Download SOCI30049 Environment and Society

UNIT GUIDE 2015/16
SOCI30049 Environment and Society
Teaching Block: 2
Weeks: 13-24
Unit Owner:
Phone:
Email:
Office:
John Downer
0117 3317597 (x17597)
[email protected]
2.04 11 Priory Rd.
Level:
Credit points:
Prerequisites:
Curriculum area:
Unit owner
office hours:
Tuesdays 11am-12pm; Thursdays 1-2pm
H/6
20
None
N/A
Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks, though you can still contact tutors
for advice by email and to arrange individual appointments
Timetabled classes:
Lectures: Mondays 11am-12pm in G4, 3 Priory Road
You are also expected to attend ONE seminar each week. Your online personal timetable will inform you to
which group you have been allocated. Seminar groups are fixed: you are not allowed to change seminar groups
without permission from the office.
Weeks 6, 12, 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks.
In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments.
Reading the essential readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation. The University
Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the unit, students will be able to:
 Critically evaluate societal attitudes and activities in relation to a variety of natural resources
 Respond critically to a variety of uses of the concept of environment in both general and specific
contexts
 Demonstrate an understanding of the extent to which social attitudes to nature and human nature are
fundamentally political
 Demonstrate a critical awareness of a variety of ways in which social theories have conceptualised the
concept of environment(s)
Requirements for passing the unit:
 Satisfactory attendance at seminars
 Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard
 Attainment of a composite mark of all summative work to a passing standard (40 or above)
Details of coursework and deadlines
Assessment:
Summative - essay
Word count:
2000 words
Weighting:
25%
Deadline:
Day:
Week:
th
9.30am on 17 March
Thursday
20
2016
Summative - exam
2 hours
75%
Summer Exam Period 16th May – 3rd June. You
will be notified of your exam time by the
Examinations Office.
 Summative essay questions will be made available on the SPAIS UG Admin Blackboard site.
 Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A
 Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and
maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B.
 Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.
1
Make sure you check your Bristol email account regularly throughout the course as important information
will be communicated to you. Any emails sent to your Bristol address are assumed to have been read. If
you wish for emails to be forwarded to an alternative address then please go to
https://wwws.cse.bris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/redirect-mailname-external
Unit description:
Nature and the environment have a complex relationship to social thought. On one hand, they provide
the ‘stage’ for social action: shaping our interactions and identities. (The social and cultural life of cites
is different from that of villages, for instance.) One the other hand, they are themselves social
constructs: we impute meanings to the environment, for instance, and those meanings shape our
interactions with it. (It makes a difference whether we construe it primarily as a resource or as a source
of risk, for example.)
Such issues have been of longstanding interest to sociologists (although probably not as longstanding
as you might guess). In recent years, however, the issue of climate change has propelled them to
new prominence as a topic of sociological concern. In its wake, the environment is increasingly being
recognized as a socially transformative force: driving everything from global conflicts to significant
cultural shifts. At the same time, those engaging with climate change are increasingly recognizing that
social thought is vital to understanding the nature of the problem itself. Tackling global warming
ultimately means understanding power of institutions; the public perception of science; the dilemmas
of globalization; and much, much more.
In this unit we will be start to explore these issues. We will examine the different ways in which western
societies have defined their relationship with the natural world, and how this has affected their
interactions with each other and with the environment. We will look at how classical and contemporary
sociology deals with the issue of the environment. And we will begin unpack the sociological
challenges presented by environmental problems such as climate change.
Transferable skills:





Presentation skills
The ability to locate appropriate sources of information online and in books and journals
The ability to exposit and analyse critically a range of different ideas and perspectives
The ability to be concise, and convey key information succinctly
The ability to convey your own and others’ ideas clearly both verbally and in writing
Lecture schedule
Week 13
Week 14
Week 15
Week 16
Week 17
Week 18
Week 19
Week 20
EASTER BREAK
Week 21
Week 22
Week 23
Week 24
Introduction: Thinking about ‘The Environment.’
Thinking about ‘Nature’ and ‘Human Nature’
Environmental Issues and Concerns
Social Theory (1): Marx, Weber & Durkheim
Social Theory (2): New Ecological Paradigms.
Reading week – no teaching
Environmentalisms: Movements & Ideologies.
The Social and Political Ramifications of a Changing Climate
Environmental Politics and Social Justice.
Contested Knowledge and Motivated Voices
Environmental Responses to an Uncertain World.
Reading week – no teaching
2
SEMINAR QUESTIONS AND READINGS
Week 13. Introduction: Thinking about ‘The Environment.’
