Environmental History, Political Economy and Change: Frameworks and Tools for Research and Analysis • Ronnie D
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Environmental History, Political Economy and Change: Frameworks and Tools for Research and Analysis • Ronnie D. Lipschutz* RonnieEnvironmental D. Lipschutz History, Political Economy and Change What kinds of insights can environmental history provide that would enhance understanding of the political economy and sociology of human-nature rela- tionships?1 And what tools can such political economy and sociology offer in the search for environmental policies and strategies leading to sustainable, rather than destructive, relationships between human societies and nature? These two questions motivate this article, although they only begin to address what is clearly a complex undertaking:crafting environmental policies that are just and democratic, as well as sustainable and effective. Behind these questions lie others:Why engage in such an effort? Who beneªts? From whose standpoint is the activity to be undertaken? What is an appropriate analytical framework? What approaches to the study of the histories of some places will best inform at- tempts to describe what is happening today and what might occur in the future in other places? This article represents the cumulation of several years of thought and writ- ing focused on all of these questions.2 The substance of my argument is as fol- lows:While most environmental history is seen as having to do with landscapes past and how they got that way, environmental history can also have practical contemporary applications. By coming to understand the sources and origins of environmental degradation, and the patterns of social organization that led to them, we may be better positioned to foster environmental protection and conservation in ways that may resolve and/or support local efforts around * This article was originally prepared for presentation in an APSA Science, Technology and Envi- ronmental Politics Workshop on “New Frontiers in Environmental Research,” Northeastern University, Boston, Mass., September 2, 1998. Parts of the article are drawn from a number of earlier memorandums, thinkpieces and proposals. Zsuzsanna Gille was an original co-author of earlier versions of several parts of this paper, while Carolyn Merchant, Margaret FitzSimmons, Carolyn Pomeroy, and two anonymous readers, among others, made substantive and editorial contributions along the way. 1. I use the lower-case term “nature” to refer to the biogeophysical world, and the upper-case term “Nature” to refer to the ideological/ideational concept. 2. Lipschutz 1996. Global Environmental Politics 1:3, August 2001 © 2001 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 72 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/152638001316881412 by guest on 30 September 2021 Ronnie D. Lipschutz • 73 the world. Such studies can help to address conºicts that arise over conservation policies, especially when these studies illuminate the origins and historical trajectories of places, and provide insights into ways of working with, rather than against, local cultures, knowledges, and social arrangements. In other words, to understand, imagine, and shape landscapes in the future, we need to know how they were created in the past. As Donald Worster, one of the best- known contemporary American historians of the environment, wrote some years ago: We [environmental historians] are not concerned merely with the history of literary reactions to nature or of conservation policies, as important as those are. We are, in the largest sense, interested in all the ways people organize themselves into patterns of power, production, and ideology in the presence of what we conventionally call nature—the nonhuman world. Our goal is to discover, through the study of the past, some general ideas about how to make those patterns work better in the future for both ourselves and the rest of the world.3 I begin this paper with a discussion of the relationship between environ- mental history, political economy, sociology and policy and then turn more ex- plicitly to practices of environmental history and matters of scale. In the ªnal section, I address some questions of method and research strategy. The Transformation of Nature and the Nature of Transformations From the perspective of the social sciences and humanities, one of the things generally absent from environmental policy analysis and practice is an adequate understanding of the relationship between human societies and nature. Debates over causality, and the practical and ethical implications of competing analyti- cal approaches, are much too complex to summarize here;4 sufªce it to say that two of the best-known approaches point either toward continuing human ma- nipulation of nature in order to “improve” it or “living lightly on the earth” and returning to some, largely mythical, “natural” relationship characteristic of an imagined earlier time. While both offer guidelines for policy-making, they are also seriously ºawed. The former is widely-agreed to not be viable over the lon- ger-term and, in any event, would require an impossible degree of centralized management, while the latter dictates a substantial change in both the material and cognitive realms of human activity and even massive reductions in human numbers (and, as I discuss below, there are serious contradictions in assuming that such an Edenic “state of Nature” ever actually existed). This does not mean, however, that we cannot change or develop sustainable practices. Rather, it indi- cates that we need to better understand how social change in more environmen- tally friendly directions has taken place in the past and how it could come about 3. Worster 1987, 251. 4. See, for example, Redclift and Benton 1994. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/152638001316881412 by guest on 30 September 2021 74 • Environmental History, Political Economy and Change in the future.5 But making policy without any deep awareness of history and po- litical economy virtually ensures that we will not be able to devise sustainable practices. Several methodological and conceptual shortcomings stand as obstacles to realistic and effective environmental policy analysis. One has to do with its economistic assumptions, a second with questions of scale, a third with the problem of social change, and a fourth with meaning. Taken together, these shortcomings suggest that we ought not to view environmental damage in terms of a limited and deterministic causal explanation (although such explana- tions can be useful) to which straighforward policy tools can be applied; rather, we must pursue a deeper focus on hermeneutic/descriptive analyses (similar to “thick description”) that combine history and political economy with structure and agency. In particular, policy analysis tends toward reiªed assumptions about the economic motivations of actions6 and, as a result, policy analysts dis- place environmental problems from the sphere of social practice and politics to that of economics.7 In this same context, environmental policy analysts usually avoid questions of meaning when they address the relationship of various social actors to nature. I address each of these points below. Errors of Economism Much environmental policy analysis is focused at the macro-level, formulated in a very generalized form, and based on a set of assumptions regarding the be- havior of economically “rational” actors. In the language of rational choice, preferences are assumed to be exogenously determined and additive, and this permits generalization about the joint preferences of entire groups or commu- nities. These assumptions do not hold up well on closer inspection, although not for the reasons usually adduced within the literature critical of rational choice theory.8 Not only are these assumptions applied in similar fashion across cultures, they are also assumed to apply uniformly within industrial societies, which can also exhibit a high degree of diversity at relevant scales of political economy, such as the landscape or community. To be more precise, not only are many preferences endogenously determined, they are also the outgrowth of long-term processes and relationships—social, economic, cultural—that have developed within bounded areas and regions. Space and Place This points, therefore, to the ever-present dilemma of scale:Over what space ought environmental damage and change be studied, environmental analysis performed, and policies implemented? As I have argued elsewhere, although 5. Lipschutz 1996, ch. 7–8. 6. Stone 1997. 7. Hay 1994. 8. Green and Shapiro 1994. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/152638001316881412 by guest on 30 September 2021 Ronnie D. Lipschutz • 75 many environmental problems are conventionally framed in supra-regional, national, and global terms, due to the transboundary or global nature of struc- tural forces and physical processes, the immediate causes and consequences of such problems are generally quite localized.9 All fossil fueled plants emit carbon dioxide, but each plant has a somewhat different social organization and is lo- cated in a socially-unique place. Such “local” diversity among societies is recog- nized by anthropologists and rural sociologists, of course, although researchers in these disciplines work infrequently in industrialized countries.10 Changing Places Another major lacuna in environmental policy analysis has to do with an in- complete understanding of how individuals and societies initiate changes in their environments and how they, in turn, respond to