ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENTMitchell / VEBLEN/ December AND 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY Articles THORSTEIN VEBLEN Pioneer in Environmental Sociology ROSS E. MITCHELL University of Alberta This article investigates the writings of American institutional economist Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857-1929) on capitalism and environment. The two main queries concern (a) Veblen’s stand on natural resource utilization as a consequence of capitalism and (b) its current relevance to environmental sociology. Veblen’s theories of conspicuous consump- tion, absentee ownership, and natural resource exploitation are examined from several of his seminal contributions. The article concludes that Veblen’s pioneering analysis of wasteful use of natural resources and emulative consumerism is essential to environmental sociology and timely because of current environmental crises. Future research is suggested in two areas: (a) applying Veblen’s theoretical approaches to the ecological aspects of capitalism and (b) comparing Veblen with other classical theorists such as Marx and Weber within the subfield of environmental sociology. rowing up on a Norwegian homestead in America during the 19th cen- G tury may not seem like good fodder for scholarly achievement. Then again, the frontier lands of America may have been the perfect staging ground for the institutional economist Thorstein Bunde Veblen(1857-1929). Undoubtedly, his pioneering background in the backwoods of northern Minnesota had an influential effect on all he valued and abhorred in society. The indefatigable Veblen was never far removed from his homesteader roots. Like a true pioneer, he broke new ground in capitalistic and institutionalist theory, yet he continues to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by both critics and admirers. Veblen (1899/1967b) is renowned for his classic The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions (hereafter TLC). With characteristic aplomb and sardonic wit, Veblen’s principal methodology was an application of Darwinian notions of evolution to the study of modern economic life. His prescient analysis of capitalism and society arguably ranks him alongside Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, and Max Weber. As a “rebel economist (or sociologist) of the left,” he was deeply influenced by the works of Marx, although he was no Marxist (Foster & Szlajfer, 1984, p. 13). Regrettably, his critical-sardonic take on American big busi- ness at the turn of the 20th century, when industrialization was in full throttle, and Author’s Note: I would like to express my gratitude to Michael Hughey, Naomi Krogman, Jeff Masuda, and P. A. Saram for their invaluable comments and support at critical stages in the preparation of this article. I would also like to thank the Organization & Envi- ronment reviewers for their assistance in strengthening my arguments in this article. Special appreciation is owed to John Bellamy Foster for his many helpful contributions. Comments may be sent via e-mail to [email protected]. Organization & Environment, Vol. 14 No. 4, December 2001 389-408 © 2001 Sage Publications 389 390 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001 an academic career beset with controversy have often sold Veblen short of his fair due of recognition. Above all, many have failed to recognize how Veblen (1923/ 1967a) so astutely situated environment and society, or his habitually mentioned “American Plan of seizure and conversion...[and] of hurried exploitation instead of economical use” (pp. 186-188). Veblen (1899/1967b) argued that all modern materialism can be reduced to waste by nonproductive consumption of time and visible displays of wealth, or what he called “the great economic law of wasted effort” (p. 83). As a result, some scholars have asserted that Veblen regarded resource scarcity problems as coupled to societal needs, industrial shortcomings, and/or business manipulations (e.g., Baran & Sweezy, 1966; Barkley & Seckler, 1972; Bell, 1998; Boles, 1998; Com- moner, 1971; Foster, 1994; Gould, Schnaiberg, & Weinberg, 1996; Hughey & Vidich, 1993; Jacobs, 1980; Kapp, 1950, 1963; Larson, 1992; Solomon, 1999; Szlajfer, 1984). Still, as demonstrated by the mid-1960s publication of Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order (Baran & Sweezy, 1966), with its Veblen-like critique of waste due to capitalism, the socio- environmental aspects of Veblen’s work have been most fully appreciated and developed within radical and institutionalist economic traditions in the United States. This reflects the fact that Veblenhas been more influential within economics than sociology. Certainly, these deep-seated traditions overlap with sociology, but until now, no comprehensive attempt has explored