Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65 www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum Ecological modernization as social theory F.H. Buttel Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA Received 5 November 1998; in revised form 12 August 1999 Abstract In this paper I examine some of the reasons for and implications of the ascendance of ecological modernization thought. I stress that its rapid rise to prominence is not because it is a well-developed and highly-codi®ed social theory, but rather because it accords particularly well with a number of intellectual and broader political±economic factors, many of which lie outside the realms of sociology and environmental sociology. I suggest that while ecological modernization is indistinct as a social theory its basic logic suggests two points. First, the most sophisticated versions of ecological modernization revolve around the notion that political processes and practices are particularly critical in enabling ecological phenomena to be `` Ômoved intoÕ the modernization process'' (Mol, A.P.J., 1995. The Re®nement of Production. Van Arkel, Utrecht, p. 28). Thus, a full-blown theory of ecological modern- ization must ultimately be a theory of politics and the state. Second, the logic of ecological modernization theory suggests that it has very close anities to several related literatures ± particularly embedded autonomy, civil society, and state-society synergy theories in political sociology ± which have not yet been incorporated into the ecological modernization literature. I conclude by arguing that ecological modernization can bene®t by bringing these related ± and, for that matter, more powerful ± theories into its fold. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction ronmental sociology (e.g., SchnaibergÕs (1980) notion of ``treadmill of production'', and Catton and DunlapÕs The rise of ecological modernization as a perspective (1980) notions of Human Exemptionalist and New En- in environmental social science1 has been as meteoric as vironmental Paradigms (see also Dunlap and Catton, it has been unexpected. Ecological modernization was 1994). Over the past two years it has come to be virtually unknown to virtually all North American environmental obligatory for professional meetings of environmental social scientists half a dozen years ago, save for a small social scientists to have one or more sessions devoted handful of comparative politics specialists who were speci®cally to ecological modernization. Further, while familiar with Janicke Õs (1990) work on ``state failure'', or there has been a surprising degree of acceptance of environmental studies scholars who had read SimonisÕ ecological modernization as one of the mainstream en- (1989) paper in the International Social Science Journal. vironmental±sociological perspectives, the pervasiveness Now ecological modernization has come to be regarded of ecological modernization can be gauged by the fact as being on a virtual par with some of the most long- that a broad range of environmental social scientists standing and in¯uential ideas and perspectives in envi- have found it necessary to address ± even if only to critically respond to ± the rising in¯uence of this per- spective (see, e.g., Benton, 1997; Harvey, 1996; Schnai- berg et al., 1999; Redclift and Woodgate, 1997a,b; also see Mol and Spaargaren, 2000; Mol, 1999; Cohen, 1997, E-mail address: [email protected] (F.H. Buttel). for summaries of this critical literature and for responses 1 In this paper the expression environmental social science will be understood to pertain to the social science disciplines in which to the major criticisms that have been raised). Ecological ecological modernization perspectives currently play a major role. modernization has already become featured as an es- Ecological modernization has become quite in¯uential within envi- tablished perspective in the most recent environmental ronmental sociology, and to a lesser degree within geography and sociology undergraduate textbooks (Harper, 1996; Bell, political science. Because such a large share of the ecological 1998) and has become a particularly popular topic in modernization literature (in English) has been authored by sociolo- gists, the discussion in this paper will occasionally refer speci®cally to the journal, Environmental Politics. The publication of the (environmental) sociological literature. the present special issue of Geoforum testi®es to the 0016-7185/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 1 8 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 044-5 58 F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65 tremendous interest that ecological modernization has 2. The ecological modernization concept and perspective stimulated within geography. A particularly important indicator of the extent to Nearly as remarkable as ecological modernizationÕs which ecological modernization thought has became rising visibility and in¯uence has been the diversity of in¯uential in the environmental social sciences is the the meanings and usages of this concept. Ecological prominence given to MolÕs (1997) paper in the recent modernization is now employed in at least four dierent and widely circulated International Handbook of Envi- ways. First, there is an identi®able school of ecological ronmental Sociology (Redclift and Woodgate, 1997a,b). modernizationist/sociological thought.2 From a North MolÕs (1997) paper is one of a handful in the Redclift± American and British perspective Arthur Mol and Gert Woodgate anthology devoted to a particular theoretical Spaargaren are now generally recognized as the key perspective. Not only has ecological modernization very ®gures in the ®eld, though in Germany, the Netherlands, rapidly gained a foothold in environmental sociology and elsewhere on the Continent ecological moderniza- and environmental studies, but it has even made some tion is still very closely associated with the work of inroads into general sociological scholarship. Perhaps scholars such as Joseph Huber and Martin Janicke. the most telling indicator of the rising in¯uence of eco- Nonetheless, Mol and SpaargarenÕs sole- and jointly- logical modernization is the fact that Giddens (1998), authored works (Spaargaren and Mol, 1992; Mol and arguably the most well-known Anglophone social the- Spaargaren, 2000; Spaargaren et al., 1999; Mol and orist of the late 20th century and a scholar interested in Spaargaren, 1993; Spaargaren, 1996; Mol, 1995, 1997), environmental issues and their sociological signi®cance, as well as those of close associates and colleagues (e.g., has devoted 10 pages of his The Third Way to ecological Cohen, 1997; Leroy and van Tatenhove, 1999), consti- modernization thought. tute what can be thought of as the core literature of the This paper will focus on some of the reasons for and ecological modernization perspective. In this paper I will implications of the extraordinary ascendance of eco- primarily build from Mol and SpaargarenÕs works be- logical modernization thought. I will stress that its rapid cause of all the scholars and researchers in this tradition rise to prominence is due less to ecological moderniza- (at least as far as the literature in English is concerned) tion having been a well-developed and highly-codi®ed they have done the most to articulate a distinctive the- social theory, but rather because of how ecological oretical argument. modernization accorded particularly well with a number A second respect in which ecological modernization is of intellectual and broader political±economic factors, employed is as a notion for depicting prevailing many of which lay outside the realms of sociology and discourses of environmental policy. The major ®gure environmental sociology. I will suggest that while eco- associated with the political-discursive and social-con- logical modernization is indistinct as a social theory, structionist perspective on ecological modernization is ecological modernizationÕs basic logic suggests two Hajer (1995). For Hajer (1995), ecological moderniza- points. First, the most sophisticated and persuasive tion is not so much a prediction of strong tendencies to versions of ecological modernization revolve around the industrial±ecological progress as it is a category for de- notion that political processes and practices are partic- scribing the dominant discourses of the environmental ularly critical in enabling ecological phenomena to be policy arenas of the advanced countries. In addition to ``Ômoved intoÕ the modernization process'' (Mol, 1995, p. HajerÕs constructionism being in stark contrast with the 28). Thus, a full-blown theory of ecological modern- objectivism of the core literature in ecological modern- ization must ultimately be a theory of politics and the ization, HajerÕs view is that ecological-modernizationist state ± that is, a theory of the changes in the state and political practices (and a theory of the antecedents of these changes) which tend to give rise to private eco- 2 eciencies and overall environmental reforms. Second, Note that I use the expression ecological-modernizationist ``thought'' or ``perspective'', rather than theory, at this point in the the logic of ecological modernization theory suggests paper because of the fact that, at least as far as the literature in English that it has very close anities to several related litera- is concerned, ecological modernization is not yet a clearly-codi®ed tures ± particularly embedded autonomy, civil society,