Questions and Issues:
- What is ‘the environment’? Is it a personal experience of one’s surroundings, a collective context, a
changeable set of relationships?
- How is the environment theorised as an important part of human social life?
- Why might we say that the environment is a political idea?
- How have our conceptions of the environment evolved over time, and how to they differ across
cultures?
- What social and ethical values are involved in our conceptions of the environment?
Essential Reading:
• Cronon, W. (1995) “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature” in
Cronon, W. (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York:
Norton & Co.: 69-90.
Further Reading:
• Barry, J. (2007 Environment and Social Theory. Second Edition, London: Routledge. Chapter
1: “Nature, Environment and Social Theory” Chapters 1-3
• Clapp, BW (1994) An Environmental History of Britain London: Longman
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 14. Thinking about ‘Nature’ and ‘Human Nature.’
Questions and Issues:
- What is ‘nature’ / ‘natural’?
- Are humans a part of ‘nature’? Do humans have ‘a nature’?
- Why might we say that ‘nature’ is a political idea?
- What is at stake in different conceptions of ‘nature’?
- Is nature ‘real’ or ‘socially constructed’?
- What do you understand to be the meaning of ‘reductionism’ and ‘essentialism’ (as these words
relate to men’s and women’s behaviour)?
Essential Reading:
• Dickens, P. (2004) ‘Modifying Human Biology’ in Society and Nature Cambridge: Polity: 175207 (E-Reserves)
• Williams, R. (1980) ‘Ideas of Nature’ in Williams, R. (ed.) Problems of Materialism and Culture
London: Verso: 67-85 (E-Reserves)
Further Reading:
• Barry, J. (2007) Environment and Social Theory Chapter 10, Ecology, Biology and Social
theory (E-books)
• Benton, T. (1991) “Biology and Social Science: Why the return of the repressed should be
given a cautious welcome” in Sociology 25 (1): 1-29
• Dickens, P. (2004) ‘Introduction, society, nature and environment’ in Society and Nature,
Cambridge.
• Duster, T. (2003) Backdoor to Eugenics London: Routledge
• McKibben, B. (1989) The End of Nature New York: Anchor (Social Sciences GF75 MAC).
• Oakley, A. (2002) ‘Civic Rituals and Real Futures’ Gender on Planet Earth Cambridge: Polity
Press
3
•
•
•
Goodman, D, and Redclift, M. (1991) ‘Chapter 1 Food into Freezers, Women into Factories’
Refashioning Nature: food, ecology and culture London: Routledge (E-reserves)
Thom, D. and Jennings, M. (1996) ‘Human pedigree and the ‘best stock’: from eugenics to
genetics?’ Chapter 10, in Martineau and Richards (eds) The Troubled Helix
Lewontin, R. C. et al (1984) Not in our genes :biology, ideology, and human nature. R.C. New
York : Pantheon Books, 1984 GN365.9 ROS
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 15: Environmental Issues and Concerns
Questions and Issues:
- What is at issue in modern, and historical, environmental debates?
- Why have some concerns come to dominate at different times?
- Which concerns have been most formative for modern environmental debates and why?
- To what extent can environmental disasters be called man-made?
Essential Reading:
• Hoffman, M. (2013) ‘Global Climate Change’ in Falkner, R. (ed.) The Handbook of Global
Climate and Environment Policy: p 3-18 • Richardson, John (2015) “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job” Esquire JUL
7, 2015. Online: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists0815/
Further Reading:
General
• Simmons, I.G. (1993) Environmental History: a concise introduction Oxford: Blackwell (Social
Sciences GF75 SIM, also geog)
• Clapp, B.W. (1994) An Environmental History of Britain Harlow: Longman (Social Sciences
GF551 CLA)
Genomics/Eugenics
• Galton, F (1905) 'Eugenics: its definition scope and aims' Sociological Papers Vol. 1
• Galton, F. (1906a) 'Restrictions in Marriage' Sociological Papers Vol. 2: 3-13
• Thom, D. and Jennings, M. (1996) ‘Human pedigree and the ‘best stock’: from eugenics to
genetics?’ Chapter 10, in Martineau and Richards (eds) The Troubled Helix
• Lewontin, R. C. et al (1984) Not in our genes :biology, ideology, and human nature /R.C. New
York : Pantheon Books, 1984 GN365.9 ROS
Food
• Webster, A (2005) Social Science and a Post Genomic Future: alternative readings of
genomic agency, New Genetics and Society vol 24, no, 2, (Available online)
• Goodman, D, and Redclift, M. (1991) Refashioning Nature: food, ecology and culture London:
Routledge (especially Chapter 1)
• Mather, C., Bickford, J. and Fleising, U. (2004) ‘Unpacking Animal Metaphors for Commercial
Relationships in the Biotechnology Industry’ New Genetics and Society vol 23, 2, August
(available online)
• Harvey, M. Quilley, S. and Beynon, H. (2002) Exploring the Tomato Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar (Social Science HM 548 HAR)
• Lambrecht, B. (2001) Dinner at the New Gene Café New York: Thomas Dunne
• Adam, B. (2000) ‘The Temporal Gaze: the challenge for social theory in the context of GM
food’ British Journal of Sociology vol 51, 1, January/March (available online)
• Lang, T. and Heasman, M. (2004) Food Wars: the global battle for mouths minds and markets
London: Earthscan (Geography Q84 LAN).
