On Science, Ecology and Environmentalism

Abstract

Using ecological science as a backdrop for this discussion, the author applies Michel Foucault's historical genealogical strategy to an analysis of the processes through which sustainable development (SD) gained hegemonic acceptance in the West. She analyses some of the ideological mutations that have seen SD emerge from an environmentalist ideology based on ecological science to that of a mainstream market-oriented ideology for global economic development.

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

“…Altieri presents a version of the 'Venn diagram' in his discussion of sustainable agriculture; here, specific economic, social, and environmental goals are detailed, with the confluence representing 'agroecology' (Altieri 1995, p376). It has been suggested by Thompson (2017) that Altieri draws on Douglass (1984) in his articulation of these three domains; however, it should be noted that this diagram is absent in the first edition of Altieri's book (Altieri 1987). Derived from a 1982 conference on ''Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order'', Douglass divides his contributors' perspectives along ''economic, biological, and cultural'' lines of thinking, later reiterated with the subtitles ''Food Sufficiency: Resources, Technology, and Economics'', ''Stewardship: Biology, Ecology, and Population'', and ''Community: Justice, Participation, and Development''.…”

“…Yet the conceptual origins of this description, and the point at which it emerged into the mainstream, are far from clear, and its exact meaning is a matter of contention. As Thompson puts it, ''much of the…discourse around sustainability…is organized around…the three-circle rubric without much disciplined thought about how it does and does not translate into a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability'' (Thompson 2017).…”

Strategy Textbooks and the Environment Construct

“…The roots of the contemporary call for sustainable development can arguably be found in the environmental movement of the 1960s and the publication of key texts (Carruthers, 2001; Tulloch, 2013; Tulloch & Neilson, 2014), such as Silent Spring (Carson, 1962), The Population Bomb (Ehrlich, 1971), and The Limits to Growth (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, Behrens, & Visser, 1972). Tulloch (2013) argues that these texts, when coupled to Hardin’s (1974) lifeboat ethic and the concept of carrying capacity, informed the radical environmental discourse of the time, a discourse that entered mainstream consciousness via the publication of Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987; on this, see Carruthers, 2001; Shrivastava & Hart, 1994; Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993; Tulloch, 2013; Tulloch & Neilson, 2014; Yates, 2012).…”

“…This definition, however, has attracted critique such as its being a compromise aimed at dissolving historical conflicts between ecological and economic concerns (e.g., see Banerjee, 2003; Carruthers, 2001; Tulloch, 2013; Tulloch & Neilson, 2014). Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that sustainable development is now the dominant global discourse on ecological concerns (Carruthers, 2001; Tulloch, 2013), and a concept that is increasingly important for organizations and business leaders to embrace (e.g., see Blewitt, 2008; Byrch, Kearins, Milne, & Morgan, 2007; Gladwin et al, 1995; Hopkins, 2009; Kiron et al, 2012; Kiron et al, 2013). Taking this logic further, if organizations are central actors then organizational leaders and in turn corporate strategists are key, especially as these individuals are critical in marshalling the resources for and setting the direction of organizations.…”

The Transnational State, Neoliberalism and Environmental Education Policy: A New Zealand Case Study

“…SDD also builds on the dominant post-Enlightenment Western trajectory of progress based on economic growth and technological development that even some early environmentalists subscribed to (Tulloch, 2013). This paper argues that SDD on the surface appears to support insights from the deep-green and red-green camps, but crucially changes their frame of reference.…”