Download Current Sociology

Current Sociology
http://csi.sagepub.com
Ostriches and Change: A Response to `Global Warming and Sociology'
Steven R. Brechin
Current Sociology 2008; 56; 467
DOI: 10.1177/0011392107088239
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/56/3/467
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Sociological Association
Additional services and information for Current Sociology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://csi.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Ostriches and Change
A Response to ‘Global Warming and Sociology’
Steven R. Brechin
CS
Syracuse University
abstract: Climate change poses the most significant challenge facing the world
today and should be more than sufficient to mobilize the world and its many communities to respond meaningfully and quickly. However, response must be made
to conditions not yet fully realized, presenting the challenge of preparing instead
of simply reacting. It is likely that only after global societies are restructured by
human altered natural processes will we see the rise of a new focal point for our
discipline. Most people, especially in the rich and powerful Northern countries,
do not really feel like they are living on the edge. Environmental concerns have
become and continue to be seen as no more than background noise.
keywords: climate change ✦ environmental concerns ✦ sociology
In 1980, Bill Catton Jr and Riley Dunlap published a landmark article that
helped define the field of environmental sociology. The article, titled ‘A
New Ecological Paradigm for a Post-Exuberant Sociology’, was both bold
and controversial. It called upon mainstream sociologists to remake the
discipline by fully engaging the interrelationships between society and
the natural environment; moving beyond the established belief that only
social facts cause social phenomena. Catton and Dunlap argued that only
by engaging the study of our interactions with the natural environment
would sociologists obtain a more complete understanding of society.
Nearly 30 years later, Constance Lever-Tracy makes a similar plea here.
Instead of, as before, focusing on the more generalized and largely undefined concept of ‘natural environment’, Lever-Tracy zeros in on global climate change, specifically rising C02 levels and the greenhouse effect. Like
before, the reasons are sound. And like before, the call will go unheeded.
Lever-Tracy has made substantial changes to the manuscript that I
reviewed originally. One can easily argue those changes have improved
Current Sociology ✦ May 2008 ✦ Vol. 56(3): 467–474
© International Sociological Association
SAGE (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
DOI: 10.1177/0011392107088239
467
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Current Sociology Vol. 56 No. 3
an already interesting article. A number of my original critiques have been
incorporated into this current version, making this response a bit more of
a love fest than originally.
The thrust of the author’s changes is reflected in the different manuscript
titles: from ‘Global Warming – Where Have All the Sociologists Gone?’ to
‘Global Warming and Sociology’. Environmental sociologists have been
writing on climate change and other environmental–societal issues for some
time; it has been the mainstream sociologists and their journals that largely
have not. Here Lever-Tracy thoughtfully probes some reasons why this is
indeed the case, while at the same time acknowledging the contributions of
these other sociologists. The author’s analysis lets us peer into the heart of the
beast, exposing both some of mainstream sociology’s strengths as well as its
blind spots. I have no disagreement with her assessment here and indeed,
from my perspective the analysis generates nothing but admiration.
Consequently, instead of a blistering critique, this response will more likely
amplify and comment upon some of the author’s more important points.
Lever-Tracy’s central arguments rest on sociology’s biases against both
‘teleology’ and anything biological. Regarding the first, it assumes climate
change is largely an exercise in speculation. Little work by sociologists has
dealt with the future, with the notable exceptions such as Daniel Bell’s
(1973) classic, The Coming of the Post Industrial Society, and Ulrich Beck’s
current writings on the risk society (Beck, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2006). While the
impacts from climate change are relatively minor so far, the process is
indeed well on its way, so speculation concerns only on what the precise
outcomes will be, depending on the decisions made by political leaders.
This is a slight distinction from the Lever-Tracy, but one I think is worth
making. The second draws on Durkheim and his famous proclamation
that only social facts cause social phenomena, as already noted. This is an
ironic evolutionary moment in the rise of the discipline in response to fears
of early sociologists’ infatuation with biological explanations. In addition
to the more basic questions concerning its ontology, the environment, like
many other sociological concerns such as family, health, feminist theory or
aging, has been framed as a ‘specialized’ area of study and not general
enough to be included as part of mainstream sociology. And what is ‘mainstream sociology’? Similar to Louis Armstrong’s response to a challenge to
define jazz: ‘If you have to ask what jazz is, you’ll never know.’
