Global environmental change, sociology, and paradigm isolation

c,mnul Drwonmmcol

(%unyr. Vol Copynghf

5. No 0

3. pp. 21 I 220. 1995

1995 Elsevier Science Ltd

Punted m Great Br~tam All rights reserved

0959-3780(95)

00052-6

0959.77R0,‘95 $10.00 + 0.00

Global environmental change, sociology, and paradigm isolation

William D Sunderlin

There are three broad categories of thought on how to respond to problems associated with global environmental change: structural economic change and mobilization; international grassroots diplomacy and regime building; and culturallbehavioural transformation. These categories of thought correspond to the classical paradigms of sociology that is, to the class, managerial, and pluralist perspectives. Many wrltlngs on global environmental change adhere to the tenets of one particular paradigm while ignoring, downplaying the significance of, or challenging the tenets of other paradigms. The article discusses dangers such the of compartmentalization and recommends that writers on global environmental change work to cross paradigm boundarles. The author is a Senior Scientist in the Policy and Social Sciences Division, for Forestry Center International Research, PO Box 6596, JKPWB, Jakarta 10065 Indonesia.

‘This article is the ‘global environmental change’ counterpart to another article examining the concept of sustainable development in terms of the classical paradigms. See W D sociological ‘Managerialism the Sunderlin and Limits of Sustainable Conceptual Development’. Forthcoming in Society and Natural

Resources.

The concentL of global environmental change concerns itself with the cumulative and widely dispersed effects of local environmental degradation and pollution. Among the issues typically analyzed under the rubric of global environmental change are climate and atmospheric change, deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and pollution of waterways, oceans, air, and other open access resources. It is widely assumed in social science/non-technical writings on the issue of global environmental change that the process of change either is, or will be, extensive enough to justify some form of remedial intervention. Beyond this widely shared assumption, however, there are three fundamentally dissimilar clusters of thought on the social factors underpinning the process of global environmental change and on the measures necessary to address problems caused by this change.’ Not only are these clusters of thought distinct and dissimilar, but they also tend to be viewed by their proponents as mutually exclusive. It is relatively unusual for analysts of global environmental change to argue from a position that draws on the central tenets of more than one of the three clusters of thought. This phenomenon is described here as ‘paradigm isolation’. The paradigm isolation among writers on global environmental change is a phenomenon occurring largely beneath the level of casual perception. Among two possible reasons for this are the following. Few of these writers express themselves consciously or explicitly from a particular ideological position. This fact diminishes attention to the ideological subtext that is characteristic of virtually all such writings. Also, some writers do cross paradigm boundaries in their writings ~ a fact which partly disguises the broad tendency toward paradigm isolation. We shall see in this article that the paradigmatic character of writings on global environmental change has profound implications for how people perceive the issues ~ and more importantly, for how they respond to them. The purpose of the article is to interpret these three perspectives from a sociological point of view. This will be done in three steps. First, the classical sociological paradigms will be briefly reviewed.

211

Global environmental change, sociology, and paradigm isolation: William D Sunderlin Second, certain key writings on global environmental change will be classified and analyzed in terms of those paradigms. Lastly, the practical and theoretical implications of paradigm isolation will be examined.

Classical sociological paradigms In sociology there are three classical perspectives with regard to forces underlying social organization and change.2 These have been variously described as the class (‘radical’, ‘conflict’, or ‘Marxist’) paradigm, the managerial (‘liberal’, ‘bureauc,ratic’, ‘elite’, or ‘Weberian’) paradigm, and pluralist (‘conservative’, ‘cultural’, or ‘Durkheimian’) paradigm. Drawing on the work of Alford and Friedland, this section will describe - in a necessarily abbreviated manner, the key assumptions of each of these paradigms. Class paradigm Proponents of the class paradigm believe history is being shaped by one central societal process: the drive of the owners of property to accumulate capital. They see the world in terms of two mutually antagonistic social groupings. It is assumed that a minority of relatively well-off people prosper economically at the expense of a relatively impoverished majority. Those in the impoverished majority cannot escape being exploited by the elite minority because they have no access to independent means of support (land, machinery, etc). They have no resources except their own labor power and must acquiesce to the conditions of work provided to them by the minority who own the means of production. The relationship between these two classes is seen as inherently conflictual. Managerial

many twentieth century ‘There are elaborations upon, and critiques of, the classical paradigms. This article holds paradigms have that the classical power in considerable explanatory contemporary environmental literature ‘Robert R Alford and Roger Friedland, Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985 ‘Some proponents of managerialism attribute social problems not to the procedural aspects of governance, but to the fact of rationalization and domination in and of itself