Animal Conservation/Welfare
• Buller, H. and Morris, C. (2003) ‘Farm Animal Welfare: a new repertoire of Nature-Society
Relations or Modernism re-embedded?’ Sociologia Ruralis Vol 43, 3, July (Available Online)
4
•
•
Franklin, A. (1999) Animals and Modern Cultures London: Sage (Social Sciences QL85 FRA)
Buller, H. and Morris, C. (2003) ‘Farm Animal Welfare: a new repertoire of Nature-Society
Relations or Modernism re-embedded?’ Sociologia Ruralis Vol 43, 3, July (Available Online)
Climate Change / CO2
• Smith, R. (1997) 'Creative Destruction: Capitalist Development and China's Environment' New
Left Review, I/222, March-April: 3-41
• McKibben, Bill (2012) “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math” in Rolling Stone. August 2nd,
2012. Online: < http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-newmath-20120719?print=true >
• Oreskes, N. (2007) “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re
Not Wrong?” in DiMento, J. & Doughman, P. (eds) Climate Change: What it Means for You,
Your Children, and Your Grandchildren, MIT Press: 65-99
Ozone
• Stolarski, Richard S. (2003) “A Hole in Earth’s Shield” in Garwin, L. & Lincoln, T. (eds.) A
Century of Nature. Univ. Chicago Press: 283–289. Online:
http://www.nature.com/nature/history/pdf/century_of_nature/chapter18_1985_commentary.pdf
• Shanklin, Jonathan (2010) “Reflections on the ozone hole” in Nature 465; 06 May 2010: 34–
35.
Fracking/Spillage
• Mooney, Chris (2011) “The Truth About Fracking” in Scientific American, November 2011: 8085
• Flynn, S. (2010) “Boom” in GQ Magazine. July, 2010.
Radiological
• Alexievich, S. (2005 [1997]) Voices from Chernobyl: the oral history of a nuclear disaster
London: Dalkey Archive Press. (Read the prologue).
• Barisonek, Marianne (2011) Cause and Effect: Understanding Chernobyl. [Kindle Edition]
Amazon Digital.
• Caldicott, H. (1994) Nuclear Madness. Norton. New York.
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 16: The Environment and Social Theory (1): Marx & Durkheim.
Questions and Issues:
- Why/how has sociology theorised the ‘environment’ and ‘nature’?
- Why do we need an environmental sociology and/or a sociology of the environment?
- What is the difference between ‘environmental sociology’ and a ‘sociology of the environment’?
- Is it possible for classical sociology to be unintentionally environmental?
- What does it mean to say call a sociology ‘environmental’?
- Is it necessary for thinkers to invoke a modern interpretation of the environment in order to be
considered ‘environmental’?
Essential Reading:
• Barry, J. (2007) Chapter 4: Twentieth Century Social Theory And The Nonhuman World.
Pages 79-92 (E-books)
• White, D., Rudy, A. & Gareau, B. (2016) Environments, Natures and Social Theory: Towards a
Critical Hybridity. Palgrave; London. Chapter 1: pp.17-35.
Further Reading
• Buttel, Frederick H. & Humphrey, Craig R. (2002). "Sociological Theory and the Natural
Environment.": 33–69 in Handbook of Environmental Sociology edited by Riley E. Dunlap and
William Michelson, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Clapp, BW (1994) An Environmental History of Britain London: Longman
• Dickens, P (2004) ‘Work and Environmental Transformation’ Chapter 2, in Society and Nature
5
•
•
•
•
•
Foster, J. B. (1999) Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental
Sociology The American Journal of Sociology. 105 (2): 366-405 Online:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/210315
Pepper, D. (1984)The Roots of Modern Environmentalism London: Routledge
Goldblatt, D. (1996) Social Theory and the Environment Cambridge: Polity
Heilbroner, R (1999) The Worldly Philosophers. “Chapter IV: The Gloomy Presentiments of
Parson Malthus and David Ricardo.”