As our author notes, sociology as a discipline was born out of an era of
unprecedented social change stemming from the rise of capitalism, industrialism and urbanism. Global climate change offers the potential for change
equal to if not even more dramatic than those forces that gave us modernization. Lever-Tracy provides the reader an excellent primer on climate change
science and some of the possible social and ecological consequences should
society, collectively speaking, continue on its present course. Like the rise of
468
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Brechin Ostriches and Change
industrialized society earlier, the future societal consequences are unknown
although they have the potential to be nothing short of transformative.
To update our author’s paper ever so slightly, the fourth meeting of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published its 2007
reports. As suggested by Lever-Tracy, the news is not encouraging. The
trends are worsening and many at unexpected accelerated rates. Ulrich
Beck continues to update his work on risk society. As noted by Lever-Tracy,
however, Beck continues to only make brief references to climate change. In
particular, he continues to add to his list of events relevant to a risk society,
such as Hurricane Katrina and the 2005 tsunami that struck off the coast of
Indonesia. While important in supporting his concept of a risk society in
late modernity, these new items do not revise his rather constructionist conceptualization of environment–society relationships.
However, some changes in our conceptualization of the problem have
taken place. For example, today’s lay views of our environmental problems have evolved dramatically from a rather naive, or if you prefer
romantic, view from the 1970s. Here writers, thinkers and citizens alike
discussed such revolutionary ideas and courses of action as ‘small is beautiful’, ‘voluntary simplicity’, ‘no-growth economies’, ‘returning to the land’
and the need for a renewed ‘land ethic’, all while railing on science and
technology as nothing less than socially constructed evil and one of the
forces most responsible for our environmental mayhem. (Of course, risk
society maintains a strong connection to science and technology as sources
of peril.) Today, most of this has become quite quaint indeed! Perhaps it is
because the citizens of today, some 30–40 years later after the modern environment movement was launched and after a new generation or two, have
been suckled on the belief of the transformative power of markets. And
similarly, but to a varying degree, on the impotence of states, does our
environmental and social salvation rest on some form of green capitalism?
Is this even possible? Many scholars, especially those with Marxist leanings, tend to say no. But those promoting ecological modernization tend to
say yes. Or will fear from a growing list of risks in a modified Beck-like
inspired scenario rejuvenate an apathetic ‘no need to sacrifice’ electorate
that will rise up and demand the state reclaim its environmental mantle
even at the expense of economic and social comforts? Perhaps, but likely
only under dire circumstances! Or will science and technology, which now
can be green, advance sufficiently and in a timely manner to actually, and
ironically, save us all from carbon overload and other environmental ills?
All three conceptualizations collectively could be seen as a hybrid ecological modern(erization) risk society. What is perhaps most disturbing is the
following observation: is this not the scenario more or less of the late Julian
Simon, conservative economist, and former 1970s environmental movement’s anti-Christ? Was it not Simon who argued that our social institutions
469
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Current Sociology Vol. 56 No. 3
will respond appropriately and intelligently when the market forces signal
the need for change, naturally – through their own internal logic, supplemented by unleashed human ingenuity (Simon, 1981)? Hence some of us
old-school environmental sociologists have entered an environmental version of the ‘twilight zone’, where daydreams and nightmares merge – evil
doers become saviors and the emperor fiddles while modern Rome burns
– or is about to. Have we all gone mad or are we about to enter a new era
of politics, science and sustainability? Aren’t points of transition always
preceded by states of flux?
However, what was only hinted at by Lever-Tracy in her article concerned
the effectiveness of determined industrial interest to derail climate change discussions and policies, especially in the US, through clever campaigns. Here
the social construction of climate change as a ‘non-problem’ through the constructionist argument of ‘flawed science’ should be of particular interest to
sociologists of all stripes. Here see the path-breaking work of Aaron McCright
and Riley Dunlap (2000, 2004). Equally interesting but following a different
line of investigation, sociologist Bill Freudenburg (2005) demonstrates that our
standard conceptualizations of environment–society interactions are at best
worn out – or worse, they were never accurate to begin with. Instead of incremental environmental harm generated by incremental economic growth, the
vast majority of environmental dislocation comes from only a few bad actors.