212

paradigm

Proponents of the managerial paradigm focus their attention on the fact that society is becoming increasingly dominated by the state and by large corporations. Rationalization is seen as the primary characteristic of this historical trend. Through the process of industrialization and the growth of large businesses, there has emerged a need for bureaucratization, centralized management, large-scale planning, and technical sophistication in order to cope with the complexity of the modern world. The state is viewed as the key agent in the process of rationalization and domination of society. For this reason, proponents of the paradigm see the state as the key point of reference in their analyses. Many proponents of the managerial paradigm attribute social problems to lack of elaboration of, and errors in, the process of governance by the state.4 The essential tools for addressing social problems, therefore, are improved management and legal reform. Pluralist paradigm Proponents of the pluralist paradigm see increasing social differentiation as the central societal process. By this it is meant that the division of labor increases as industrialization proceeds and as society becomes more complex. In pre-industrial times, there was relatively little economic integration among people. communities and households were relatively independent from one another, and people tended to have

Glohcd environmental

change, .sociology, und paradigm

isolution:

William

D Sunderlin

multiple work roles in pursuit of providing for household subsistence. With the onset of industrialization and urbanization, work roles have become increasingly narrow and specialized in connection with an increasingly integrated and complex economy. Some pluralists see differentiation as a necessary foundation for the process of modernization - ie, social betterment through economic growth and increasing technological sophistication. Pluralists see the individual as the key point of reference for understanding the social order. It is argued that the aggregate of individual values and preferences, rather than economic class or growing state power, shapes human history. It follows that all social problems can be traced to cultural deficiencies: immorality, tendencies toward criminality, lack of education or religious faith, etc. The solutions to social problems are therefore often framed in terms of mass education and training, and through campaigns to increase awareness and morality.

Global environmental change and the paradigms Social science/non-technical writings on global environmental change can be classified into three categories corresponding to the three paradigms described above. These three categories are: (1) structural economic change and grassroots mobilization (class paradigm); (2) international diplomacy and regime building (managerial paradigm); and (3) behavioural and cultural change (pluralist paradigm) (see Table 1). Before examining each of these perspectives more closely, it is fitting to make the following observations. First, the key elements of each of the perspectives will be illustrated with reference to the work of several authors and their writings. The discussion below serves to describe the essential tendencies within a given perspective, and does not aim to be an exhaustive account of the literature in a given perspective. Second, it should be noted that many, but not all of the authors and writings Table 1. Perspectives

on global environmental

Paradigm

ChSS

Oblective

Structural

Managerial economic

grassroots Tenets

change

mobilization

Economic countries

International building

and

particularly

of the North,

Restructure

and

(class)

exploitation

overconsumption,

Approach

change

mobilization

Countries

of the South,

and

ultimately

are the problem

North-South

encourage

relabons

and

agents

of

change

organizations.

Proponents

Sachs,

NGOs

regime

Behavioral

large-scale

organizations for assuring

Global

are

cif, Ref cit. Ref 5

Hlldyard, Eklns,

op op

Lohmann, Shwa.

5

environmental through

promote change

can

international

op tit,

representatives

negotiators.

planners,

be

and

(diplomats,

technicbans)

Agarwal.

op tit, and

Lipschutz.

Porter

and

Brown,

Stokke.

Mathews,

5 and

Young,

op op

op cit. Ref 7

cit. Ref

cil. Ref

op ot,

7

7

Sand,

op

Gore,

op

Porter Stokke.

Refs

17 and

degradation

indulgence

lndwlduals their

and

must

from

and

(pluralist)

take

results

from

norms

that

waste

responsibility

for

actions

lndiwduals

CO.Ref tit, Ref

and

Brown,

17

and

people

Schneider,

and

op

Edwards,

and op tit,

17

Arlzpe,

op cit. Ref 25

17

Goodwin,

op cit. Ref 7

Finger,

Dover%

25

Ref 25

op cif, Ref 25

Ref 25

op tit, op

cit. Ref

op tit,

Devall,

op cit. Ref 7

the to accept

op cif. Ref 25

and

Bohm

Ref 17

about willing

teachings

Bowers, King

43

knowledgeable

environment

Boyden

et al, optit,

Benedick

7

Ref 7

Conca

et al, opcit. Ref op cd,Ref 17 op cit. Ref 17

KImball,

Ref 5

cit. Refs

op

change

institutions

Government

Keohane 5

cultural

of knowledge

their

cif, Ref

op

and

Enwronmental lack

stability

managed

grassroots

and

responsible

ewronmental

natlonal Key

diplomacy

(managerial)

States by

Pluralist

Ref 25

tit, Ref

25

Feltelso”,

op

cit. Ref

Anderson

and

Leal,

25 op cit. Ref 32

213

Global

environmental change, sociology. and paradigm isolation: William D Sunderlin

address themselves explicitly to the issue of global environmental change. Some allude more generally to international environmental problems without specific reference to the concept of global environmental change. Structural