Studholme, M. (2007) 'Patrick Geddes: Founder of Environmental Sociology', Sociological
Review, 55, 441-459, (available online).
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 17: The Environment and Social Theory (2): New Ecological Paradigms.
Questions and issues:
- What is the ‘New Ecological Paradigm’? How have the sociology of the environment and
environmental sociology changed over time?
- What is new about modern environmental sociology?
- Why have gender and the environment often been linked in modern environmental thought?
Essential Reading:
• Catton, W.R, Jr. and R.E. Dunlap (1980) “A New Ecological Paradigm for a Post-Exuberant
Sociology” in American Behavioural Scientist 24, 1: 15-47 (E-Journals)
• Oakley, A. (2002) ‘Civic Rituals and Real Futures’ Gender on Planet Earth Cambridge: Polity
Press: 215-229 (E-reserves)
Further Reading:
• Lever-Tracy, C. (2008) “Global Warming and Sociology.” Current Sociology, 56 (3): 445–466.
• Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2010). Climate Change: What Role for Sociology?: A Response
to Constance Lever-Tracy. Current Sociology, 58(6), 897–910.
• Barry, J (2007) Chapter 5: “Gender, the nonhuman world and social thought.” (E-books)
• Catton, W. R. Jr. (1976) ‘Sociology for a Post Exuberant World’ in D.C Thorns, (ed.) New
Directions in Sociology London: David and Charles
• Dickens, P (2004) ‘Work and Environmental Transformation’ Chapter 2, in Society and Nature
• Buttel, Frederick H. (1987). “New Directions in Environmental Sociology.” Annual Review of
Sociology 13: 465-88
• Pepper, D. (1984) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism London: Routledge
• Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity (Social Science HM73 GID)
• Goldblatt, D. (1996) Social Theory and the Environment Cambridge: Polity
• Irwin, A. (2001) Sociology and the Environment Chapter 3 ‘Science and the Social
Construction of Environmental Threat’
• Oakley, A . (2002) Gender on Planet Earth Cambridge: Polity (Social science HQ1075 OAK)
• Goodman, D, and Redclift, M. (1991) ‘Chapter 1 Food into Freezers, Women into Factories’
Refashioning Nature: food, ecology and culture London: Routledge
• Yearley, S. (2002) ‘The Social Construction of Environmental Problems: A Theoretical Review
and Some Not-Very-Herculean Labors’, in Riley H. Dunlap, Frederick H. Buttel, Peter Dickens
and August Gijswijt (eds) Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations,
Contemporary Insights, pp. 274–85. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 18: Reading Week – no teaching
–––––––––––––––––––
6
Week 19: Environmentalisms: Politics, Movements & Ideologies.
Questions and issues:
- Can we resolve environmental issues with traditional politics of Left and Right?
- What separates different environmentalisms?
- What sociological functions does environmentalism perform?
- What is ecofeminism? What forms has it taken and why?
Essential Reading:
• Weston, J. (1986) ‘The Greens, ‘Nature’ and the Social Environment’ in Weston, J (ed) Red
and Green: The New Politics of the Environment London: Pluto Press: 11-29 (E-reserves)
• Giddens, A. (1994) ‘Modernity under a Negative Sign’ in Beyond Left and Right Cambridge:
Polity:198-228 (E-reserves)
• Gaard, Greta. (1998) “Ecofeminists and the Greens” in Ecological Politics: Philadelphia:
Temple University Press: 11-52 (E-reserves)
Further Reading:
• Brechin, S. R. (2008) ‘Ostriches and Change: A Response to `Global Warming and Sociology'
Current Sociology 2008; 56; 467
• Barry, J. (2007) Environment and Social Theory, chapters 5 and 6 (E-books).
• Beck U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk Cambridge: Polity (Social Science HN450
BEC )
• Dickens, P. (2004) Chapter 7 ‘Society, Nature and Citizenship’ and Chapter 8 ‘Society, Nature
and New Social Movements’ in Society and Nature.
• Dobson, A. (1990) Green Political Thought London: Routledge
• Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring (Social Sciences SB951 CAR (short loan collection))
• Galton, F (1905) 'Eugenics: its definition scope and aims' Sociological Papers Vol. 1
• Galton, F. (1906a) 'Restrictions in Marriage' Sociological Papers Vol. 2: 3-13
• Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right Cambridge: Polity (Social Sciences HN90.R3 GID)
• Goldsmith, E. et al (1972) A Blueprint for Survival (Social Sciences Pamphlet HC79.E5 ECO)
• Goodman, D, and Redclift, M. (1991) ‘Chapter 1 Food into Freezers, Women into Factories’
Refashioning Nature: food, ecology and culture London: Routledge (E-reserves)
• Hunt, S.E. (2013) ‘The Echoing Greens: The Neo-Romanticism of Earth First! and Reclaim
The Streets in the U.K.’, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 24(2): 83-101.
