- Email: [email protected]
Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment, politics and the future
Books
Towards
327
a new social paradigm
James Robertson Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics and The Future Stephen
Cotgrove
149
pages, 56.95 Wiley, 1982)
(Chichester,
UK, John
This book has one great merit. It emphasizes that “views of the future are rooted in systems of meaning which are social constructs and lack any firm objective certainty”. This is what explains the otherwise astonishing identification of environmentalists with ‘ecomaniacs’ and ‘econuts’ by a supposedly objective scientist like Lord Rothschild in his 1978 Dimbleby Lecture. It explains why both the champions of nuclear energy and its opponents regard one another as irrationally swayed “by deep emotional conviction rather than any dispassionate analysis of the problems and the practical options for dealing with them”. When people claim objectivity for their own view of the future, they are almost always deceiving themselves, or others, or both. This needs to be widely recognized and I welcome Catastrophe or Cornucopiu, if only because it may help to get this vital point across. Also welcome is Professor Cotgrove’s conclusion that faith in a business-asusual future, still unquestioned by many so-called opinion-farmers, is in urgent need of sceptical re-appraisal. I imagine that his book will be of interest to students of sociology from a professional point of view. More generally, its subject
Jatnes Robertson
has served in the UK Cabinet and as head of the Inter-Bank Research Organization. He is authorof 7‘heSaneAllertiioe:A Chotcr of Fuiclum; the revised edition, 1983, is avaiable from him at SpringCottage, 9 New Road, Ironbridge, Shropshire TF8 7AU, UK, price f2.95. Office
FUTURES
June 1984
matter is interesting and important, and there are valuable insights in it-such as that cost-benefit analysis takes for granted the obviously questionable assumption that economic values and criteria must provide the ultimate arbiter. ~~onetheless, I must confess to disappointment-quite apart from the excessive number of typographical errors that disfigure the book. The author’s purpose is to report recent sociological researches on environmentalists in Britain, in the hope that this will increase “our understanding of the marked generational changes in values which have been observed in all advanced industrial societies, and which could present political systems with strains for which they are illprepared’ ’ . But his findings are, in my view, less illuminating than some other recent studies of changing values, such as Work and Human Values: An International Report on Jobs in the 1980s and 199Os, written by a team that included Daniel Yankelovich and the late Michael Shanks. * As I see it, the problem stems from Professor Cotgrove’s own perceptions, and the definitions and categories that he has structured upon them. The title of the book itself gets us off on the wrong foot. It is misleading-or, at the very least, it begs a vital question-to suggest that people fall into two camps: those who perceive the future as impending disaster; and those who perceive it as unlimited material expansion. There are, of course, people at both of these extremes. But those who matter most are the far greater numbers of people at various intermediate points on the spectrum. They are becoming increasingly aware, in greater or lesser degree,
328
Book5
that
some
change
be necessary, but
also,
further
more
is likely
to avoid
positively,
to
tality
achieve
creation
to
actively
involved
change,
and
present
and concern
that
‘turning
point
positive
has
the
Perception
for granted
for
that the
almost
word
become
‘crisis’
’ in Greek
and
the negative
potentialities
of
is much
the simple
cornucopia,
either/or,
and
like
present
book
to
catastrophe
defining
them
according
environmental 197Os,
done
to treat
ism as one aspect ing
at
the
religion;
with
health, and
alternative
third
world
diversity
and self-reliance
also
hypotheses political most the
more for
peace, with
economic
at local
found
levels,
about
the
of work.
He
it plausible
by themselves have
to in a
marked
for those social
might
have
forms
of
forms
operate”.
than
that
of outsider
within
In particular that
and
he
existing
politics
government, parties
will be
who do not share
parliamentary
political
with
paradigm
recognized
representative
up
and processes
dominant these
come
substantial
various
structures
which
mass
holistic
‘pessimists’.
might
“support
and
and
purposes
put environmentalists labelled
think-
science
rethink
not then have
He
view
the
and
based a centralized
do these
changes shift
paradigm
to
masculine, istic
on
likely
from
an
old
range
a
accelerate
will
Fourth,
such
its
of such
violence
the
and
occur
factors
Perhaps
a
tackled
is
these
if criticized,
welcome
concern for matters
and
which unfair
criticize
not
having
At all events,
will be widely as
placeconflict,
will inevitto
for
on
who
of transition?
questions.
hope that his book
those
a shift taking
despair, it
to
shift?
