy's achievements are perhaps seriously flawed, even though these flaws reveal much more about the consumption of public goods through a private property system and free enterprise economy than they show about environmentalism. Because of what has happened to Nature, how capital operates, and where resources

for change must be solicited, the Nature Conservancy does what it does: consume land to be held "in trust: for Nature. As a result, the tenets and tenor of the Conservancy's operations as "an environmentalist organization" are those of almost complete compliance, and not those of radical resistance to the fast capitalist global economy. In the Nature Conservancy's operational codes of land consumption, a triage system comes into play. Some lands of Nature are more "ecologically significant," some regions are much more "natural areas," but some grounds are far less "protectable" than others. The methods of the Conservancy show how it implicitly sees Nature as real estate properties inasmuch as its chapters must constantly grade the acreages they receive--labelling some as truly ecologically significant, some as plainly natural areas, some as merely "trade lands."85 The latter are sold, like old horses for glue or worn-out cattle for dogfood, and the proceeds can used elsewhere to promote conservation. In seeking to preserve Nature, the Nature Conservancy strangely oversees its final transformation into pure real estate, allowing even hitherto unsalable or undeveloped lands to become transubstantiated into "natural areas" to green belt human settlements and recharge their scenic visits with ecological significance.
When it asks for land to protect wildlife and create sanctuary for ecosystems. However, the Nature Conservancy tends not to

detail the ultimate cause of its concern. Protect it from what? Create sanctuary from what? The answer is, of course, the same consumeristic economy that is allowing its members to accumulate stock, mail in donations, buy and sell land. In many ways, the Conservancy is disingenuous in its designation of only some of its lands as trade lands. Actually, all of its
protected lands are trade lands, trading sanctuary and protection here (where it is commercially possible or aesthetically imperative) to forsake sanctuary and protection there (where it is commercially unviable or aesthetically dispensable). It extracts a title for partial permanence from a constant turnover of economic destruction anchored in total impermanence.86 The Conservancy ironically

fights a perpetually losing battle, protecting rare species from what makes them rare and building sanctuary from what devastates everything on the land elsewhere with the proceeds of its members' successful capitalist rarification and despoliation. The Nature Conservancy necessarily embraces the key counter-intuitive quality of all markets, namely, a dynamic in which the pursuit of private vices can advance public virtues. This appears contradictory, but it has nonetheless a very valid
basis. It agrees to sacrifice almost all land in general to development, because it knows that all land will not, in fact, be developed. On the one hand, excessive environmental regulations might destroy this delicate balance in land use patterns. In accepting the universal premise of development, on the other hand, it constantly can undercut economic development's specific enactments at sites where it is no longer or not yet profitable. Some land will be saved and can be saved, in fact, by allowing, in principle, all land to be liable to development. Hence, it needs trade lands to do land trades to isolate some land from any more trading. In allowing all to pursue their individual vices and desires in the market, one permits a differently motivated actor, like the Nature Conservancy, to trade for land, like any other speculator, and develop it to suit its selfish individual taste, which is in this case is "unselfish nondevelopment." This perversely anti-market outcome satisfies the Conservancy's desires and ends, while perhaps also advancing the collective good through market mechanisms. Over the past two decades, The Nature Conservancy has grown by leaps and bounds by sticking to the operational objectives of "preserving biodiversity."87 As powerful anthropogenic actions have recontoured the Earth to suit the basic material needs of corporate modes of production, these artificial contours now define new ecologies for all life forms caught within their "economy" and "environment." The "economy" becomes a world political economy's interior spaces defined by technoscience processes devoted to production and consumption, while "the environment," in this sense, becomes a planetary political economy's exterior spaces oriented to resource-creation, scenery-provision, and waste-reception.