• Kibert, N. (2001) ‘Green Justice: a Holistic Approach’ Journal of Land Use and International
Law, Autumn, http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol17_1/kibert.pdf
• Lewontin, R. C. et al (1984) Not in our genes :biology, ideology, and human nature /R.C. New
York : Pantheon Books.
• Lipschutz and McKendry, C. (2011) ‘Social Movements and Global Civil Society’ in Dryzek,
Norgaard & Schlosberg, (eds) Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society: Ch 24
• McCormick, J. (1989). The Global Environmental Movement: Reclaiming Paradise. London :
Belhaven. Chapter 1.
• Mellor, M. (1992) Breaking the Boundaries: Towards a feminist green socialism London:
Virago Social Sciences: (HQ1233 MEL) (E-reserves)
• Pepper, D. (1984) Chapter 7, in The Roots of Modern Environmentalism London: Routledge.
• Plumwood, Val. (1993.) “Feminism and Ecofeminism.” . From Feminism and the Mastery of
Nature. New York: Routledge.: 19-40
• Schumacher, E. F. (1974) Small is Beautiful London: Abacus.
• Thom, D. and Jennings, M. (1996) ‘Human pedigree and the ‘best stock’: from eugenics to
genetics?’ Chapter 10, in Martineau and Richards (eds) The Troubled Helix
–––––––––––––––––––
7
Week 20: The Social and Political Ramifications of a Changing Climate.
Questions and Issues:
- How will the experience of climate change shape global societies?
- How will global societies shape the experience of climate change?
Essential Reading:
• Dalby, S. (2013) “Global Environmental Security” in Falkner, R. (ed.) The Handbook of Global
Climate and Environment Policy: 163-178
• Gladwell, M. (2002) “Political Heat: The great Chicago heat wave, and other unnatural
disasters” in The New Yorker. August 12, 2002. 76-80 Online:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/08/12/020812crbo_books
Further Reading:
• Dinar, S (2011) ‘Environmental Security’ in Kütting, ed Global Environmental Politics, chapter
4.
• Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R. & Schlosberg, D. (eds) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Climate
Change and Society (Oxford Handbooks). Oxford University Press. Oxford
• Goodell, J. (2011) “Climate Change and the End of Australia” in Rolling Stone. October 3rd
2011. Online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-change-and-the-end-ofaustralia-20111003
• MacGregor, S. (2010) “A Stranger Silence Still: The Need for Feminist Social Research on
Climate Change.” The Sociological Review 57 (2010): 124–140.
• MacGregor, S. (2010) “A Stranger Silence Still: The Need for Feminist Social Research on
Climate Change.” The Sociological Review 57 (2010): 124–140.
• Lynas, M. (2008) Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. Harper Collins. London.
Chapter 3: “3 degrees.”
• Swatuk, L (2014) ‘Chapter 9. Environmental Security’ pages 211–244 Larry A. Swatuk. In
Betsill, M. et al (eds) ) Advances in International Environmental Politics.
• Tuana, N. (2013) “Gendering Climate Knowledge for Justice: Catalyzing a New Research
Agenda.” in Alston, M. and Whittenbury, K. (eds) Research, Action and Policy: Addressing the
Gendered Impacts of Climate Change. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands: 17–31.
• Woodward, A. (1995). "Doctoring the planet: health effects of global change*". Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Medicine 25 (1): 46–53.
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 21: Environmental Politics and Social Justice.
Questions and Issues:
- What would a desirable ecological future look like?
- Why are there perceived tensions between social justice and environmental concerns?
- How have different philosophies tried to reconcile these tensions?
- In what ways do environmental concerns conflict with established societal interests?
- How should we prioritise different environmental issues?
Essential Reading:
• Giddens, A. (2009) ‘Introduction’ The Politics of Climate Change Cambridge: Polity Press: 116 (E-reserves)
• Parks, B. and Roberts, J.T. (2006) “Environmental and Ecological Justice” in Betsill, M.,
Hochstetler, K. & Stevis, D. (eds) Palgrave Advances in International Environmental Politics.
