Frederick H. Buttel

Ecological modernization as social theory

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-codified 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 “ ‘moved into’ the modernization process” (Mol, A.P.J., 1995. The Refinement of Production. Van Arkel, Utrecht, p. 28). Thus, a full-blown theory of ecological modernization must ultimately be a theory of politics and the state. Second, the logic of ecological modernization theory suggests that it has very close affinities 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 benefit by bringing these related – and, for that matter, more powerful – theories into its fold.

How do we know we have global environmental problems? Science and the globalization of environmental discourse

Science has a central role in shaping what count as environmental problems. This has been evident most recently in the success of planetary science and environmental activism in stimulating awareness and discussion of global environmental problems. We advance three propositions about the special relationship between environmental science and politics: (1) in the formulation of science, not just in its application, certain courses of action are facilitated over others; (2) in global environmental discourse, moral and technocratic views of social action have been privileged; and (3) global environmental change, as science and movement ideology, is vulnerable to deconstructive pressures. These stem from different nations and differentiated social groups within nations having different interests in causing and alleviating environmental problems. We develop these propositions through a reconstruction of The Limits to Growth study of the early 1970s, make extensions to current studies of the human/social impacts of climate change, and review current sources of opposition to global and political formulations of environmental issues.

Social Class and Mass Environmental Beliefs A Reconsideration

The previous literature on the socioeconomic correlates of environmental concern places great stress on the middle class being more supportive of environmental agendas than the working or lower socioeconomic class. We argue that certain methodological problems in this research and the theoretical implications of the proenvironmental middle-class generalization warrant an empirical reconsideration. We then find that social class indicators explain relatively little variance in environmental attitudes accounted for by class. However, education is not related to environmental beliefs in an unambiguous linear fashion. Education is subordinate to age as a predictor of environmental attitudes, and much of the gross effect of education is the spurious result of the generally high educational backgrounds of young adults. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research for sociology of environmental problems theory.

Some Reflections on Late Twentieth Century Agrarian Political Economy

The “new rural sociology” arguably represented the most significant watershed in the development of North American and European rural sociology during the 1970s and 1980s. I argue, however, that the new rural sociology, especially its dominant traditions of Chayanovian and neo-Leninist Marxism, has now been almost entirely superseded as a theoretical position in agrarian political economy by the international food regimes, commodity chains/systems analysis, regulationist, and actor-network traditions. In addition, Wageningen School research on “farming styles” and the “cultural turn” within rural sociology and rural studies have arisen, in part, as challenges to the more structuralist styles of reasoning within agrarian political economy. Parallel trends in the sociology of development are also discussed. The paper concludes with an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of these new late twentieth century traditions in agrarian political economy, particularly in comparison with the new rural sociology.

Environmental sociology and global environmental change: A critical assessment

Abstract Arguing that the phenomenon of global environmental change has received inadequate attention within environmental sociology and that the predominant approach of environmental sociology to global change has been limited, this article suggests several new perspectives. Environmental sociology must give more attention to the social construction of environmental knowledge, by building on and transcending the debates within the sociology of science of the past 15 years. At the same time, environmental sociology must rethink its theories that give analytical priority to the nation‐state and to national units of analysis. These principles are illustrated through analyses of the role of global constructions of environmental knowledge and the recent politics of global environmental change.

Environmental Sociology and the Explanation of Environmental Reform

This article makes the case that environmental sociology is in the midst of a significant shift of problematics, from the explanation of environmental degradation to the explanation of environmental reform. In this article, the author suggests that there are four basic mechanisms of environmental reform or improvement: environmental activism/movements, state environmental regulation, ecological modernization, and international environmental governance. He suggests further that although `green consumerism is one of the most frequently discussed mechanisms of environmental improvement within environmental sociology and in movement discourse, green consumerist arguments generally tend to rest on one or more of the other four mechanisms of environmental reform. One of the main tasks of environmental sociology will be to assess which of these four mechanisms is the most fundamental to environmental reform. The author concludes with the hypothesis that environmental movements and activism are ultimately the most fundamental pillars of environmental reform.

The Treadmill of Production: An Appreciation, Assessment, and Agenda for Research

The work of Pellow, Gould, Schnaiberg, and Weinberg (particularly Schnaiberg’s The Environment and his notion of the treadmill of production) became one of the most influential strands of North American environmental sociology during the late 1970s and early 1980s for a number of reasons. It is fair to say, however, that the treadmill of production is not as predominant in environmental sociology in the early 21st century as it was two decades ago. Some of the reasons for this are unfortunate products of our time—for example, the declining role of neo-Marxism in a scholarly community that must watch its back in an era of neoliberalism. In the final portion of this article, the author discusses some shortcomings of the treadmill framework that have led to its being less influential than formerly and lays out an agenda for further treadmill of production inquiry.

From Green Revolution to Biorevolution: Some Observations on the Changing Technological Bases of Economic Transformation in the Third World

For over a decade the theory and practice of rural and agricultural development in the Third World have revolved largely around alternative postures regarding the so-called Green Revolution. Proponents of the Green Revolution have tended to see the further penetration of factor markets (and, accordingly, of product markets) in the Third World as, on balance, desirable. Proponents have argued that the substantial productivity improvements afforded by the transfer of Green Revolution practices have far outweighed the socioeconomic dislocations that resulted from the superimposition of new technical forms on modernizing social structures. Green Revolution detractors, on the other hand, have placed major emphasis on these dislocations. Critics have rejected the assumption that developing nations can or should develop along the same path as the present industrial/high-income countries.2 These critics have argued that the Green Revolution strategy has exacerbated class inequality and/or differentiation and led to premature rural emigration and urbanization.3 To be sure, the positions taken by advocates and critics have become somewhat less polarized in recent years. Advocates in academic circles and in national and multilateral agencies have recognized

The "new" internationalization of agriculture: A reformulation

Abstract Our research on the “new” internationalization of agriculture builds on analyses of the internationalization of capital and the New International Division of Labor, but reformulates “internationalization” as a contingent, political and economic process. We argue that shifts in the institutional structure of capitalism in the 1980s profoundly altered national policy options and agro-food markets. States, such as Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, have been compelled to promote agricultural exports, typically at the expense of national food security. While southern states pursue a common goal of international competitiveness, this involves a varied process of domestic restructuring and differentiates states within the world economy.

The recombinant BGH controversy in the United States: Toward a new consumption politics of food?

The history of the controversy overrecombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is exploredin terms of the issue of the potential robustness ofa consumption-driven ``new politics of food andagriculture. It is noted that while the dominanthistorical traditions in the social sciences haveserved to discount the autonomous role that consumersand consumption play in modern societies, there hasbeen growing interest in consumption within foodstudies as well as other bodies of scholarship such aspostmodernism, social constructivism, socialcapital/social distinction, and environmentalsociology. A review of the shifting pattern ofdiscourses during the rBGH controversy shows thatconsumption-driven claims and politics played atangible, but relatively minor role. Even so, it issuggested that the rBGH experience along with paralleltrends in food politics (e.g., anti-pesticidecampaigns such as the ``Alar scare, agribusinessattempts to intimidate opponents through fooddisparagement laws, conditions-of-productionprovisions of the World Trade Organization agreement)could make the consumption/consumer dimension of foodpolitics more important in the future.