-60-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

Natural resources exist, but Nature does not. Economic survival is imperative, but the commodity logics driving it need to be grounded in sound ecological common sense lest the limitless dynamism of commodification be permitted to submit everything to exchange logics immediately. Time is now what is scarce and centrally important in the highly compressed time-space continua of contemporary commodity chains. It is no longer a question of jobs versus the environment, because fewer jobs will not resurrect Nature. Nature is dead, and the environment generating global production assumes that jobs are necessary to define it as the space of natural resources. Doing jobs irrationally and too rapidly, however, is what destroys these environments, making jobs done rationally and at an apt pace ecologically acceptable. Consequently, the agendas of environmental protection must center on the "question of the short-term vs. the long-term," and this is "what the Conservancy is all about."88 Nature, in all of its wild mystery and awesome totality, is not being preserved by the Nature Conservancy. It is, in fact, dead, as McKibben and Merchant tell us.89 Nonetheless, its memory might be kept alive by the Nature Conservancy at numerous burial parks all over the nation where glimpses of its spirit should be remembered by human beings in a whiff of wild fight, the scent of a stream, or the aroma of surf. This goal may be a very well-intentioned one; but, in many ways all that the Nature Conservancy does boils down to serving as a burial society dedicated to giving perpetual maintenance and loving care at a variety of Nature cemeteries: Forest Glen, Mountain Meadow, Virgin River, Jade Jungle, Prairie View, Harmony Bay, Sunny Savannah, Brilliant Beach, Desert Vista, Happy Hollow, Crystal Spring. As Nature's death is acknowledged, more and more plots are needed to bury the best bits of its body in gardens of eternal life. Thus, the call for members, funds, and donations always will grow and grow.

This mission is even more ironic given the means whereby it is funded. Those humans, whose production and consumption had so much to do with Nature's death, the middle and upper-middle classes, are given an opportunity to purchase some atonement for their anonymous sins as consumers by joining the Nature Conservancy. Indeed, they even can transfer their accumulations of dead labor, and by extension, dead nature, to the Nature Conservancy to tend the gravesites of that which they murdered cheeseburger by cheeseburger, BTU by BTU, freon molecule by freon molecule in their lethal mode of suburban living. Even more ironically, the hit men of these myriad murder for hire deals--or major corporations--also are solicited by the Conservancy to pony up land, capital or donations to sustain this noble enterprise. Economy and environment are, of course, not incompatible, because this is the circuit of maggot and corpse, buzzard and body, grub and grave so common in today's postmodern ecology. Capital and Nature, the dead and living, are incompatible, but the capital has won, Nature is dead. All that is left is the zombie world of economies and environments, or the cash credits inside corporate ledgers for capital circulation and the ecological debits outside of corporate accounting charged off as externalities. Some still think capitalism has not yet defeated Nature, but they are deluded. Everything is environment now, nothing is Nature except perhaps the last reaches of innerspace and outerspace where aquanauts and astronauts, riding hi-tech robotic probes, have not yet come in peace, killing everything before them to then rest in peace.

A2 Framework
The old toolbox of realist international relations is totally inadequate when analyzing contemporary debates over the environment – realist explanations are either too ideologically biased or rely on too many assumptions. That makes our framework essential to actually understanding the environment and conflicts over it. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, June-July 2003, Alternatives, p. 393-95
I want to assess the implications of tins rising inequality by concentrating upon its environmental dimensions, but I also want to approach what is regarded as “the environment” quite differently by mobilizing ideas from science and technology studies. These alternative notions can help frame the outlines of this new inequality as both an object of knowledge and subject of struggle. Such moves must be made because most analytical tools in the disciplines of both international relations and environmental studies are not adequate for the tasks of interpreting what is now developing around the world in the realms of technoscience and the environment. In fact, our existing tools often occlude what needs to be analyzed, who needs to be criticized, and what must be done to oppose powerlessness an(1 inequality. To anchor my claims, I take Fredric Jameson’s point about the postmodern condition its a point of departure. That is, it is what remains “when the modernization process is complete and nature is gone for good.” It is a more fully human world than the older one, but one in which “culture” has become a veritable “second nature”. Ironically, as Jameson suggests, this more fully human world is one that also rests upon the creation, maintenance, and suppression of a more fully nonhuman world. As Bruno Latour suggests, Modernity is often defined in terms of humanism, either as a way of saluting the birth of “man,” or as a way of announcing his death. But this habit itself is modern, because it remains asymmetrical. It overlooks the simultaneous birth of “nonhumanity”—things, or objects, or beasts—and the equally strange beginnings of a crossed-out God, relegated to the sidelines. 2 This realm of nonhumanity is, in large part, what we know as “the environment,” but it increasingly is occupied by things and systems as well as plains and animals. Sitting on the sidelines, hiding amid the action, and working behind the scenes with “modern man,” there are all the objects and subjects—or plants, things, beasts, places, systems, and spaces—that sustain modernity and its inequalities as they now surround everybody and everything in their workings. The Enlightenment’s national progressive order of human actors—male and female—seeking liberty, equality, and fraternity persists. Yet it unfolds amid many other asymmetrical

