AMKent books

Introduction

With the emergence of the industrial revolution humanity has, in turn, until more recent times disassociated itself with its naturalistic origins, and so had the field of sociology. The prominence of sociological concern in environmental and sustainability issues began to see rapid expansion during the 1970’s. Before that, the social science theories on human nature followed what was known as a ‘Human Exemptionalism paradigm,’ a belief that humans were inherently superior to nature and therefore exempt from it (Foster, 1999). In 1972 the UN held a conference in Stockholm, with the focus on the environment and the science emerging towards its fluctuations. For the first time, scientific communities began to think not only of economic resources and their limitations, but of the overall impact on a planetary health scale. In 2012, another meeting was held by the UN, this time acknowledging the data as reliable, the earth is changing, and a sixth mass extinction event is being edged nearer. Thus, in 2015, 169 sustainable development goals were established, and sociologists began to work theories around their interpretations of this (Sachs, 2015). Sustainability has quickly become a rising topic within all fields of academia, and most recently sociology has sought to offer solutions and theories of its own. Sustainable development has become not only a rising topic of inquiry, but also a subject of contention amongst sociologists. With this growing concern has come the inception of theories on socio-economic and environmental analysis such as the social constructionist perspective, egalitarian theories, and the cornucopian vs Malthusian debate (Longo, Clark, Shriver, Clausen, 2016). This essay shall discuss the key theories in the field, these concepts shall then be critically analyzed, highlighting any potentially valid criticisms.  

One of the main perspectives that sociologists align themselves with is a constructionist view. These thinkers accept that they are not ‘natural scientists’ trained in biological or naturalistic ways of thinking, and instead think of these issues within societal analysis and social constructs (Giddens, 2017). The constructionism perspective posits that social phenomenology/ experience cannot be separated from external knowledge, or vice-versa, as an objective reality outside of each other. The theory embraces the duality of realism (the external world is the true experience) and relativism (existence and the epistemology within it is constructed within the mind), however, it leans towards the latter (Jones, 2002). Constructionism looks to how policies were socially influenced into creation as additions to general materialistic goals within society. Along with an analysis on what is termed as ‘realist’ theory, social constructionism looks to question the true state of sustainability and the evidence that surrounds this issue (Williams, 1998). There have been many critiques applied towards constructionism. One of the primary arguments against the theory is that in acknowledging everything under the category of social construct, the external existence of the environment is fundamentally ignored as a key focus. Furthermore, it is criticized for dismissing the idea of nature having an impact through actions of its own outside of its relativist view of reality, ignoring the force of nature (Burningham, Cooper, 1999).

The second sociological perspective prevalent in the field of sustainability is an egalitarian approach. Egalitarian thought posits that both human and non-human lives are of equal value, and that the correlation between human consumption and the environmental shift is also the cause. This mode of thought if applied would mean a wide revision of current justice policy and socio-economic institutions such as agricultural trade. Moreover, expanding the moral net of human and non-human value on such a vast scale would have major implications for sustainability if humans were the cause. Biospheric egalitarianism calls for an understanding of the non-human life outside of its utility to the more dominant, and more human species (Kopnina, 2014). Egalitarian thought looks to remove hoarding of social capital amongst certain members or groups in society and redistribute it more evenly, for the greater good of society and sustainability (Islam, et al, 2006).

One of the key figures in Egalitarian thought is John Rawls, who worked on his theory of justice using three primary principles. His first principle looks at creating an equal political and economic system that benefits the highest number of people within it. Rawl’s second principle then looks to work upon the first’s foundations, creating a redistribution of social and material goods. Additionally, the third principle, Rawl’s ‘difference’ principal functions to lead the second in a stronger egalitarian pathway. It does this by redistributing goods in an advantageously unequal manner only to those who are in the worst socio-economic conditions (Estlund, 1995). However, this redispersion of social capital and general views of the theory has been criticized in both its aspirations of sustainability in the environment and capital. A criticism towards its redistributing of wealth and a general more welfare state is that once redistribution becomes too high amongst a society it would become counter intuitive to economic growth within that society (Kenworthy, 2004). Furthermore, Rawl’s theory has been criticized for applying his principles to a simplistic formation of society, and therefore his principles only apply to certain individuals within those worst-off groups who could be considered as the group’s representatives (Hirose, 2014).

The final perspectives this essay will critically examine are the Malthusian vs Cornucopian debate, that examines both sustainability and green economics in terms of natural resources and technological capabilities. The Malthusian perspective was inspired by the economist Thomas Malthus, who created an influential essay on population issues within society. In the essay, Malthus discussed how increasing the amount of food a society’s population has access to, in turn increases the well-being of the population. However, this leads to a paradox in which the population then increases, in turn this overpopulation will inevitably lead to food shortage again, and a devaluation in the economy of said society (Malthus, 1798). Cornucopian ideas work against Malthusian thought, positing that the advancement of technological development within society can replace any of the finite resources that societies may rely upon, including those that are damaging to the environment and sustainable development goals (Ayres, 1993).

