An Environmental Sociology For The Twenty-First Century

SO39CH12-PellowARI29 June 201315:2over the nonhuman world. Thus, we proposethat environmental sociology’s contributionto the broader field is the combination of afocus on the inseparability of human societyfrom nonhuman natures and the centrality ofinequality and power that shape both.WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENT?WHAT IS NATURE?Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2013.39:229-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgAccess provided by New York University - Bobst Library on 09/08/15. For personal use only.Many sociologists and other environmentalstudies scholars are highly skeptical of the useof the term “natural,” as it suggests that socialrealities just happen and are fixed rather thansocially constructed. Scholars inside and outside of sociology have argued that nature is a“terrain of power” (Moore et al. 2003, p. 1), anideological battleground (Haraway 1991), anda construction that privileges elite classes, masculinism, heterosexism, white supremacy, andhumanism (Gaard 2004). Furthermore, sociologists have been at the forefront of researchon the ways that certain socially marginalizedpopulations live in communities with disproportionate environmental risks, thus leading toa redefinition of the environment from a concept restricted to nonhuman natures to onethat is inclusive of built and social environments (Bullard & Wright 2012). Thus, the environment and nature are concepts that revealthe presence of politics, power, and inequality.Environmental studies scholars have, in recentyears, been explicit about expanding the definition of the environment beyond the traditionalnineteenth and early twentieth century European/US images of nature, wilderness, nonhuman animals, oceans, forests, etc., to also include those places where humans live, work,learn, pray, and play (Adamson et al. 2002).In the next several sections, we considermany of the leading paradigms and theoreticalperspectives that have influenced and shapedenvironmental sociology over the decades, followed by emerging areas of study with clearrelevance to the field. Each of these traditionsis evolving, but they center on the themes ofinequality, power, human/nonhuman interactions, and environmental degradation versussustainability.232Pellow·Nyseth BrehmPOLITICAL ECONOMYPolitical economy perspectives within thefield of environmental sociology focus on theeffects of capitalism and modernity on socioecological well-being (Foster 1999, Gould et al.2008, O’Connor 1988; for a more in-depthexamination, see Rudel et al. 2011). Many ofthese studies reflect a Marxist viewpoint in thatwhen struggles over the means of productiontend to favor the capitalist classes, they alsoproduce greater ecological damage and masssocial suffering. Thus, this body of research isof great importance for linking inequality toecological harm.Two competing theoretical perspectiveswithin this tradition are ecological modernization and the treadmill of production. Ecologicalmodernization contends that, although processes of modernization and globalization oftenresult in environmental degradation, they alsocan encourage policies and programs designedto improve environmental quality within statepolicy making and corporate practices (Mol2003). Ecological modernization theoristsargue that industrial society has entered a newperiod—that began in the 1980s—marked bynew technologies, innovative entrepreneurs,and farsighted financiers bringing abouta generation of industrial innovation thatcan secure ecologically sustainable futures(Sonnenfeld 2000). In fact, the argumentsuggests that continued modernization isactually necessary for societies to achieveecological sustainability. However, this theorytends to overstate the degree to which institutions and societies have become ecologicallysustainable.The treadmill of production theory, on theother hand, contends that capitalist economiesbehave like a treadmill; as economic development intensifies, so does the degree ofecological degradation. Within this model, thecapitalist state underwrites private accumulation while also addressing the social upheavalsassociated with that system (falling wages,rising inequalities, structural unemployment,and environmental harm). The logic of such a