transnational networks and unbalanced national niches for nonhumanity that in materially advance or retard human Struggles for national progress. In many ways, the modern world system for commodity production and consumption generates its own artificial and natural environments. An environment is what surrounds something, and the sweep of
global exchange now is “environizing” itself a terraformative power at the most fundamental level of operation by putting everything that exists in built and unbuilt environments under human control. The idea is to put life itself into conformity with commodification, subjecting objects and subjects to exchange and forcing everyone and everything to perform within the ways of the market. Whether it is bioengineering new life forms, remixing the composition of the planet’s atmosphere, or crowding out most other organisms within Earth’s carrying capacity, human economic exchanges are now a key environizing power that encircles, contains, and envelopes

-61-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

living and nonliving things in the human nations and environmental niches that now constitute the world’s ecosystems. The domination of “Nature” by “Society” creates a second nature, a processed world, or a postmodern condition in which those who own and control the material and mental means if enforcing asymmetries between different populations of humanity and aggregations of nonhumanity are continuously forced to concretize new inequalities on this environmental scale. Far too many people and their things, in turn, become relegated to second, third, fourth, fifth, or other developing worlds, while only a few people and their things in the developed “first world” benefit from the costs incurred elsewhere by these world-making, or “terraformative,” powers. While many experts in the areas of foreign affairs, international relations, or global studies stick with simplistic explanatory frameworks tied to rational-choice notions of decision and action amid anarchic conditions, it is not clear that models of rationally calculated action are adequate for interpreting the full range of international behavior by sates.5 Of course, countries frequently are assumed to be

unitary rational actors, and policy choices can be reinterpreted to fit models that presume rationality. Once receiving this treatment, moreover, any behavior can be regarded as autonomous rational action by such operational definitions. Those
explanations, however, are frustrating, because they float along, at worst, with too much ideological presumption or they sit, at best, on top of far too many operational “as if” assumptions.4 The criteria of explanation become caught within so many little

vortices of conceptual churn that essentially everything can be regarded as rationally calculated action.5