Whilst Malthusian thought relies upon a prophecy of economic failure through success, cornucopians see technology as a clear pathway to what they call a ‘green revolution.’ A problem with cornucopians green economics is that it could be deemed too optimistic, not truly considering individualistic and nuanced needs that specific countries and regions may encounter for true sustainability (Wharton, 1969). Cornucopians rely on the self-serving nature of people in society to try and form policies around environmental tax, along with pollution orientated policies with the end goal of segregating the environmental impact of a society with its growth in economy (Pearce, 1992). Malthusians have also been criticized most notably for looking to the past to predict the future with a view of pessimism. A study conducted in 2005 on the debate looked back at a piece of key literature in the Malthusian perspective ‘the Global 2000 Report to the President’. The report in question warned of the growing population and the supposedly catastrophic effects this would have on food supplies and the economy. In hindsight, the study found that the Malthusian angle was too pessimistic, and Cornucopian theories had aged with a higher degree of accuracy (Chenoweth, 2005).

Conclusion

Recognition of sustainability and the byproducts of this issue, like economics and overpopulation, have undergone many different renditions and interpretations throughout the field of sociology. From the idea that our issues originate entirely from our own creation, to a more holistic, egalitarian approach that looks to reunite us more with our naturalistic origins. To the debates between prophetic Malthusians and hopeful conrucopians and their ideas on how economical sustainability should progress. Many of these theories come from key thinkers whose content of their perspectives, although not perfect, all hold degrees of merit in their own ways. Sustainability is a rapidly evolving issue not just for past and present sociologists, but for the potential future of sociology along with humanity. Without critical thought to dissect profound thinkers and their paradigms, we would be left with nothing but an echo chamber with no direction. Now, more so than ever it is needed to find what works and what should remain as an interesting take on a potentially catastrophic issue. There have been interesting new ideas on all sides, from applying personhoods to ecology (Hunter, 2019). To new perspectives on leverage points (key areas in sustainability like fuel consumption that goes through three realms of leverage) that looks to bridge the gaps between perspectives (Fischer, 2019). It is prevalent that more so now than ever key critical analysis and inquiry must be applied to this issue for true sustainable progress.

References

Ayres, Robert, U. (1993). Cowboys, Cornucopians and Long-run Sustainability. Ecological Economics. 8 (3), p189-207.

Burningham, Kate; Cooper, Geoff (1999). Being Constructive: Social Constructionism and the Environment. Sociology. 33 (2), p297-316.

Chenoweth, Jonathan; Feitelson, Eran. (2005). Neo-Malthusians and Cornucopians put to the test: Global 2000 and The Resourceful Earth revisited. Futures. 37 (1), p51-72.

Estlund, David (1995). DEBATE: The survival of Egalitarian Justice in John Rawl’s Political Liberalism. The Journal of Political Philosophy, p68-78.

Giddens, Anthony (2017). Essential Concepts in Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. p59-83.

Foster, John B. (1999). Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology. 105 (2), p366-p405.

Fischer, Joern (2019). A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People and Nature. 1 (1), p115-120.

Hirose, Iwao (2014). Egalitarianism. London: Routledge. p26-43.

Hunter, Jack (2019). Greening the Paranormal. UK. August Night Press. p2-42.

Islam, Kamrul, M; Merlo, Juan; Kawachi, Ichiro; Lindstrom, Martin; Gerdtham, Ulf, G. (2006). Social Capital and Health: Does Egalitarianism Matter? A Literature Review. International Journal for Equity in Health. 5 (3),

Jones, Samantha. (2002). Social Constructionism and the Environment: Through the Quagmire. Global Environmental Change. 12 (4), p247-251.

Kopnina, Helen. (2014). Environmental justice and Biospheric egalitarianism: reflecting on a normative-philosophical view of human-nature relationship. Earth Perspectives. 1 (8).

Kenworthy, Lane (2004). Egalitarian Capitalism. 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Illustrated edition, p68-93.

Longo, Stefano, B; Clark, Brett; Shriver, Thomas, E; Clausen, Rebecca. (2016). Sustainability and Environmental Sociology: Putting the Economy in its Place and Moving Toward an Integrative Socio-Ecology. Sustainability Through the Lens of Environmental Sociology. 8 (5), p437.

Malthus, Thomas, R (1798). Population: The first Essay. 1st ed. London: J Johnson.

Pearce, David (1992). Green Economics. US: White Horse Press. p13-33.

Sachs, Jeffrey D (2015). The Age of Sustainable Development. New York: Columbia University Press. p71-485.

Williams, J. (1998). Knowledge, Consequences, and Experience: The Social Construction of Environmental Problems. Sociological Inquiry, 68(4), p476–497.

Wharton, Clifton, R. (1969). The Green Revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora’s box?. Foreign Affairs. 47 (3), p464-476.