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2013.39:229-250. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgAccess provided by New York University - Bobst Library on 09/08/15. For personal use only.SO39CH12-PellowARI29 June 201315:2system dictates that ever greater investmentstoward economic growth will usher in solutionsto the socioecological crises the system causedin the first place. Accordingly, investors, thestate, consumers, and working-class populations intensify their commitment to economicgrowth in order to generate goods for sale onthe market, income for workers, and legitimacyfor nation-states despite the inherent illogicof such an approach (Schnaiberg 1980). Notsurprisingly, ecological modernization scholarscontend that this theory overstates the degreeto which market economies are ecologicallyharmful.Hence, the debate between the treadmillof production and ecological modernizationcenters on the degree to which industrializedsocieties and modernization are supportive ofecological sustainability. Although much of thescholarship is generally divided between studiesthat find support for one or the other perspective (see, for example, Bonds & Downey 2012,Mol 2003), several studies find partial supportfor both, depending on the context ( Jorgenson& Clark 2012, Mol & Sonnenfeld 2000). Clark& York (2005) argue that one of the majorshortcomings of theories such as the treadmillof production and ecological modernization, aswell as O’Connor’s (1988) second contradiction of capitalism (i.e., the tendency for capitalto exhaust the ecological basis of its productionsystem), is that, by limiting their analysis to howmuch human activities disrupt ecosystems, theyfail to take nonhuman natures more seriously.Rather, these theories should also examineecological processes and cycles more closely.Moreover, as Hooks & Smith (2004) note,none of these theories accounts for the deepcommitment to militarism and geopolitics onthe part of dominant nation-states, a commitment that produces significant socioecologicalharm as well. We would add that these perspectives also fail to take seriously the relationshipbetween market economies and gender, racial,and other inequalities, which are as importantas class inequalities. Thus, these politicaleconomy perspectives narrowly define therole of capitalism by positing that the primarytension is between economic and ecologicalgoals.In an exciting development that links environmental sociology to classical theory, theconcept of metabolism has recently been recuperated by political economy–oriented scholars who borrowed it from Marx’s body ofwork. Thus, unlike ecological modernizationand the treadmill of production, the conceptof metabolism directly connects contemporaryenvironmental sociology with classical sociology. Metabolism refers to the general relationship of exchange between human societies andnonhuman natures. The metabolic or ecological rift indicates the disruptions of ecosystemprocesses and the environmental harm produced by humans in general and capitalism inparticular (Foster et al. 2010). This has dire consequences for socioecological inequalities andfor relations that characterize the dominationover nonhuman nature and over human beingsby elites. As Foster et al. (2010, p. 47) write:This ecological rift is, at bottom, the product of a social rift: the domination of humanbeing by human being. The driving force isa society based on class, inequality, and acquisition without end. . . . No solution to theworld’s ecological problem can be arrived atthat does not take the surmounting of capitalism, as an imperialist world system, as itsobject.The metabolic rift is a productive developmentin the field because it connects current researchto classical theory and links sociology with aninterdisciplinary array of scientific literaturesfocused on ecosystem dynamics.WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY ANDWORLD POLITY THEORYTaking a more global approach, world systemstheorists contend that the historical economicdevelopment of core (wealthier) nations occurred as a result of ecological degradation,social upheavals, and economic underdevelopment of nations within the global peripherywww.annualreviews.org Environmental Sociology233

ARI29 June 201315:2(Bunker & Ciccantell 2005). According toworld systems scholars studying ecologicallyunequal exchange, this basic relationshipcontinues in the contemporary era, as wealthynations gain disproportionate access to capitaland externalize the costs of capital accumulation onto nations in the Global South (Austin2010). For example, not only are some corenations dumping toxic waste in and exportingthe most hazardous production facilities tothe periphery, they are also extracting energyand other forms of ecological wealth from theperiphery and paying less than market value forit (Rice 2007). In the process, core nations mayappear to be greening their industrial policies,whereas peripheral nations might seem to beless committed to ecological sustainability,but this relationship actually reveals continuedglobal inequalities among nation-states andregions whereby the core has the power andcapacity to outsource its most ecologicallyinjurious practices abroad (Bonds & Downey2012, McKinney 2012).Research on ecological footprints, or “theamount of biologically productive space. . .tosupport the average individual in a given society” (York et al. 2003, p. 282), has madeeven further advances in measuring the degreeto which unequal exchange affects nations andecosystems in the world system. These inequalities among nations are not only rooted in vastdifferences in gross domestic product and thesize of respective economies, but they are alsomade possible and reinforced by the uneve

literature featured here comes from scholars outside of the discipline of sociology in order to highlight the interdisciplinary nature of environmental sociology’s reach and sociolog-ical aspects of this interdisciplinary research. Finally, this review expands upon previous Annual Review of Sociology articles by revisiting