Veblen’s relevance to the subfield of environmental sociology. Recognizing that humanity has become increasingly reliant on the wasteful use of resources to meet the North’s insatiable need to consume, I argue in this article that Veblen’s writings offer precious insights on the role of humanity in both caus- ing and exacerbating global environmental crises. By positioning Veblen along these lines, my contention is that we can acquire a classical perspective to improve our understanding of the critical hub linking environment and society. To begin, environment not only represents the integration of living (biotic) and nonliving elements in the environment; it is also the locus of all material support of humanity (Schnaiberg, 1980). Environment not only embraces the physical world and its natural resources, such as forests, land, air, and water; it implicates human interventions and impacts as well. Ultimately, environmental crisis is inevitable because pollution and consumption of energy and raw materials can be controlled and restrained, but not completely avoided (O’Connor, 1988). Environmental sociology, then, was conceived as a criticism of conventional sociology for its lack of attention to the physical-biological-material bases of human existence (Burch, 1971; Catton & Dunlap, 1978; Humphrey & Buttel, 1982; Murphy, 1994; Schnaiberg, 1975). Environmental sociology as a distinct discipline emerged from the environmental movement of the late 1960s and began to appear in mainstream sociological journals in the 1970s (Dunlap & Catton, 1979, 1994; Humphrey & Buttel, 1982; Krogman & Darlington, 1996). Although many envi- ronmental sociologists remain critical of society’s ability to address environmental dilemmas, most do not reject capitalist economic or democratic political systems in their search for alternative solutions to such problems (Humphrey & Buttel, 1982). Even more troubling is the assertion that the classical sociology tradition is devoid of systematic insights into environmental problems. Contrary to this view, recent work has indicated how much we can learn by applying classical foundations to contemporary environmental sociology (e.g., Boles, 1998; Buttel, 1996; Dunlap, 1997; Foster, 1999; Gimenez, 2000; Murphy, 1994, 1996; Vaillancourt, 1995). Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 391 Whereas Marx achieved widespread popularity, Veblen’s notoriety as a radical critic of American capitalism and unconventional academic has continued to marginalize his theoretical contributions long after his death in 1929. During the early to mid-20th century, Veblen’s influence was undeniably evident on such great political and economic thinkers as Harold Innis, Wesley C. Mitchell, John R. Com- mons, John Kenneth Galbraith, K. William Kapp, Paul Baran, and Paul Sweezy. All of these credit Veblento some extent in having helped formulate their heretical per- spectives. But, what of more recent sources on the theory and practice of environ- mental and natural resource sociology? As a critical theorist of conspicuous con- sumption and wasteful extractive processes of natural resources, it is odd indeed that Veblen has rarely been cited within the environmental sociology subfield. Sev- eral sources in this subfield include foundational works by Bell (1998); Buttel, Larson, and Gillespie (1990); Dunlap and Catton (1994); Field and Burch (1988); Metha and Ouellet (1995); Redclift and Woodgate (1997); and Schnaiberg (1980). Although many consider Durkheim, Marx, and Weber for their potential contribu- tions to environment and society, Veblen is given short shrift—either downplayed or ignored entirely. Veblen’s critical thought vis-à-vis wasteful and exploitative practices of capital- ism is evident in works such as TLC (1899/1967b) and The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904). Although both achieved critical acclaim, or unfavorable reviews in some circles, Veblen’s (1923/1967a) last book, Absentee Ownership and Busi- ness Enterprise in Recent Times: The Case of America (hereafter AO) has been largely overlooked. With several chapters on the exploitative use of natural resources, AO is a penetrating account of all Veblen found wrong with the Ameri- can economic system; above all, uses of property “that were speculative, unproduc- tive, wasteful, and/or exploitative” (Vaughn, 1999, p. 716). InAO, Veblen bore wit- ness to an age of great industrial expansion and unbridled optimism as the “taming” of the great western frontier came to a close. His account of natural resource scar- city and waste that had begun to plague America by the mid-19th century was remarkably prophetic. So why have Veblen’s writings within the subdiscipline of environmental sociology been mostly ignored or underestimated until now? Difficult to pigeonhole and harder still to interpret, the