Palgrave Macmillan: Chapter 12: 329-360
8
Further Reading:
• Agarwal. A. and S. Narain (I991) Global Warming in an Unequal World, New Delhi Centre for
Science and Environment. pp.1-20 Online:
http://cseindia.org/agenda2011/pdf/global_warming%20_agarwal%20and%20narain.pdf
• Ehresman, T and Stevisk D. (2011) ‘International Environmental and Ecological Justice’ in
Kütting, (ed.) Global Environmental Politics: Chapter 6.
• Giddens, A, (2009) The Politics of Climate Change Cambridge: Polity Press
• Hayward, T. (2006) "Global Justice and the Distribution of Natural Resources." Political
Studies 54(2): 349-69
• Hayward, T.. (2007) "Human Rights Versus Emissions Rights: Climate Justice and the
Equitable Distribution of Ecological Space." Ethics & International Affairs 21( 4): 431-50
• Illich, I. (1974) Energy and Equity. London: Calder and Boyars (HE193 ILL)
• Jasanoff, S. (2010). A New Climate for Society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 233–253.
• Julian, R. (2004) “Inequality, Social Differences and Environmental Resources” in White, R.
Controversies in Environmental Sociology, Cambridge University Press: 113-131
• Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). “Climate change and moral judgement.” Nature
Climate Change, 2(4), 243–247.
• Mohai, P.; Pellow, D.; Roberts, J. T. (2009). "Environmental Justice". Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 34: 405.
• Okereke, C. and Charlesworth, M. (2014) Chapter 13. “Environmental and Ecological Justice”
In Betsill, M. et al (eds) (2014) Advances in International Environmental Politics: 328–355.
• Risse, M. (2012) On Global Justice: “Chapter Six: Our Sole Habitation”.
• Shiva, V. (2008) Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis, South End
Press.
• Turner, J and Margaret Grieco (2000) ‘Gender and Time Poverty: The Neglected Social Policy
Implications of Gendered Time, Transport and Travel’ Time and Society 9, 1: 129-136 (e
journals)
• Urry J. (2007) ‘Flying Around’ Mobilities Cambridge: Polity Press
• Urry J. (2008) ‘Climate Change Travel and Complex Futures’ British Journal of Sociology
Volume 59 Issue 2: 261-279 (Available online)
• Urry J. (2010) ‘Mobile Sociology’ British Journal of Sociology (Available online)
• Wynne, Brian. 1989. “Building Public Concern into Risk Management.” In Environmental
Threats, edited by J. Brown. London: Belhaven Press: 118-132.
• Vanderheiden, S. (2013) “International Justice: Rights and Obligations of States” in Harris, P.
(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics. ch. 23
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 22: Contested Knowledge & Motivated Voices
Questions and Issues:
- What is the relationship between science and environmentalism?
- What are we to make of the phenomenon of climate ‘denial’?
- How are we to govern issues that hinge on uncertain knowledge?
- What is the ‘precautionary principle’? What are its limitations?
Essential Reading:
• Weart, S. (2011) “Global warming: How Skepticism became Denial.” in Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists. 67(1), 41–50.
• Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate Change Prediction:
Erring on the Side of Least Drama? Global Environmental Change, 23 (1): 327–337.
9
Further Reading:
• Backstrand, K. (2004) “Review Article: Science, Uncertainty and Participation in Global
Environmental Governance” Environmental Politics 13(3): 650-56
• Brown, Phil. 1997. No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action.(2nd ed).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Brown, P. Kroll-Smith, S. & Gunter, V. (2000) “Knowledge, Citizens, and Organizations: An
overview of Environments, Diseases, and Social Conflicts” in Kroll-Smith, S. Brown, P. &
Gunter, V. (eds) (2000) Illness and the Environment: A Reader in Contested Medicine. NYU
Press; New York.
• Collins, Harry & Pinch, Trevor (1993) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About
Science. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
• Dunlap, R. and McCright,A. (2011) ‘Organized Climate Change Denial’ in Dryzek, Norgaard &
Schlosberg, Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. ch 10
• Greene, G. (2012) “Science with a Skew: The Nuclear Power Industry After Chernobyl and
Fukushima” in Japan Focus. Online: http://japanfocus.org/-gayle-greene/3672/article.html
• Greene, G. (2011) “Richard Doll and Alice Stewart: Reputation and the Shaping of Scientific
"Truth"” in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 54 (4): 504-531 (E-journals)
• Goldman, Michael. 2001. The birth of a discipline: Producing authoritative green knowledge,
World Bank- style. Ethnography 2 (2): 191-218
• Inhorn, Marcia and K. Lisa Whittle, “Feminism Meets the ‘New’ Epidemiologies: Toward an
Appraisal of Antifeminist Biases in Epidemiological Research on Women’s Health.” Social
Science and Medicine 2001, 53: 553-567.