-62-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

A2 Framework
Neo-realism failingly attempts to explain inter-environmental relations in the outdated model of an anarchic international scene, with distinct nation-states acting rationally. Instead, contemporary environmental developments require an understanding of how the natural world has been discursively constructed and contested in inter-environmental relations. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, June-July 2003, Alternatives, p. 396-97
Neorealist discourses of international relations fashion human sovereignty as the essential element for overcoming international anarchy. Modern man becomes “the ideal of well-bounded rational identity, who would assert his master over history and who would occupy the attentions of modern social science.” Contemporary social scientists, working in the neorealist realm, in turn, innocently tout the enduring imperatives of para bellum in the state of nature. Indeed, the figurations of war still counterbalance the figure of man: war continues as “an aleatory domain of history that escapes the controlling influence of man’s reasoned narratives and what is known as dangerous, violent, and, therefore, anarchic.” Along these lines of conceptual adhesion for man/war, as Ashley notes, is the sign of the state: the state as the modern focus of violence, with its back to the domestic space of man who legitimates it by willingly submitting to the limitations it legislates and enforces, and turned to face the residual zone of historical indeterminacy still to be forcefully brought tinder control in the name of reasoning man.” Consequently, man and the state accept the constraints of a cohesive “inside” in order to survive the enduring anarchies prevailing “outside” every domestic society’s borders. 12 This acceptance allegedly constitutes the autonomous always already active imperative of “internationality,” which compels any domestic society to submit to its state, directs every state to organize its society to nurture rational men as its citizens, and empowers rational men to control anarchy through war, or preparing for war, amid anarchy-avoiding domestic Society. While Kenneth Waltz’s early Man, the State, and War privileges the identity of “man” over the historicity of “war,” his later Theory of International Politics seems to reverse this polarity to exalt “war” over “man” by showing the ways in which “the texture of international politics remains highly constant, patterns recur, and events reheat themselves endlessly.” To do this, Ashley maintains that Waltz ignores the unstable but constant elements of transversality that eventuate so much of what international and domestic politics really are. This move can be made only outside of history, so the identity of the agency involved cannot be easily detected, much less questioned. Man, the State, and War connected its lineage to the originary foundationalism of the Enlightenment, whose rational identity for “man” existed separate from, prior to, and deeper than “war.” Waltz’s Theory of International Politics turns “man” into “a scriptable object” who is “from the very outset introduced and preserved as a site, an object, and, in its determinable paradigmatic content, an effect of war. All of this is done to reposition indeterminate forces and struggles within decidable boundaries between “inside” and “outside,’ the “domestic” and the “international,” the “social” and the “State,” “sovereignty’ and “anarchy.” To assess the relations of nations globally, we have been directed by IR discourse to study the division of humanity into nations and then explain the causes of human conflict and cooperation by looking into these dynamics of national action. To comprehend interenvironmental relations, however, we must understand why the world’s territory is divided by humanity into nations, countries, and states as well as how nonhumanity is being separated into many distinct artificial and natural environments, which then tend to be, strangely enough, nationally articulated, exploited, and managed. Smith accurately documents the division of labor, but he ignored the attendant ongoing “labor of division,” such as these foundational oppositions, that it instantiates. The labors of such division, however, account for many of today’s environmental crises and contradictions. Reassessing the global market’s environizing powers helps explain how nonhuman forces and structures become entangled in a national/postnational/sub-national/supranational pattern of global transformation. Even though the structures of human nationality are working to capture and control the environment as nonhuman nationality, their good, or ill, ecological effects are mostly registered internationally. Rethinking world politics as a form of interenvironmental relations requires us, like Latour, to jump off the familiar tracks that liberal humanism has laid down for understanding “the environment” – to reinterpret, for example, how “the economy” or “the state” works. Environmental problems are real, and most of them cannot be addressed adequately, much less effectively solved, without coming to terms with the social purposes of those who misconstruct economy amid the environment around the mystified terms that are most commonly used today. Environmental discourse must be broadened as widely as possible so that the built environment of Society and its production processes in “second nature” are recognized as pervasive influences that should not be separated from the unbuilt environments, or nature, or “first nature,” and its damage from by-production processes. Because states and economies both try to capture and contain these social forces, who and/or what defines, directs, and develops that built environment and its products clearly must he a central concern of international relations. Their interventions, however, rarely are decisive enough to succeed, even though en tire academic disciplines, like environmental studies, green management, and applied ecology, are dedicated to guiding their efforts.2’ To address these questions, we need to think about the constructions of interenvironmental relations as much as—or even more than—the constructs of international relations.” At this juncture, there are so many quantitatively new, rapidly expanding environmental trends that we face many qualitatively new conditions. Inequalities are no longer simply international in scope and national by method; they essentially are interenvironmental in their breadth and depth. Accounting for these shifts may require mobilizing new terms and conditions beyond those traditionally accepted in the chronicles of men, and sometimes women, for coping with modernity. Given these goals, this analysis is imperfect, incomplete, and unfinished. At this stage of these discursive developments, it cannot be otherwise.