This finding has been established for every sector he has investigated to date.
Work on exploring C02 production is ongoing (industrial sectors, not nationstates). In short, most of our environmental destruction comes from only (and
literally) a handful of irresponsible parties. How do these few bad actors get
away with such disproportionate environmental destruction? Freudenburg
responds by saying the answer lies in disproportionate access to political
power. Here environmental questions center on some of the core tenets of the
discipline: powerful economic interests, the state, race, class and gender
inequities, social consequences, and social movements, particularly their failures and more. Perhaps this line of work will better integrate itself into the
discipline’s core?
However, what is perhaps most troubling, at least to me, in pushing forward this analysis of orchestrated political pushback by conservative forces
is that CO2 target reductions are being missed even in global warmingfriendly Europe. This is in spite of the fact that EU countries have had open
and productive discussions among industry and government leaders as well
as citizens on issues about climate change. Here there has been far greater
public consensus on the topic than found in the US. So, what does this tell
us? Is it a story on the importance of US leadership, particularly its absence,
in failing to move global policy forward? Or is it something else even more
obvious? While one can argue it is better to be an ostrich with its head out of
the sand than one with it in, this is only the case if seeing leads to real
470
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Brechin Ostriches and Change
progress. Inertia is inherent in any social system. Current arrangements are
always favored and protected by those benefiting from those arrangements.
Hence change is always difficult, especially if it calls for fundamental reorientations of patterns of interactions and power relationships. Or again is all
of this simply useless hysteria and our social institutions will kick into action
just when they are really needed, like the cavalry in an old TV western?
Is the problem then that we are set on a course of destruction based on
powerful short-term interests? Or is it simply the case that things have not
gotten bad enough? Oddly, the latter might give some of us hope for the
future; that things need to get worse before they can get better. However, this
is the most insidious aspect of the specter of climate change: if conditions get
bad enough, there is no simple recovery, as Lever-Tracy correctly points out.
Should positive feedback loops become engaged and push even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, this will encourage greater CO2 concentration at a pace and scale beyond our reach to amend. Consequently, we may
be in very unfamiliar terrain. Our social and political institutions must act
before the ‘problem’ actually becomes a problem. Has this ever been accomplished? Do we have any precedents here? Are there examples of economic
or political systems engaging transformative market or policy mechanisms
before the problems are clearly experienced? Can markets work on such a
pre-emptive time scale without policy incentives?
Given all of this, Lever-Tracy is perceptively correct to note that now
would be an ideal time for the discipline of sociology to reassess its ability to make new and profound contributions to the study of society.
Should we not expect it to take the lead in exploring the essential questions that will be part and parcel of a transformative future? Mainstream
sociology and sociologists have much to contribute to such a discussion.
However, like society’s collective lack of significant progress on reducing
climate-altering gases (as well as poverty, inequality and racism and so
on), I don’t see the discipline taking major steps in that direction either.
Why? Some fundamental changes would have to take place first. Our discipline is not being seriously internally or externally challenged. The
struggle over research methods seems to have subsided, at least for the
moment. Dominant coalitions and their status hierarchy remain intact. I
see no impending shift in constellations of interests to suggest radical
change is ahead. Global terrorism, like climate change, also possesses the
potential to radically change our social worlds (also suggested by Beck’s
risk society). I do not see mainstream sociology reorganizing itself around
this theme either. Hence, it is not simply the subject matter of climate
change or terrorism, or even globalization, which has had more success in
becoming integral, but rather that the current arrangements and patterns
of interaction work well enough for those that wield sufficient influence.
The current order stands.
471
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Current Sociology Vol. 56 No. 3
There is no question in my mind (as well as for most sociologists and
natural scientists who are engaged with environmental issues) that climate change poses the most significant challenge facing the world today.