• Jasanoff, S. (2016) “Science and Technology Studies” in Backstrand, K. & Locbrand, E. (eds)
Research Handbook on Climate Governance. Ch.4 pp.34-48
• Johnston, B. R. (2011) “In this nuclear world, what is the meaning of 'safe'?” in Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists.18 March, 2011 Online: http://thebulletin.org/node/8641
• Lövbrand, E. (2014) ‘Chapter 7. Knowledge and the Environment’. In Betsill, M. et al (eds)
(2014) Advances in International Environmental Politics: 161–184
• Mccright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E., Mccright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The
American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.
Theory Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 100–133.
• Macfarlane, A. (2003) “Underlying Yucca Mountain: the interplay of geology and policy in
nuclear waste disposal.” in Social Studies of Science. 33 (5): 783-807
• Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and Moral Judgement. Nature
Climate Change, 2(4), 243–247.
• Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured
the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury. London.
“Introduction”. (E-reserves)
• Oreskes, N. (2007) “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re
Not Wrong?” in DiMento, J. & Doughman, P. (eds) Climate Change: What it Means for You,
Your Children, and Your Grandchildren, MIT Press: 65-99
• Perrow, C. (2013) “Nuclear denial: From Hiroshima to Fukushima” in Bulletin of Atomic
Sciences. 69(5): 56–67 (E-journals)
• Redclift, M. and Benton, T. (eds.) (1994) Chapter 8 ‘Scientific Knowledge and the Global
Environment’ in Social theory and the Global environment.
• Steingraber, S. (1998) Living Downstream: A Scientist’ s Personal Investigation of Cancer and
the Environment. First Vintage Books, New York.
• Yearley, S. (1997) “Science and environment.” In The International Handbook of
Environmental Sociology, edited by M. Redclift and G. Woodgate. Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar: 227-236.
• Yearly, S. (1992) “Green Ambivalence about Science: Legal-Rational Authority and the
Scientific Legitimation of a Social Movement.” British Journal of Sociology 43 (4): 511-532. (EJournals)
–––––––––––––––––––
10
Week 23: Responses to an Uncertain Environmental Future.
Questions and Issues:
- How are we to govern issues that hinge on uncertain knowledge?
- What is the ‘precautionary principle’? What are its limitations?
- Consider the relationship between knowledge and power.
Essential Reading:
• Beck, U. (1995) "Introduction," in Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk Polity Press. 1-16 (Ereserves)
• Backstrand, K. (2004) “Science, Uncertainty and Participation in Global Environmental
Governance” Environmental Politics 13(3): 650-56
Further Reading:
• Arrow, K.J., et al. (1996). "Is There a Role for Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental, Health,
and Safety Regulation?". Science 272 (5259): 221–2.
• Lang, T. and Heasman, M. (2004) Food Wars: the global battle for mouths minds and markets
London: Earthscan (Geography Q84 LAN)
• Foster, J., Clark, B., & York, R. (2011) The Ecological Rift: Capitalism's War on the Earth,
Monthly Review Press.
• Goldman, M. (2001). “The birth of a discipline: Producing authoritative green knowledge,
World Bank- style.” Ethnography 2 (2): 191-218
• Giddens, A, (2009) ‘Introduction” in The Politics of Climate Change Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Jasanoff, Sheila (2003). “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in the Governing of
Science ” Minerva, Vol. 41, 223-41
• Jasanoff, Sheila. (1996) “The Dilemma of Environmental Democracy.” Issues in Science and
Technology 13(1): 63-70.
• Jasanoff. S. and B. Wynne (1998), Science and decision-making. in S. Raynor and E.L.
Malone (eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Battle Press.
• Mann, C. (2013) “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” in The Atlantic. April 24. Available online
(just google the title).
• O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (1995), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, London:
Earthscan Publications
• Sandin, P. (2004) "Better Safe than Sorry: Applying Philosophical Methods to the Debate on
Risk and the Precautionary Principle" .
• Urry J. (2008) ‘Climate Change, Travel and Complex Futures’ British Journal of Sociology. 59
(2): 261-279 (E-Reserves)
• Zavestoski, s. Phil Brown, Meadow Linder, Brian Mayer, and Sabrina McCormick, “Science,
Policy, Activism, and War: Defining the Health of Gulf War Veterans” Science, Technology,
and Human Values. Forthcoming.
–––––––––––––––––––
Week 24: Reading Week – no teaching
11
Appendix A
Instructions on how to submit essays electronically
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work for. If you
cannot see it, please e-mail [email protected] with you username and ask to be added.
Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the correct
assessment from the list.
Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have
selected both the correct unit and the correct piece of work.
The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for FORMATIVE
ASSESSMENTS ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a
submission title, and then select the file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on
the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.
You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and
click the ‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not complete.
You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy sent
to your email address for your records.
Important notes
 You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of
your work – references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single document and that you upload
the correct version. You will not be able to change the file once you have uploaded.
 Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf
(Rich Text Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing
package, please ensure you save in a compatible format.
 By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and
confirm that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the
essay is an accurate statement of essay length.
 If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to [email protected] with the unit code and
title in the subject line.
How to confirm that your essay has been submitted
 You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again (steps 1-4),
you will see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on submit, you
will not be able to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you click on the
title of the essay, it will open in a new window and you can also see what time the essay was
submitted.
Appendix B
Summary of Relevant School Regulations
(Further information is in the year handbook)
Attendance at classes
SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part
of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and
participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of
illness or for other exceptional reasons.
If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email [email protected]. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a selfcertification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to
provide evidence then please still email [email protected] to explain why you are unable to
attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from
attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate Office
or the Student Administration Manager.
12
Requirements for credit points
In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve:
 Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor
attendance
 Satisfactory formative assessment
 An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a mark
of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.
Presentation of written work
Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times
New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you prefer. Your
tutor will let you know if they have a preference.
All pages should be numbered.
Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page.
All pages should include headers containing the following information:
Formative work
Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs
Unit e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count .e.g. 1500 words
Summative work
**Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345
Unit: e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count: e.g. 3000 words
Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous.
Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number.
Assessment Length
Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the
‘word count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be subject
to penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured). Five marks
will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay that is 1 word
over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word limit will be
penalised 10 marks, and so on.
The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the
text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices.
However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by
you.
Referencing and Plagiarism
Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate
referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on
referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays must
contain a bibliography.
Extensions
Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to
request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG
Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g.
self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the
Undergraduate Office.
Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting
evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been
requested.
13
All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the
circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration
Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in
person or by telephone.
Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by
unit convenors or seminar tutors.
You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted.
Submitting Essays
Formative essays
Summative essays
Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay
submissions must be submitted electronically
via Blackboard
All summative essay submissions must be
submitted electronically via Blackboard.
Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a
record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check
the length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism.
Late Submissions
Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of
computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back
up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also
ensure that the clock on your computer is correct.
The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work
and summative work:
Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof
For each additional 24 hours late, or
part thereof
Assessment submitted over one week
late



Penalty of 10 marks
A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours,
or part thereof
Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of
zero recorded. This will be noted on your
transcript.
The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays,
bank holidays and university closure days.
If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late
penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40.
If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay
as a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.
Marks and Feedback
In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work.
The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000
word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs to
be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure marking
is fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be returned
to students within three weeks of the submission deadline.
If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period.
14
Fails and Resits
If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are
two pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highestweighted piece of assessment.
Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an exam
then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit examination,
then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.
Appendix C
Level 6 Marking and Assessment Criteria (Third / Final Year)
1st (70+)
o
o
o
o
o
2:1 (60–69)
o
o
o
o
o
2:2 (50–59)
o
o
o
o
o
Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and
critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues
A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically
structured and well-supported
Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the
question’
Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and
creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument
Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors;
written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and
bibliographic formatting
Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and fairly
extensive and accurate knowledge and understanding
Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological
issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they
link to the question
A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at
independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally wellsupported
Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of
works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to
be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to
synthesise rather than describe
Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors;
written clearly and concisely; fairly consistent referencing and
bibliographic formatting
Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some
errors and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying
theoretical/methodological issues with little understanding of how they
relate to the question
Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than
critical;
Tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of
reason and evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical
Good attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the
unit; but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and
non-relevant material
Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is
sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling
errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography.
15
3rd (40–49)
o
o
o
o
o
Marginal
o
Fail
o
(35–39)
o
o
o
Outright
Fail
(0–34)
o
o
o
o
o
Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and
omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key
theoretical/ methodological issues
Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a
case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but
used inappropriately or incorrectly
Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive
description
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range
of sources
Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and
spelling errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only
referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.
Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of subject;
limited or no understanding of theoretical/methodological issues
Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and
lacking a coherent structure
Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues,
based on description or opinion
Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or
are irrelevant and/or misunderstood
Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; very limited attempt at
providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and
containing bibliographic omissions
Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding
No comprehension of the implications of the question and no attempt
to provide a structure
No attempt at analysis
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow
range of sources
Very poorly presented: lacking any coherence, significant problems
with spelling and grammar, missing or no references and containing
bibliographic omissions
16