Realist theories of power no longer apply to actually existing liberal-democratic capitalist nation-states. Timothy W. Luke, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, June-July 2003, Alternatives,
p. 399-400
Familiar forms of international relations theorizing have marked the same trend lines since the crack-up and collapse of the Soviet bloc. Seeing trouble ahead—or, at least, turbulence—James Rosenau regards this time as one of ‘post-international politics” in which traditional state actors and new nonstate actors face off against each other. Similarly, Joseph Nye’s “soft power” ruminations identify contemporary world politics as being shaped by the “diffusion of power” from state to nonstate actors. Soft power allegedly is “soft” because in quality it is intbrmational, cultural, and/or technological. Yet these narratives of global change and characterizations of world power are tied more to how they are not like the Cold War’s comparatively stable political order and hard-power regime rather

-63-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

than how things might actually be working on the ground today. To assess these shifts, we need to implode liberal-humanist notions of agency and structure in search of the hybridizing influences at play in actually existing democratic consumer capitalism. Nye’s feeble visions about the “diffusion of power” pale before more astute recognitions such as Donna Haraway’s, which provide insights into the state’s policy obligations, domestic and foreign, dissipating in the informatics of domination.28 Five years before Rosenau’s sightings of turbulence, Haraway was mapping its disruptive emergence in the environizing patterns of “cyborganization”: continued erosion of the welfare state; decentralizations with increased surveillance and control; citizenship by telematics; imperialism and political power broadly in the form of information rich /information poor differentiation; increased high-tech militarization increasingly opposed by many social groups; reduction of civil service jobs as a result of the growing capital intensification of office work, with implications for occupational mobility for women of color; growing privatization of material and ideological life and culture; close integration of privatization and militarization, the high-tech forms of bourgeois capitalist personal and public life; invisibility of different social groups to each other, linked to psychological mechanisms of belief in abstract enemies. Haraway, in her approach to cyborganization, began scrutinizing the omnipolitanization of the world’s international and interenvironmental relations.30 She also brings us a better sense of the conflicts along today’s borders between international politics and domestic policy, globalism and ecologism, world affairs and local environmentalism—the places where the monstrous realities of intermestic crises, antiglobal ecological movements, and anti-ecological global counterrevolutions flash and rumble. Little of this action fits into the older comfortable tropes of IR theory. In fact, the traditional stock of social theories for international politics miss almost of these movements on both a foundational level and a second—order level in their methodological myopia: state-centric and reflexive idealist theories do not travel well in these environments. Living in today’s omnipolitan order should move us to see how we are all “theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs. The cyborg is our ontology; it gives us our politics.” Such shifts are quite far-reaching, but we also must accept Jameson’s assignment “to name the system” at work in the wondrous new machine and thereby begin systematizing something that is resolutely unsystematic, and historicizing something that is resolutely ahistorical. Not everyone may yet understand the historicity or systematicity of global capitalism, but its cyborganizing powers over the human and nonhuman body does reshape space, reconstitute power, and rediagram territoriality in new environized patterns rooted in deep biology, deep sociology, deep technology.

AT Perm: “We Help People”
The affirmative’s claims of altruism are a façade- the illusion that they are liberating people and fulfilling their desires avoids the fact that they are manipulating these very desires to enable capitalist exploitation. Their image of endless growth is a fantasy. Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

Under modern corporate capitalism, the plannable life course of all individuals qua "consumers" becomes a capital asset in that the consummative mobilization of production in any given market directly boosts the productivity, profitability and power of corporate capital's increasingly automated industries. Within the hyperecologies of second nature, corporate capital finds in consummativity ...the ultimate realization of the private individual as a productive force. The system of needs must wring liberty
and pleasure from him as so many functional elements of the reproduction of the system of production and the relations of power that sanction it. It gives rise to these private functions according to the same principle of abstraction and radical "alienation" that was formerly (and still today) the case for his labor power. In this system, the "liberation" of needs, of consumers, of women,

of the young, the body, etc., is always really the mobilization of needs, consumers, the body....It is never an explosive liberation, but a controlled emancipation, a mobilization whose end is competitive exploitation.51 As a result, the disciplinary managerial planning of corporate capital now can generate new hierarchies of status, power, and privilege out of hyperecology's economic democracy of mass consumption by developing different "consumption communities" around distinct grades of material objects and professional services.52 Creating and then serving even newer modes of desire in these symbolic communities perpetually drives the transnational market's hyperecologies of endless growth. Allegedly competing capitalist
firms increasingly produce very similar goods and services using very similar techniques and structures planned out on a massive scale to satisfy the desires of individual subjects that their "competing lines" of products now necessarily presume will exist. Subjectivity is encoded directly and indirectly in manufactured materiality. The increasingly homogenized object world in systems of corporate markets concomitantly is invested with rich, heterogeneous symbolic/imaginary differentiations in order to provide individual subjects with codes that they and others can distinguish the various relative status grades of community and personality across and within these consumption communities as marketing codes for the system of objects. Baudrillard observes, "the fetishization of the commodity is the fetishization of a product emptied of its concrete