Regardless of the odds one places on catastrophic outcomes, the fact that
such a consequence is possible one would think would be more than sufficient to mobilize the world and its many communities to respond meaningfully and quickly. However, social change is difficult, as noted earlier,
especially when response must be made to conditions yet not fully realized. Hence here lies the greatest struggle for people, our social institutions and discipline – to prepare instead of simply react. But all of this is
too logical. It is more likely only after global societies are restructured by
human-altered natural processes that we would see the rise of a new focal
point for our discipline. I think it is precisely this observation that
explains why Catton and Dunlap’s call some 30 years ago was ignored. As
important as environmental questions have been to understanding our
social realities as well as our constructions, the transformative powers of
the natural environment continue to rumble on at a relatively low frequency. The great predictions of environmental and social disasters of the
1970s have not come to pass, at least not yet, as some comic version of
‘Chicken Little’. While the environmental sky has been falling for some
time, it has only been bit by bit. We are still here – and so is the famous
environmental illustration of the frog in a pot of water, not quite yet boiling. True, there have been dramatic environmental–societal transformations viewed through the long course of human history. And while the
species Homo sapiens has done reasonably well by just about any standard
applied, the same, however, cannot be said for most of the other species
that share this planet. Sure, our environmental fabric may be increasingly
frayed, especially around the edges, but on the whole do most people,
especially in the rich and powerful northern countries, really feel like they
are living on the edge? In spite of public opinion polls that have shown
sustained concern for the environment, these issues rarely achieve top
billing in terms of issue salience in western nations. They have been middle tier – with slights ups and downs – since the 1970s. Environmental
concerns have become and continue to be seen as background noise, like
distant thunder on an otherwise sunny day, so why pack up the picnic?
Is it worth making the effort to try and get these concerns into the mainstream agenda now, before disaster strikes? Is it not more likely that the
mainstream discipline will engage climate change as a central organizing
factor only after the fact, that is, once disaster is upon us? In that case, if that
is how things are likely to go, perhaps we might as well simply continue
with the status quo in a world framed by rose-colored glasses. I will gladly
choose to do the latter for the moment. It is simply easier to believe that an
ostrich with its head buried in the sand isn’t all that bad, especially if one
472
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Brechin Ostriches and Change
does not want to look upon the ugliness that we ourselves have created and
perhaps could have done something about.
Bibliography
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (2006) The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bell, D. (1973) The Coming of the Post Industrial Society: A Venture in Social
Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
Brechin, S. R. (2003) ‘Comparative Public Opinion and Knowledge on Global
Climatic Change and the Kyoto Protocol: The US versus the World?’,
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(10): 106–34.
Catton, W. R., Jr and Dunlap, R. E. (1980) ‘A New Ecological Paradigm for a PostExuberant Sociology’, American Behavioral Scientist 24(1): 15–48.
Daly, H. (1971) Stationary-State Economy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Elgin, D. (1981) Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life that is Outwardly Simple,
Inwardly Rich, rev edn. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Freudenburg, W. R. (2005) ‘Privileged Access, Privileged Accounts: Toward a Socially
Structured Theory of Resources and Discourses’, Social Forces 84(1): 89–114.
Leopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There. New York:
Oxford University Press.
McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2000) ‘Challenging Global Warming as a Social
Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative’s Movement Counter Claims’, Social
Problems 47(4): 499–522.
McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2004) ‘Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative
Movement’s Impacts on US Climate Change Policy’, Social Problems 50(3):
348–73.
Nearing, H. and Nearing, S. (1954) Living the Good Life. New York: Schocken Books.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Point
Roberts, WA: Hartley and Marks.
Simon, J. (1981) The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Biographical Note: Steven R. Brechin is professor at the Department of Sociology,
the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and the College of Arts and
Sciences, Syracuse University (USA). His research explores public attitudes,
knowledge and values about nature and the environment, including global climate change and biodiversity loss. He also investigates the social dimensions and
equity issues of biodiversity conservation, especially in the developing world.
With others, he is exploring the cross-cultural meanings of environmentalism; the
sociological study of complex formal organizations, especially international governmental and NGOs. He is an invited member of two international commissions, the World Conservation Union (IUCN)’s Commission on Environmental,
Economic and Social Policy (CEESP), where he has been appointed to the Steering
473
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Current Sociology Vol. 56 No. 3
Council, and the World Commission on Parks and Protected Areas (WCPA). His
fifth book project is tentatively titled Organizing Nature.
Address: The Maxwell School, Center for Environmental Policy and
Administration, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA.
[email: [email protected]]
474
Downloaded from http://csi.sagepub.com at SYRACUSE UNIV LIBRARY on April 28, 2008
© 2008 International Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.