or the eventual
trauma
Cotgrove
of
are likely
such
in the period
Professor
includ-
processes
obstruct
minimize
be the
activity,
in the desirability
probability
what
a shift
what can be done-by
believe
intui-
train-across and
what
or
feminine,
Second,
of human
Third,
material-
more
enabling,
structures
politics?
a
hierarchical,
worldview? in
First, towards
dominant
rational, to
to bring
have
one-from
autonomous,
the
logists
of
countries
point
new
changes
whole
that
are as follows.
of values a
spiritual
even
main
one,
in values
worldview
ably
the
of the latter.
exploitative,
ecological,
to
para-
identify
dependency-creating,
ing
a
who subscribe
in all industrial
a coming
tive,
of
is a personal
changes
observed
practical
ecological new
for greater
and for a fundamental
box
would
technology,
demands
would
taking
movements;
and
missed
feminist,
growing
organization
the of
the
early
environmental-
with frontiers
the
He
of a broader
awareness-linked
main
shift
societies.
better
the has
of the value
in industrial
have
of
Cotgrove
the key features place
to
concerns
Professor
by limiting and by
of the
to a dominant
characteristics
in the last 20 years
My own perception is that, his study to environmentalists,
called
most
environmental to
of
But as I see it, the key questions
been values
feature paradigm.
picture
subscribe
aims
own
course.
politics,
chapter
and a minority and
My
a
static
alternative
digm;
or
implies.
is
the
everything
dominant
a
who
an
of doing
in transition”,
presents
that
and processes
an important
there
“Worldviews
men-
and
of doing
new
Although
about Key
be
sociological
widespread
ways
an emerging
paradigm
the
factory
age;
ways
new
majority
Chinese!
our
more
a
signifies
of both
predicament
and
the
of new structures
else-could
social
is a time of both danger It
just
of people
an active
now take
opportunity. cliche’
number
in personal
with
crisis
reflect
of the industrial
of politics-new
the increasing
the future,
bureaucracy,
disaster
progress.
And
than
of direction
not just
an the
of real
example part
I
studied, of
a
of socio-
importance.
References
I Published PO Box USA.
in 1983 by the Aspen Institute, 150, Queenstown, MD 21658,
FUTURES
June 1984
Towards
327
a new social paradigm
James Robertson Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics and The Future Stephen
Cotgrove
149
pages, 56.95 Wiley, 1982)
(Chichester,
UK, John
This book has one great merit. It emphasizes that “views of the future are rooted in systems of meaning which are social constructs and lack any firm objective certainty”. This is what explains the otherwise astonishing identification of environmentalists with ‘ecomaniacs’ and ‘econuts’ by a supposedly objective scientist like Lord Rothschild in his 1978 Dimbleby Lecture. It explains why both the champions of nuclear energy and its opponents regard one another as irrationally swayed “by deep emotional conviction rather than any dispassionate analysis of the problems and the practical options for dealing with them”. When people claim objectivity for their own view of the future, they are almost always deceiving themselves, or others, or both. This needs to be widely recognized and I welcome Catastrophe or Cornucopiu, if only because it may help to get this vital point across. Also welcome is Professor Cotgrove’s conclusion that faith in a business-asusual future, still unquestioned by many so-called opinion-farmers, is in urgent need of sceptical re-appraisal. I imagine that his book will be of interest to students of sociology from a professional point of view. More generally, its subject
Jatnes Robertson
has served in the UK Cabinet and as head of the Inter-Bank Research Organization. He is authorof 7‘heSaneAllertiioe:A Chotcr of Fuiclum; the revised edition, 1983, is avaiable from him at SpringCottage, 9 New Road, Ironbridge, Shropshire TF8 7AU, UK, price f2.95. Office
FUTURES
June 1984
matter is interesting and important, and there are valuable insights in it-such as that cost-benefit analysis takes for granted the obviously questionable assumption that economic values and criteria must provide the ultimate arbiter. ~~onetheless, I must confess to disappointment-quite apart from the excessive number of typographical errors that disfigure the book. The author’s purpose is to report recent sociological researches on environmentalists in Britain, in the hope that this will increase “our understanding of the marked generational changes in values which have been observed in all advanced industrial societies, and which could present political systems with strains for which they are illprepared’ ’ . But his findings are, in my view, less illuminating than some other recent studies of changing values, such as Work and Human Values: An International Report on Jobs in the 1980s and 199Os, written by a team that included Daniel Yankelovich and the late Michael Shanks. * As I see it, the problem stems from Professor Cotgrove’s own perceptions, and the definitions and categories that he has structured upon them. The title of the book itself gets us off on the wrong foot. It is misleading-or, at the very least, it begs a vital question-to suggest that people fall into two camps: those who perceive the future as impending disaster; and those who perceive it as unlimited material expansion. There are, of course, people at both of these extremes. But those who matter most are the far greater numbers of people at various intermediate points on the spectrum. They are becoming increasingly aware, in greater or lesser degree,
328
Book5
that
some
change
be necessary, but
also,
further
more
is likely
to avoid
positively,
to
tality
achieve
creation
to
actively
involved
change,
and
present
and concern
that
‘turning
point
positive
has
the
Perception
for granted
for
that the
almost
word
become
‘crisis’
’ in Greek
and
the negative
potentialities
of
is much
the simple
cornucopia,
either/or,
and
like
present
book
to
catastrophe
defining
them
according
environmental 197Os,
done
to treat
ism as one aspect ing
at
the
religion;
with
health, and
alternative
third
world
diversity
and self-reliance
also
hypotheses political most the
more for
peace, with
economic
at local
found
levels,
about
the
of work.