substance of labor and subjected to another type of labor, a labor of signification, that is, of coded abstraction (the production of differences and of sign values). It is an active, collective process of production and reproduction of a code, a system, invested with all the diverted, unbound desire separated out from the process of real labor."53 Just as exchange value once outstripped and mastered use value, so too now has sign value overcome exchange value in contemporary corporate hyperecologies. "Fetishism is actually attached," in Baudrillard's analysis, "to the sign object, the object eviscerated of its substance and history, and reduced to the state of marking a difference, epitomizing a whole system of differences."54 Under the profit horizon of corporate capital, the consciousness-

-64-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

engineering industries of advertising and activism spend millions of dollars and hours to carefully construct codes that differentiate the sign values of commodified objects. And, the varying psychodemographic means of steering individuals to these artificially defined and symbolically differentiated manufactured goods and packaged services--through direct mail, magazine ads, television dramas, radio give-aways, peer pressure, fashion discourse, or public education--conduct the power of capital through the symbolic codes of consumption. The objects of the
system create and sustain the system of objects. In these modernized spaces, "all are free to dance and enjoy themselves, just as they have been free, since the historical neutralization of religion to join any of the innumerable sects. But freedom to choose an ideology--since ideology

always reflects economic coercion--everywhere proves to be the freedom to choose what always is the same."55 By accepting such ephemeral ideologies of identity and purpose for living hyperecologically, all classes of consumers consign themselves to "finding their salvation in objects, consecrated to a social destiny of consumption and thus assigned to a slave morality (enjoyment, immorality, irresponsibility) as opposed to a master morality
(responsibility and power)."56 And, in internalizing the expectations of these packaged choices of imposed consumption, as they are tied directly to "discretionary income" and "leisure time," individuals purposely accept new kinds of collective hyperecological responsibilities. If they do not shop until they drop, shops will drop. In an important sense, individual subjects occupy the key niche in contemporary hyperecologies as they closely control their own behavior (or serve as cultural complements of administrative activism), and they ceaselessly consume products (or function as predictable units of production for the corporate sector). Global fast capitalism purposely has stimulated the propagation of consumption, not primarily as the rewards for accepting a life of material abundance in an affluent society, but rather mostly as constant investment in a new productive force. Hyperecologies are systems of sustainable development for the objects of this system of objects. "The consumption of individuals," as Baudrillard states, "mediates the productivity of corporate capital; it becomes a productive force required by the functioning of the system itself, by its process of reproduction and survival. In other words, there are only these kinds of needs because the system of corporate production needs them. And the needs invested by the individual consumer today are just as essential to the order of production as the capital invested by the capitalist entrepreneur and the labor power invested in the wage laborer. It is all capital."57 Under the

hyperecological imperatives of transnational exchange, all individuals as "consumers" become capital assets inasmuch as their consummative mobilization directly boosts the productivity, profitability, and power of corporate capital's increasingly globalized industries. On the horizon made by corporate capitalism's consummative order, the social affirmation of increasing permissiveness, whose codes always accelerate the rationally organized exploitation of desire to increase or rationalize productivity, acquires as much importance in maintaining social cohesion under corporate capitalism as the values of ascetic self-discipline, personal frugality and individual sacrifice once did in the productivist order of entrepreneurial capital.58
In some sense, Baudrillard's political economy of the sign explores the discontinuities or ruptures coming with the Third Industrial Revolution supplanting the Second Industrial Revolution. After having determined how contemporary systems of objects operate, Baudrillard illustrates how the object of the system during the Second Industrial Revolution was coping with the obscene overproduction of cartelized, professionalized, organized, multinationalized industrial production, or the endless replication of standardized exchange values, through orders of mass consumption. Wasteful excessive overproductive industries requires

markets organized around overconsumption, excess, and waste. The object of the system within this system of objects is an apparent impossibility: endless growth. And, the endlessness of growth requires growing ends without end in order to charge and center the hyperproductive engines of modern industry. Thus, all
of the enterprises tied to private property must embed their private properties in every property associated with private enterprise.