‘Wolfgang Sachs, ‘Global Ecology and the Shadow of “Development” ‘, Introduction in Wolfgang Sachs (ed) Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict, Zed Books, London and New Jersey and Fernwood, Nova Scotia, 1993. Nicholas Hildyard ‘Foxes in Charge of the Elkins, ‘Making Chickens’; Paul Sustainable’; Larry Development Lohmann ‘Resisting Green Globalism’; Vandana Shiva ‘The Greening of the Global Reach’. Chapters in the above book ‘Sachs (ed), op tit, Ref 5 ‘Vandana Shiva, Introduction in Vandana Shiva, Patrick Anderson, Heffa Schucking, Andrew Gray, Larry Lohmann, and David Cooper, Biodiversity: Social & Ecological

Perspectives, New Jersey

Zed

Books,

London

and

and World Rainforest Movement, Malaysia, 1991. Anil Agarwal, ‘The North-South Perspective: Alienation or Interdependence’, Ambio, Vol 19, No 2, 1990, pp 94-96. Ken Conca and Ronnie D Lipschutz, ‘A Tale of Two Forests’, Introduction in Ronnie D Lipschutz and Ken Conca (eds) The State and Social Power in Global Environmental Politics, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1993. Gareth Porter and Janet Welsh Brown, Global fnvifonmental Politics, Westview, Boulder, CO, 1991. Olav ‘Sustainable Development: A Stokke, Multi-Faceted Challenge’, Introduction in Sustainable Olav Stokke (ed) Development, Frank Cass, London, 1991 ‘Wolfgang Sachs, ‘On the Archeology of the Development Idea’, The Ecologist, Vol 20, No 2, 1990, pp 42-43 ‘Sachs, op tit, Ref 5, p 13 “Lohmann, op cit. Ref 5 “Shiva, op cit. Ref 5 “Sachs, op tit, Ref 5. Hildyard, op cil, Ref 5. Matthias Finger, ‘Politics of the UNCED Process’, Chapter in Wolfgang Sachs (ed) op tit, Ref 5. ‘The Earth Summit Debacle’, Editorial in The Ecologist, Vol 22, No 4, 1992, p 122. Larry Lohmann, ‘Whose Common Future?‘, Editorial in fbe Ecologist, Vol 20, No 3, 1990, pp 82-84 13Finger. op tit, Ref 12, p 42 “Sachs, op tit, Ref 5, p 11 ‘5World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987

214

economic change and grassroots

mobilization

There is a cluster of writers who locate the origin of global environmental problems in the process of economic accumulation and in antagonistic class relations (see Table 1). These class tensions are seen to exist within all countries and also among countries. Broadly speaking, writers in this perspective see countries of the North as prospering economically at the expense of countries of the South, and this exploitation is seen as the main factor underpinning global environmental change. Industrial pollution and the threat of climate change, often perceived as the main environmental problems, are seen as the product of economic exploitation and over-consumptive lifestyles in the North. Problems of global environmental change in the South (tropical deforestation, land degradation, etc) are viewed as resulting from poverty, which in turn is perceived as largely attributable to economic exploitation by the North. The primary proponents of this perspective are Sachs, Hildyard, Ekins, Lohmann, and Shiva.s These authors are all contributors to a book entitled Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict.6 Other proponents include Shiva, Agarwal, Conca and Lipschutz, Porter and Brown, and Stokke.7 It should be noted that the latter two writers embrace both the class and managerial paradigms. There are three critiques that tend to be voiced by writers in this perspective. The first states that models of development promulgated by countries of the North contribute to environmental problems and are therefore deficient as proposed solutions. The most outspoken exemplar of this view is Sachs, who states that Northern models of development implemented since World War II have served to subjugate the economies of the South and have led to immiseration.’ The second critique rejects the notion that global environmental management is either feasible or desirable. Sachs says that ‘Far from “protecting the earth”, environmental diplomacy which works within a developmentalist frame cannot but concentrate its efforts on rationing what is left of nature. To normalize, not eliminate global overuse and pollution of nature will be its unintended effect’.’ Plans to manage resource use on a global scale are also perceived as a front for extending the reach of transnational corporations and for preserving Northern affluence. Initiatives toward global environmental management are denounced as ‘green globalism”” and as ‘the greening of the global reach’.” The formal sessions of the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ meeting in Rio are condemned, among other reasons, for being part and parcel of the initiative toward global environmental management.” The third critique objects to the pluralist notion that all human beings share an equal responsibility for environmental problems and an equal ability to participate in solutions. Finger calls this the ‘same boat ideology’.‘3 Sachs laments that ‘the crisis of the environment is no longer perceived as the result of building affluence for the global middle class in North and South, but as the result of human presence on the globe in general .‘I4 Writers in the class perspective object to such book titles as ‘Our Common Future”’ and urge us to understand that

