Andrew Dobson

Environment sustainabilities: An analysis and a typology

Most approaches to the business of considering environmental sustainability have taken either a definitional or a discursive form. Both these approaches have their limitations. Better is an analytical strategy revolving around the distillation from the literature of the questions to which any theory of environmental sustainability would have to have an answer. This produces a framework for analysis which can be transformed into a typology by grouping the answers to those questions into four ‘conceptions of sustainability’. Two ‘diagnostic packages’ may be proposed for determining the causes of, and solutions to, unsustainability. These conceptions and packages are useful in themselves for orientation purposes in the increasingly complex territory occupied by discussions of environmental sustainability, but they also have potential for use as tools when considering the normative implications of sustainability policies.

Big society, little justice? Community renewable energy and the politics of localism

This paper challenges “Big Society (BS) Localism”, seeing it as an example of impoverished localist thinking which neglects social justice considerations. We do this through a critical examination of recent turns in the localist discourse in the UK which emphasise self-reliant communities and envisage a diminished role for the state. We establish a heuristic distinction between positive and negative approaches to localism. We argue that the Coalition Governments BS programme fits with a negative localist frame as it starts from an ideological assumption that the state acts as a barrier to community-level associational activity and that it should play a minimal role. “BS localism” (as we call it) has been influential over the making of social policy, but it also has implications for the achievement of environmental goals. We argue that this latest incarnation of localism is largely ineffective in solving problems requiring collective action because it neglects the important role that inequalities play in inhibiting the development of associational society. Drawing upon preliminary research being undertaken at the community scale, we argue that staking environmental policy success on the ability of local civil society to fill the gap left after state retrenchment runs the risk of no activity at all.

The politics of nature: explorations in green political theory

Does green political theory provide plausible answers to the central problems of political theory - problems of justice and democracy, of individual rights and freedom, and of human nature and gender? The contributors to this book, who come from a range of disciplines - philosophy, political science, sociology and economics, and a range of political backgrounds - explore this question. They look at the relationship between green political ideas and liberalism, anarchism, feminism, social democracy, individualism, critical theory and Christianity. Some are able to identify a free-standing green political tradition; others are more reluctant to allow green political thought the same status as, say, Marxism or liberalism. They argue that green political theory may overlap with or steal ideas from other ideologies and traditions. Additionally, some chapters focus on less theoretical issues such as welfare and social policy, (de-)industrialization and economic growth.

Political theory and the ecological challenge

Introduction Andrew Dobson and Robyn Eckersley Part I. Modern Political Ideologies and the Ecological Challenge: 1. Conservatism Roger Scruton 2. Liberalism Marcel Wissenburg 3. Socialism Mary Mellor 4. Feminism Val Plumwood 5. Nationalism Avner de-Shalit 6. Communitarianism Robyn Eckersley 7. Cosmopolitanism Andrew Linklater Part II. Political Concepts and the Ecological Challenge: 8. Democracy Terence Ball 9. Justice James P. Sterba 10. The state Andrew Hurrell 11. Representation Michael Saward 12. Freedom and rights Richard Dagger 13. Citizenship Andrew Dobson 14. Security Daniel Deudney.

Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism and the Environment:

In this article the question of whether dialogic cosmopolitanism is an adequate normative response to globalisation is broached. First, a distinction is drawn between ‘interdependence’ and ‘asymmetrical’ analyses of globalisation, and a brief defence of the latter is offered. Asymmetrica globalisation is illustrated through environmental examples. Second, dialogic cosmopolitanism is described. It is argued that the normative focus on unconstrained dialogue of this type of cosmopolitanism runs the risk of underestimating the significance of what ‘subaltern’ populations have already managed to say about their condition, even in less-than-ideal dialogic circumstances. This leads to the suggestion that in an asymmetrically globalising world, more justice as well as more unconstrained dialogue is what is required.

Community knowledge networks: an action-orientated approach to energy research

The Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to reducing carbon emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. With household emissions constituting more than a quarter of current total energy use in the UK, energy practices in the home have taken on increased policy attention. In this paper, we argue that the UK governments approach is founded upon a variant of methodological individualism that assumes that providing greater energy information to individuals will effect behaviour change in relation to energy use. Such an approach is potentially limited in its effectiveness and does not afford appropriate recognition to all those affected by energy policy. In contrast to this approach, we set out an alternative perspective, a community knowledge networks approach to energy and justice which recognises the contexts and relationships in which people live and use energy. Such an approach emphasises situated knowledge and practices in order to gain a greater understanding of how individuals and communities use energy, but, importantly, offers a means for affording greater recognitional justice to different social groups.

Ecological citizenship: a Defence

It was with some trepidation that I learned that Tim Hayward had written a critical account of my work on citizenship and the environment. He is known for his forensic skills and is a formidable intellectual opponent. On the other hand, we all want our work to be subject to the closest scrutiny because only then will we know whether or not we have made any progress. I am therefore extremely grateful to Dr Hayward for taking the time to make such a close reading of my work and for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position.

Democracy and Nature: Speaking and Listening

This article is about the nature of democracy in environmental politics, with special reference to the issue of representation, and to the issues of speaking and listening. It is argued that politics has always been regarded as concerned with ‘speechifying’, and that this has created problems for politicising environmental issues, many of which have to do with ‘dumb nature’. The work of Bruno Latour is examined in this context as a way of including nature in politics without resorting to extravagant claims about ‘nature speaking’. Latours epistemological approach to ‘politicising nature’ is discussed, and attention is focused on the importance for the political (and especially democratic) process of ‘listening’ as well as ‘speaking’.

Ecological Citizenship: a Disruptive Influence?

Interest in citizenship comes and goes. Peter Reisenberg’s comment on eighteenth-century France is, mutatis mutandis, applicable to much of the post-Second World War period in the Western world: nFrom the era of Louis XIV until the Revolution citizenship was not a major concern of French political theory…. Although a few traditional moralists might debate the issue, and although there continued to be debate over the proper relationship between the private and the public interest, there was no serious question any longer of Western civilization’s dedication to the pursuit of wealth (Reisenberg, 1992, p. 253).

Listening: The New Democratic Deficit

Although much prized in daily conversation, good listening has been almost completely ignored in that form of political conversation we know as democracy. Practically all the attention has been paid to speaking, both in terms of the skills to be developed and the ways in which we should understand what enhancing ‘inclusion’ might mean (i.e. getting more people to speak). The argument here is that both democratic theory and democratic practice would be reinvigorated by attention to listening. To ask why listening has been ignored is to inquire into the very nature of politics, and to suggest a range of ways in which listening could both improve political processes (particularly democratic ones) and enhance our understanding of them – including where they do not always work as well as we might want them to. Four ways in which good listening can help achieve democratic objectives are outlined: enhancing legitimacy, helping to deal with deep disagreements, improving understanding and increasing empowerment. This leads to a discussion of the difference between good and bad political listening, before the question of ‘political noise’ is broached (i.e. what we should be listening for). Finally, the listening lacuna in Habermas theory of communicative rationality is pointed out, leading to a discussion of the potential analytic power of listening in relation to deliberative democracy in general and one citizens jury case in particular.