-65-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

AT Perm: “We access the case”

They’re putting the cart before the horse- using the system to attempt to solve its symptoms only legitimizes capitalism’s actions and serves as a way for those who have damaged the environment to assuage their guilt Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature,” http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm) Compared to so many other environmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) plainly is doing something

immediate and significant to protect Nature--buying, holding and guarding large swatches of comparatively undisturbed natural habitat. Yet, it does this in accord with the consumeristic ground rules of the global capitalist economy. Millions of acres, occupying many diverse ecosystems now are being held in trust by the
Nature Conservancy. This trust is being exercised not only for future generations of people, but also for all of the new generations of the plants and animals, fungi and insects, algae and microorganisms inhabiting these plots of land. Beginning with the 60 acres in the Mianus River Gorge, this organization has protected by direct acquisition and trust negotiations over 7.5 million acres of land in North America as well as Central America, South America, and the Caribbean in over separate 10,000 protection actions. In the past forty years, on pieces as small a quarter an acre to as large as hundreds of square miles, the Nature Conservancy in the United States has arranged for the on-going protection of an area the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island.84 Given that so many ecological initiatives fail so frequently, this string of successes cannot be entirely ignored. Nonetheless, one must admit the Nature Conservancy's achievements are perhaps seriously flawed, even though these flaws reveal much more about the consumption of public goods through a private property system and free enterprise economy than they show about environmentalism. Because of what has happened to Nature, how capital operates, and where

resources for change must be solicited, the Nature Conservancy does what it does: consume land to be held "in trust: for Nature. As a result, the tenets and tenor of the Conservancy's operations as "an environmentalist organization" are those of almost complete compliance, and not those of radical resistance to the fast capitalist global economy. In the Nature Conservancy's operational codes of land consumption, a triage system comes into play. Some lands of Nature are more "ecologically significant," some regions are much more "natural areas," but some grounds are far less "protectable" than others. The methods of the Conservancy show how it implicitly sees Nature as real estate properties inasmuch as its chapters must constantly grade the acreages they receive--labelling some as truly ecologically significant, some as plainly natural areas, some as merely "trade lands."85 The latter are sold, like old horses for glue or worn-out cattle for dogfood, and the proceeds can used elsewhere to promote conservation. In seeking to preserve Nature, the Nature Conservancy strangely oversees its final transformation into pure real estate, allowing even hitherto unsalable or undeveloped lands to become transubstantiated into "natural areas" to green belt human settlements and recharge their scenic visits with ecological significance.
When it asks for land to protect wildlife and create sanctuary for ecosystems. However, the Nature Conservancy tends not

to detail the ultimate cause of its concern. Protect it from what? Create sanctuary from what? The answer is, of course, the same consumeristic economy that is allowing its members to accumulate stock, mail in donations, buy and sell land. In many ways, the Conservancy is disingenuous in its designation of only some of its
lands as trade lands. Actually, all of its protected lands are trade lands, trading sanctuary and protection here (where it is commercially possible or aesthetically imperative) to forsake sanctuary and protection there (where it is commercially unviable or aesthetically dispensable). It extracts a title for partial permanence from a constant turnover of economic destruction anchored in total impermanence.86 The Conservancy ironically fights a perpetually losing battle, protecting rare species