Global Environmental

Change

1995

Volume 5 Number

3

Global environmental change, sociology, and paradigm isolation: William D Sunderlin

‘“There is no agreement however, on the role of governments of countries of the South. Some view them as subordinate to the intentions of governments of the North. See Hilyard op tit, Ref 5, p 23 and Sachs op tit, Fief 5, p 8. Stokke in contrast sees a constructive role for governments of the South. See Stokke op tit, Ref 7 “Robert 0 Keohane. Peter M Haas and ‘The Effectiveness of Mark A Levy, International Environmental Institutions’, Introduction in Peter M Haas, Robert 0 Keohane and Mark A Levy (eds) lnsfitutions for the Earth: Sources of

Effective Protection,

fnternafionaf MIT

Lee 1993. International

Environment&

Press, Cambridge, MA, Kimball, A Forging

Agreement: Strengthening institutions Inter-Governmental for Environment and Development, World Resources Lessons

Institute, 1992. Learned

Environmental

Peter

in Governance,

H Sand,

Global

World Resources Institute, 1990. Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Houghton Mifflin, MA, 1992. Jessica Tuchman Boston, Mathews (ed) Preserving the Global

Environment: The Challenge of Shared Leadership, W W Norton, New York, NY, 1991. Oran R Young, ‘Global Environmental Change and International Governance’, Chapter in Ian H Rowlands and Malory Greene (eds) Global

Environmental Change and fnternational Relations, MacMillan, Basingstoke, 1992. Richard Elliot Benedick, et al, Greenhouse Warming: Negotiating a World Global Regime, Resources Institute, 1991. Stokke, op cit. Ref 7. Porter and Brown, op tit, Ref 7 “Keohane et al, op tit, Ref 17. p 23 ‘%and, op tit, Ref 17 “Robert Dorfman, ‘Protecting the Global Environment: An Immodest Proposal’, World Development, Vol 19, No 1, 1991, pp lO%llO. Richard Elliot Benedick, ‘Building on the Vienna Convention’, Chapter in Benedick et al, op tit, Ref 17. David A Wirth and Daniel A Lashof, ‘Beyond Vienna and Montreal Multilateral Agreements on Greenhouse Gases’, Chapter in Benedick et a/. op tit, Ref 17 *‘Andrew Hurrell and Benedict Kingsbury, ‘The International Politics of the Environment: An Introduction’, in Andrew Hurrell and Introduction Benedict Kingsbury The (eds)

international

Politics

of the Environment,

Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992 “‘Stokke, op tit, Ref 7, p 12

Global

Environmental

Chuq~~

1995

responsibility for environmental because of unequal class relations, problems lie with the rich and particularly with countries of the North. Against the mainstream tendency to seek solutions to environmental problems through increased development aid, global management, and appeals to the ‘global we’, proponents of the class perspective urge a restructuring of economic relations between North and South. They believe that by escaping economic subjugation, countries of the South can create models of development and environmental management that meet the needs of their people. It is assumed that the initiative for this change cannot come from the North and therefore must come from countries of the South.‘” It is also generally assumed that grassroots organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in countries of the South have a crucial role to play in catalyzing this process. International

diplomaq

and regime building

This section examines writers who believe that global environmental problems must be addressed principally through measures such as international diplomacy and regime building (see Table 1). Those who espouse this view are proponents of the managerial paradigm. They express the belief (often implicitly) that the origin of environmental problems lies in inadequate policies of international and national governing institutions, and that the solution therefore lies in improving those policies. Unsurprisingly, many of these writers have ties to the international development establishment - whether as scientists at development think-tanks, as diplomats, or as politicians. Among the main proponents of the managerial view on global environmental change are Keohane et al, Kimball, Sand, Gore, Mathews, Young, Benedick er al, Stokke, and Porter and Brown.” The literature in this grouping analyzes and evaluates institutional mechanisms for achieving global environmental management. Views vary on whether the prospects for environmental diplomacy and regime building are good or poor. The following are some examples of the thoughts of those who have a positive overall view of existing institutions. Keohane rt al review several case studies of environmental diplomacy and conclude with cautious optimism that institutions seeking to cope with environmental problems are ‘boosting concern, building capacity, and facilitating agreement’ among participants.‘” Sand approves of existing structures for reaching international environmental agreements, calling them ‘open and adaptive’.” Several writers believe the success of the Montreal Protocol in regulating CFC emissions should serve as a model for future negotiations concerning other environmental issues.“’ The following are examples of the views of those who voice critical or pessimistic views on the viability of existing institutional initiatives for addressing problems related to global environmental change. In spite of the obstacles to environmental diplomacy that they observe, these writers are none the less committed to finding solutions through governmental structures. Hurrell and Kingsbury see absence of authority, short-term interests, historic conflicts, and heterogeneity among negotiating states as key obstacles to international cooperation on environmental issues.2’ Stokke observes that with few exceptions, international regimes (of all kinds, not just environmental), are unable to enforce decisions.22 Porter and Brown say ‘If there is one force that could sweep away the formidable obstacles to strong new global environmental regimes, it is the support of

Volume 5 Numher 3

215

Global environmental

change, sociology,

z3Porter and Brown, op tit, Ref 7, p 157 24Gore, op tit, Ref 17, p 302; Porter and Brown, op tit, Ref 7. p 156; Hurrel and Kingsbury, op tit, Ref 21. p 7. For views favorable to the general idea of international governance, see Keith Griffin and Azizur Rahman Khan, Gobalization and the Developing World: An Essay on the international Dimensions of Development in the Post-Co/d War Era, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, 1992. “C A Bowers, fducation, Cultural Myths, and the Ecological Crisis: Toward Deep Changes, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1993. Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome, Pantheon Books, New York, NY, 1991. David Bohm and Mark Edwards, Changing Consciousness: Exploring the Hidden Source of the Social, Political and Environmental Crises Facing auf World, Harper Collins, New York, NY, 1991. Bill Devall, Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology, Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, UT, 1988. Stephen Boyden and Stephen Dovers, ‘Naturalresource Consumption its and Environmental Impacts in the Western World: Impacts of Increasing Per Capita Consumption’, Ambio, Vol 21, No 1, 1992, pp 63-69. Lourdes Arizpe, ‘A Global Perspective to Build a Sustainable Future’, Development, No 3/4, 1991, pp 710. Eran Feitelson, ‘Sharing the Globe: The Role of Attachment to Place’, Global Environmental Change, Vol 1, No 5, 1991, pp 396406. M Finger, ‘New Horizons for Peace The Global Research: . Environment’, Chapter in Jyrki Kakonen (ed) Perspectives on Environmental Conflict and lnternafional Relations, Pinter. London and New York, 1992; Neva R Goodwin, Introduction, special issue on globalization, World Development, Vol 19, No 1, 1991, pp 1-15 26Bowers, op tit, Ref 25 27King and Schneider, op tit, Ref 25, p 209 z*Bohm and Edwards, op tit, Ref 25, p 25 2gDevall, op tit, Ref 25 30/hid. p 11 3’Boyden and Dovers. op tit, Ref 25 3’Terry L Anderson and Donald R Leal, Free Market Environmentalism, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. San Francisco and Westview, Boulder, CO, 1991. Terry L Anderson and Donald R Leal, ‘Free Market Versus Political Environmentalism’, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol IS, No 2, 1992, pp 297-310

216

and paradigm

isolation:

William

D Sunderlin

voters and grassroots activism throughout the highly industrialized world’.” Several writers express the opinion that global governance, generally speaking, is probably impossible.24 Proponents of the managerial paradigm rarely express the view that class conflict is a key underpinning of global environmental problems. They frequently acknowledge the role of poverty and income inequality in environmental degradation, yet this perception is rarely framed within a critique of capital accumulation or within an understanding of class conflict. Resolution of North-South economic inequality is rarely front and center among proposed measures for resolving environmental problems. The same subtle rejection applies to the tenets of pluralism. Environmental values and education are sometimes deemed important, but they are never an important element in the overall strategy of environmental diplomacy and regime building. Behavioral

and cultural

change

Proponents of the pluralist perspective believe that environmental problems result from a breakdown of norms that promote resource custodianship and their replacement by norms that promote indulgence and waste (see Table 1). Inadequate diffusion of environmental knowledge is also said to be part of the problem. Enhanced individual responsibility for custodianship is seen as a key element in solutions to environmental problems. Toward that end, pluralists encourage behavioral and cultural change through mass education, through movements to mobilize values for resource custodianship, and through encouraging the free flow of information. Exemplars of this view include Bowers, King and Schneider, Bohm and Edwards, Devall, Boyden and Dovers. Arizpe, Feitelson, Finger, and Godwin.” Within this ‘behavioral and cultural change’ perspective, there is a wide diversity of views on how environmentally benign values are to be disseminated. Bowers, a self-identified conservative and supporter of the Deep Ecology movement, proposes environmental education through the formal education system.2” King and Schneider envision the empowerment of individuals through education, through science and new technologies, and through the mass media.27 Bohm and Edwards urge change in the realm of thought in general (not just in the realm of values) by directing educational efforts to people willing to listen2* Devall, one of the main voices in the Deep Ecology movement, sees change happening through the growth of ecocentric (as contrasted to ‘ecosophy’.2” He philosophy, or anthropocentric) perceives environmental betterment occuring through lifestyle change ~ which is to say. through an experiential and not merely educational or cognitive process. He explains that Deep Ecology refers to ‘finding our bearings in grounding ourselves through fuller experience of our connection to the earth’.30 Boyden and Dovers emphasize that a cultural transformation is imperative in the dominant culture of the industrialized countries, because this is where consumer addiction has taken hold and where a disproportionate amount of resources and energy are being consumed.” Anderson and Lea1 require separate treatment as somewhat unusual exemplars of the pluralist perspective on global environmental change.3’ They do not perceive wayward norms to be the fundamental problem, unlike exemplars. the less, other None their ‘free market environmentalism’ philosophy is consistent with the key tenets of

Global environmental

change, sociology, and paradigm isolation: William D Sunderlin

pluralism. They believe that it is through the aggregated expression of individual preferences (values) in the market that resource shortages are avoided and that environmental harmony is achieved. Their central acting in their own self-interest and message is that individuals, expressing their desires through the market, make wiser resource management decisions than do government policy makers and planners.“” For the most part, proponents of the behavioral and cultural change perspective ignore, relegate to secondary importance, or reject the tenets of the class and managerial paradigms. With respect to the class paradigm, for example, Bowers faults ‘extremists’ for limiting their attention to capitalism as a possible cause of environmental problems.‘4 Bohm and Edwards express the view that conflict in society is a second order consequence of human thought.35 Rejections of the managerial paradigm tend to be strongly worded. Anderson and Lea1 condemn the concept of sustainable development, seeing it as the leading edge of a trend toward global environmental management.” Commenting on sustainable development, they say that when its essential meaning is revealed, the ‘beguiling simplicity and apparent self-evident meaning of sustainable development are replaced with the reality of political controls to discipline citizens’.37 The Deep Ecology movement explicitly rejects the managerial and reformist orientation of the so-called ‘Shallow Ecology’ movement.3x Bowers acknowledges that positive environmental change can and must occur through the political arena, but this form of change is viewed as being of secondary importance compared to education.” Environmental improvements through politics are viewed as having been slow, as taking time away from, and as precluding utilization of ‘the full potential of the classroom to ameliorate the crisis’.40 There are some signiticant exceptions to this pattern of rejecting the class and managerial paradigms. For example, Devall remarks that ‘many supporters of Deep Ecology find common cause with politically oppressed peoples in many Third World nations’.4’ King and Schneider speak of the importance of inventing ‘instruments of governance capable of mastering change without violence .‘42 These exceptions, however, are few.

Active and passive isolation

33Anderson and Lea1 (1991), op tit, Ref p 170 34Bowers, op tit, Ref 25, p 20 35Bohm and Edwards, op tit, Ref 25, p 36Anderson and Lea1 (1991), op tit, Ref pp 167-172 37/hid, p 168 3BDevall, op ot, Ref 25, pp IO and 33 39Bowers, op tit, Ref 25, pp 19-20 “/bid, p 19 4’Devall, op tit, Ref 25, p 134 4’King and Schneider, op tit, Ref 25, p

Global Environmental

32,

3 32,

112

In the foregoing we have seen that social science writings on global environmental change are often ideologically oriented and demonstrate a tendency toward paradigm isolation. Two forms of isolation can be identified ~ active and passive. Active isolation can describe cases where writers are self-consciously ideological and explicitly reject the tenets that lie outside their paradigm. A softer version of active isolation is where writers see their own tenets as a ‘prime mover’, and the tenets of one or more other paradigms as subordinate to, and contingent upon, this ‘prime mover’. This is no less an instance of isolation, because the idea of a ‘prime mover’ can (though not necessarily so) stand in the way of achieving a cross paradigm synthesis (see below). Passive isolation is where writers, whether consciously or not, choose to frame their ideas entirely in terms of the tenets and objectives of their ‘home domain’, and refer to no others. The statements of various writers on global environmental change, listed in Table 2, serve to illustrate the three forms of paradigm isolation defined above.

Chunge 199.5 Volume 5 Nunlher 3

217

Global environmental change, sociology, and paradigm isolation: William D Sunderlin Table 2. Paradigmaiically-rooted statements on global environmental change Structural economic change and grassroots mobilization perspective Conflict between classes and between North and South are key ‘In short, greed and poverty, not ignorance or stupidity, kill people and the planet alike’, (Jackson, op tit, Ref 44, p 31) ‘Man’s inhumanity

to nature can be seen as a direct outcome of man’s inhumanity

to man’, (Agarwal, op cit. Ref 7, p 94)

‘The devastation of ways of life, environments, cultures, traditions and sustainable ways of answering human needs has been in the interests of conserving only one thing -the maintenance of wealth and power.. .’ (Seabrook, op tit, Ref 45, p 247) ‘The “global” has been SO structured, that the North op tit, Fief 5, p 154)

has all rights and no responsibility.

‘TO seek genuine solutions it is necessary to accept, respect and explore differences, (Lohmann, op cif, Ref 12. p 84)

and the South has no rights, but all responsibility’

(Shiva,

to face causes, and to understand the workings of power..

,’

International diplomacy and regime building perspective Governments

and international

institutions

are key

‘While environmental degradation is ultimately the result of aggregated individual decisions and choices, individual choices are responses to mcentives, and other forms of guidance from governments.. .’ (Keohane ef al, op tit, Ref 17, p 7) ‘If progress in environmental policy is every to be achieved on the international from the core of national states .’ (Mayer-Tasch. op tit, Ref 47, p 242) ‘Solutions lie m mainstream

political and economic policies’ (Mathews, op

tit,

level, then the waves of political pressure and legitimation

must spring

Ref 17. p 30)

‘Overcoming the obstacles to sustainable development will require polItical vision and courage in policy and institutional in this century since the aftermath of World War II’ (MacNeill et al, op cif. Ref 48, p 20)

change on a scale not seen

‘The industrialized Northern countries are the main contributors to global environmental problems.. The main reason, of course, is the limited time horizons of the governments involved, rendering it difficult for them to take the broader view’ (Holmberg and Sandbrook. op cif, Ref 49, p 31) ‘A strong, intervening Ref 7. p 17)

state therefore emerges as a necessary but not sufficient precondition

for an ecologxally

sound development’

(Stokke. op cit.

Behavioral/cultural perspective Behavior, culture, values, knowledge are key ‘The transition to a sustainable state is a process that requires the development of a new consciousness or value system. From a Hegelian perspective, this consciousness IS the cause and not the effect of the material world’ (Pierce, op cit. Ref 50. p 317) ‘All these dangers (environmental crises) are caused by human Interventaon and It is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome’ (King and Schneider, op cif, Ref 25, p 115) ‘All the severe threats ‘.

are consequences

ethics and values are ultimately

of the human aptitude for culture’ (Boyden and Dover% op tit, Ref 25. p 68)

the reference point for a new era’. (Arizpe. op tit, Ref 25. p 9)

eventual ways out of the crisis cannot be simply technological fixes, or isolated polItical, social and economic measures; these will have to be embedded m a (new) cultural framework’ (Finger, op tit, Ref 25. p 27) ‘It should be fully appreciated 23)

that the significant tenets of the Deep Ecology movement are clearly and forcefully

‘It is the main point of this book that the ultimate source of all these problems IS m thought itself.. ‘How our cultural beliefs contribute to the accelerating face. .’ (Bowers, op tit, Ref 25, p 1) ‘Tracing them back to their root causes exploitation, power-seeking, dogmatism,

430ran

R Young, lnternafional

deterioration

of the environment.

.’ (Bohm

normative’

(Devall. op tit, Ref 25. p

and Edwards, op tit, Ref 25, p x)

It WIII be argued here, IS the most fundamental

challenge we

these problems seem to be caused mainly by fundamental flaws in human nature: selfishness, intolerance and complacency’ (Burrows er al. op tit, Ref 51, p 2)

Cooperation:

Building

Regimes

for Natural

Resources

and the Environment,

Cornell

University

greed,

Press,

1989 %en Jackson, Poverty and the Planet: A Question of Survival, Penguin Books, London, 1990 45Jeremy Seabrook. Victims of Development: Resistance and Alternatives, Verso, London, 1993 46Michael Redclift, Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions, Methuen, London ,I987 47P C Mayer-Tasch. ‘International Environmental Policy as a Challenge to the National State’ Ambio, Vol 15, No 4, 1986, pp 240-243 48Jim MacNeill, Pieter Winsemius and Taizo Yakushiji, Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991 49Johan Holmberg and Richard Sandbrook, ‘Sustainable Development: What is to be Done?’ Chapter in Johan Holmberg (ed) Making Development Sustainable: Redefining Institutions, Policy and Economics, Island Press, Washington, DC, 1992 50J T Pierce, ‘Progress and the Biosphere: the Dialectics of Sustainable Development’ The Canadian Biographer, Vol 36, No 4. 1992, pp 30&20 “Brian Burrows, Alan Mayne and Paul Newbury, into the 27sf Century: A Handbook for a Sustainable Future, Adamantine Press, Twickenham, 1991

218

Global

Environmental

Chanp

199.5

Volume 5 Number 3

Globul environmental

change, sociology, und parudigm isolation: Willium D Sunderlin

It bears emphasizing that there are some writers whose ideas equally embrace the tenets of two paradigms rather than one. These exceptions are fairly rare, however, therefore underscoring the general rule. In most writings on global environmental change, the tendency is to engage in paradigm isolation ~ which is to say, to elevate the tenets of the ‘home’ paradigm, while explicitly or implicitly dismissing the tenets of other paradigms.

The need for synthesis It is difficult to imagine any meaningful solutions to problems of global environmental change without dedicated attention to the central objectives of ail three paradigms: structural economic change; international diplomacy and regime building; and profound cultural and behavioural transformation. All the objectives are necessary, and the fulfillment of none is individually sufficient to achieve lasting solutions. It is therefore necessary for writers on global environmental change to transcend the boundaries of their respective paradigms and achieve some degree of synthesis. The consequences of maintaining isolation are potentially harmful because writings on global environmental change aim to provide leadership and guidance on how to address the issue. If the prescriptions offered through writings on the issue often lead in separate and sometimes mutually contradictory directions, it would seem that efforts to mobilize public participation and/or policy change can be less effective than they otherwise might be. If the need for a synthetic approach makes sense, why is there a deeply ingrained tendency to approach the issue of global environmental change from the perspective of one paradigm? There are at least three possible explanations for this phenomenon. (1)

(2)

Global Environmental

First, the various writers on global environmental change represent interest groups that are sometimes in conflict. Proponents of the class paradigm often represent the economically oppressed. Proponents of the managerial paradigm are often connected with for example proponents of Free government. Some pluralists, Market Environmentalism, side with the interests of business. Second, writers on global environmental change are influenced whether knowingly or unknowingly - by the intellectual tradition within which they operate. The philosophical founders of each paradigm (Marx. Weber, Durkheim) had world views that are internally coherent, yet which are in many ways mutually inconsistent with each other. The legacy of this antagonism is experienced today. The notion of a ‘prime mover’ in the class paradigm, for example, encourages the view that no amount of effort in policy reform or cultural change will effectively address environmental problems without prior attention to class issues. A parallel view in the managerial paradigm is that economic and cultural transformation can make no substantive progress toward environmental betterment in the absence of diplomatic agreements and policy change. And last, in the pluralist paradigm it is assumed that no amount of structural economic change or policy reform can meaningfully mitigate environmental problems without a prior cultural transformation with respect to the use of natural resources.

Chunge 1995 Volume 5 Number 3

219

Global environmental

change, sociology,

and paradigm

(3)

isolation:

William

D Sunderlin

Third, there is a tendency for writers on global environmental change to undervalue the objectives of their ideological adversaries, not so much because they are viewed to be unimportant, but rather because to espouse these objectives would give the impression of having bought into the tenets of other paradigms. An example is undervaluing the notion of cultural education on natural resource management, even in cases where it would plainly be useful, on the assumption that this is a pluralist approach and therefore not to be taken seriously. There is a tendency within ideologies to favor a simple and easily communicable world view over complex explanations and sophisticated plans of action. Oversimplification, unfortunately, is sometimes the price paid to gain and maintain adherents.

Is it possible that greater crossing of paradigm boundaries is simply impossible, given the obstacles just mentioned? A wholesale paradigm synthesis is surely impossible, given the diverging interests and social roles of the various proponents (see (1) above). Moreover, a wholesale synthesis is unlikely, given the strength and persistence of the notion of a ‘prime mover’ within each paradigm (see (2) above). A minimal synthesis however, seems feasible. Such a synthesis would mean mutual acknowledgement among proponents of the paradigms that their respective objectives ~ structural economic change, diplomacy and regime building, and cultural change ~ are all to some degree necessary. Importantl_y, such an acknowledgement is not necessarily in logical conflict w’ith the tenets of the paradigms (see (3) above). For example, those in the class paradigm may object vigorously to regime building by governments currently in power, but they might favor regime building by governments that they view as more representative of the interests of the poor. An additional example is that pluralists may argue that change in culture and values is the first order of business, however in poorer countries, economic restructuring may be necessary to enable mass environmental education. The key point is that paradigm isolation, while historically understandable and while logically consistent within the boundaries of a given paradigm, makes little sense when viewed from the joint perspective of the three paradigm objectives. It can be surmised that there would be distinct advantages if writers on global environmental change were to more frequently cross the boundaries of their home paradigm. Among the advantages would be: a greater number of people acquiring awareness of, and giving attention to, the three central paradigm objectives; a possibility of diminished conflict and improved cooperation among writers on pressing environmental issues; a readership more inclined to think in terms of complex processes rather than facile formulas; and a more dynamic, sophisticated, and effective search for solutions to global environmental problems.

220

Global Environmenfal

Change 1995 Volume 5 Number 3