He
it plausible
by themselves have
to in a
marked
for those social
might
have
forms
of
forms
operate”.
than
that
of outsider
within
In particular that
and
he
existing
politics
government, parties
will be
who do not share
parliamentary
political
with
paradigm
recognized
representative
up
and processes
dominant these
come
substantial
various
structures
which
mass
holistic
‘pessimists’.
might
“support
and
and
purposes
put environmentalists labelled
think-
science
rethink
not then have
He
view
the
and
based a centralized
do these
changes shift
paradigm
to
masculine, istic
on
likely
from
an
old
range
a
accelerate
will
Fourth,
such
its
of such
violence
the
and
occur
factors
Perhaps
a
tackled
is
these
if criticized,
welcome
concern for matters
and
which unfair
criticize
not
having
At all events,
will be widely as
placeconflict,
will inevitto
for
on
who
of transition?
questions.
hope that his book
those
a shift taking
despair, it
to
shift?
or the eventual
trauma
Cotgrove
of
are likely
such
in the period
Professor
includ-
processes
obstruct
minimize
be the
activity,
in the desirability
probability
what
a shift
what can be done-by
believe
intui-
train-across and
what
or
feminine,
Second,
of human
Third,
material-
more
enabling,
structures
politics?
a
hierarchical,
worldview? in
First, towards
dominant
rational, to
to bring
have
one-from
autonomous,
the
logists
of
countries
point
new
changes
whole
that
are as follows.
of values a
spiritual
even
main
one,
in values
worldview
ably
the
of the latter.
exploitative,
ecological,
to
para-
identify
dependency-creating,
ing
a
who subscribe
in all industrial
a coming
tive,
of
is a personal
changes
observed
practical
ecological new
for greater
and for a fundamental
box
would
technology,
demands
would
taking
movements;
and
missed
feminist,
growing
organization
the of
the
early
environmental-
with frontiers
the
He
of a broader
awareness-linked
main
shift
societies.
better
the has
of the value
in industrial
have
of
Cotgrove
the key features place
to
concerns
Professor
by limiting and by
of the
to a dominant
characteristics
in the last 20 years
My own perception is that, his study to environmentalists,
called
most
environmental to
of
But as I see it, the key questions
been values
feature paradigm.
picture
subscribe
aims
own
course.
politics,
chapter
and a minority and
My
a
static
alternative
digm;
or
implies.
is
the
everything
dominant
a
who
an
of doing
in transition”,
presents
that
and processes
an important
there
“Worldviews
men-
and
of doing
new
Although
about Key
be
sociological
widespread
ways
an emerging
paradigm
the
factory
age;
ways
new
majority
Chinese!
our
more
a
signifies
of both
predicament
and
the
of new structures
else-could
social
is a time of both danger It
just
of people
an active
now take
opportunity. cliche’
number
in personal
with
crisis
reflect
of the industrial
of politics-new
the increasing
the future,
bureaucracy,
disaster
progress.
And
than
of direction
not just
an the
of real
example part
I
studied, of
a
of socio-
importance.
References
I Published PO Box USA.
in 1983 by the Aspen Institute, 150, Queenstown, MD 21658,
FUTURES
June 1984