from what makes them rare and building sanctuary from what devastates everything on the land elsewhere with the proceeds of its members' successful capitalist rarification and despoliation. The Nature Conservancy necessarily embraces the key counter-intuitive quality of all markets, namely, a dynamic in which the pursuit of private vices can advance public virtues. This appears contradictory, but it has nonetheless a very valid
basis. It agrees to sacrifice almost all land in general to development, because it knows that all land will not, in fact, be developed. On the one hand, excessive environmental regulations might destroy this delicate balance in land use patterns. In accepting the universal premise of development, on the other hand, it constantly can undercut economic development's specific enactments at sites where it is no longer or not yet profitable. Some land will be saved and can be saved, in fact, by allowing, in principle, all land to be liable to development. Hence, it needs trade lands to do land trades to isolate some land from any more trading. In allowing all to pursue their individual vices and desires in the market, one permits a differently motivated actor, like the Nature Conservancy, to trade for land, like any other speculator, and develop it to suit its selfish individual taste, which is in this case is "unselfish nondevelopment." This perversely anti-market outcome satisfies the Conservancy's desires and ends, while perhaps also advancing the collective good through market mechanisms. Over the past two decades, The Nature Conservancy has grown by leaps and bounds by sticking to the operational objectives of "preserving biodiversity."87 As powerful anthropogenic actions have recontoured the Earth to suit the basic material needs of corporate modes of production, these artificial contours now define new ecologies for all life forms caught within their "economy" and "environment." The "economy" becomes a world political economy's interior spaces defined by technoscience processes devoted to

-66-

Environmental Discourse Week 08

Michigan 7

production and consumption, while "the environment," in this sense, becomes a planetary political economy's exterior spaces oriented to resource-creation, scenery-provision, and waste-reception. Natural resources exist, but Nature does not. Economic survival is imperative, but the commodity logics driving it need to be grounded in sound ecological common sense lest the limitless dynamism of commodification be permitted to submit everything to exchange logics immediately. Time is now what is scarce and centrally important in the highly compressed time-space continua of contemporary commodity chains. It is no longer a question of jobs versus the environment, because fewer jobs will not resurrect Nature. Nature is dead, and the environment generating global production assumes that jobs are necessary to define it as the space of natural resources. Doing jobs irrationally and too rapidly, however, is what destroys these environments, making jobs done rationally and at an apt pace ecologically acceptable. Consequently, the agendas of environmental protection must center on the "question of the short-term vs. the long-term," and this is "what the Conservancy is all about."88 Nature, in all of its wild mystery and awesome totality, is not being preserved by the Nature Conservancy. It is, in fact, dead, as McKibben and Merchant tell us.89 Nonetheless, its memory might be kept alive by the Nature Conservancy at numerous burial parks all over the nation where glimpses of its spirit should be remembered by human beings in a whiff of wild fight, the scent of a stream, or the aroma of surf. This goal may be a very well-intentioned one; but, in many ways all that the Nature Conservancy does boils down to serving as a burial society dedicated to giving perpetual maintenance and loving care at a variety of Nature cemeteries: Forest Glen, Mountain Meadow, Virgin River, Jade Jungle, Prairie View, Harmony Bay, Sunny Savannah, Brilliant Beach, Desert Vista, Happy Hollow, Crystal Spring. As Nature's death is acknowledged, more and more plots are needed to bury the best bits of its body in gardens of eternal life. Thus, the call for members, funds, and donations always will grow and grow.

This mission is even more ironic given the means whereby it is funded. Those humans, whose production and consumption had so much to do with Nature's death, the middle and upper-middle classes, are given an opportunity to purchase some atonement for their anonymous sins as consumers by joining the Nature Conservancy. Indeed, they even can transfer their accumulations of dead labor, and by extension, dead nature, to the Nature Conservancy to tend the gravesites of that which they murdered cheeseburger by cheeseburger, BTU by BTU, freon molecule by freon molecule in their lethal mode of suburban living. Even more ironically, the hit men of these myriad murder for hire deals--or major corporations--also are solicited by the Conservancy to pony up land, capital or donations to sustain this noble enterprise. Economy and environment are, of course, not incompatible, because this is the circuit of maggot and corpse, buzzard and body, grub and grave so common in today's postmodern ecology. Capital and Nature, the dead and living, are incompatible, but the capital has won, Nature is dead. All that is left is the zombie world of economies and environments, or the cash credits inside corporate ledgers for capital circulation and the ecological debits outside of corporate accounting charged off as externalities. Some still think capitalism has not yet defeated Nature, but they are deluded. Everything is environment now, nothing is Nature except perhaps the last reaches of innerspace and outerspace where aquanauts and astronauts, riding hi-tech robotic probes, have not yet come in peace, killing everything before them to then rest in peace.

-67-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful