Sociological theory and the natural environment

Abstract

In this article, I criticize environmental sociology's conventional diagnosis of its methodological situation and overly narrow definition of its field. I argue for a greater engagement with the natural science base and consideration of anthropological approaches. I start with conceptual analysis, identifying the human-environment relationship as a proactive two-way interaction. I then present an outline of global environmental dynamics, highlighting the unequal size of human activities on geosphere and biosphere scale, and the role of the biosphere as manager of the geosphere, this as context for the human population problem. Three types of environmental problems are next identified: urbanindustrial, rural-agrarian, and high hazard exposure. These are seen as forming a continuum, with anthropogenic and natural factors synergizing at the centre. I comment on their geographic distribution, noting Europe's limited and specific environmental experience. Lastly I attempt an overview without biological metaphors of the humanenvironment relationship through time, commenting on its inherent imbalances and how these might be diagnosed. I conclude that sociology's bias to modernity and the West renders it inadequate to the global environmental question. A wider and deeper spacio-temporal consideration is needed, with the whole continuum of environmental problems considered. For this, environmental sociology should seek a synthesis with cultural anthropology centring on the anthropological concept of culture, an approach, I argue, that is accessible through the sociology of Max Weber.

Reflections from within: nature-society relations, interdisciplinarity, and knowledge production in rural sociology

“…Catton and Dunlap (1978) famously claimed that sociology operates with a "human exceptionalism" paradigm which assumes that human beings are uniquely exempt from biological and physical determinism and treats social action as fully accounted for by reference to culture and social structure. Walker (2005) adds that sociology is predominantly about explaining the rise and forms of Western modernity and this, given the largely benign environmental conditions found in Europe, has made it blind to the capacity of nature to shape social structure and culture through its production of hazards and threats. Among the "classic" thinkers who shaped the discipline Durkheim is often identified as the greatest obstacle to the emergence of an adequate sociology of nature, with his foundational argument that social processes and conditions be explained only by social facts.…”

“…In turn this encouraged a focus on the environment as a problem ("crisis") for society and on analysis of the politics, policies and types of knowledges implicated in both the creation and the resolution of the problem (e.g. Beck, 1992), and correspondingly less interest in exploring human relations to nature as a routine material and cultural resource (Duarte, 2001;Franklin, 2002;Walker, 2005). The study of routine uses of natural resources has largely been the domain of rural sociology and anthropology -indeed, we might argue that an interest in the material and cultural uses of land, soil, climatic conditions, plants and animals, whether routine or changing, is a defining characteristic of the field of rural sociology, and that environmental sociology would benefit from a broader grounding within that field, treating anthropogenic environmental crisis as merely one aspect of human relations to nature more generally.…”

Towards interdisciplinary rural research – theorizing nature-society relations

“…The relevance of environmental sociology for rural sociology, beyond the "twinning" of specialized research fields and combining data and results from research, can be that of driving the critical analysis of nature-society interaction further than in rural sociology (Walker, 2005). That would require theoretical reflection on the problems touched upon here: unequal access to and distribution of natural resources, unequal exchange, the societal metabolism of matter and energy flows between nature and society.…”

Sociology, environment and health: a materialist approach

“…11 In his view the solution lay in a synthesis between environmental sociology and cultural anthropology, to incorporate broader biological and environmental factors into an understanding of human culture. In similar vein, Stevens called for an 'ecosociology' that recognised environmental contexts as part of the human experience of embodiment, to 'help humanity come to terms with its unique, but not pre-eminent role in the global system'.…”

“…Sociologists have applied a broad notion of environment as a context for social action, in which 'the environment' is basically everything that is not part of a human body, a product of human agency, or a human construction. 10,11 From a second perspective, social scientists sought understanding of the part that the physical environment has played in shaping human existence: for instance, the particularities of climate and geology that determine cultural stability or environmental events such as frequent flooding; longer-term climatic changes that affect human endeavour 16 ; or the psychological and social effects of the environment. 4,5, They contributed to debates about the effects of the environment on humans, pointing to the social, psychological and cultural mediation of links between health and ill-health and the material environment 10,17,18 , and offered critical insights into public understanding and construction of environmental hazards.…”