The contesting ideologies dealing with the Environmentalism and Nature

The early 19th century German philosopher, Georg W.F. Hegel is known for his idea of “dialectic “  who initiated a new wave of inquiry into the nature of reality. In my understanding of “dialectic method”   involves the notion that any historical progress is the result of conflicting or competing ideas.  This idea of Hegel's thought revolves around  thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. While I understand, a thesis can be seen as a single idea. The idea that may contain incompleteness within it that gives rise to the antithesis, a competing idea. A synthesis can be a new product, a new set of ideas that tries to incorporate some of the elements of  thesis and antithesis at a higher level. In this connection, the ideas of capitalism and environmentalism which were seen as competing idea in late 60s. And the concept of free market environmentalism in 70s can be seen as synthesis that addressed both the ideas of capitalism and environmentalism.  If we look into this phenomenon analytically, we can feel the politics of building majorities that support broader context   of these phenomena.  It may not necessarily include giving up previous beliefs or the sense of comprise, but fitting and embracing both the competing the ideas of capitalism and environmentalism. That brings mutual consensus to a concrete set of ideas and most of the time  idea  people embrace. Everybody accepts and there is win-win situation for the competing ideas. The competitive ideas take a new shape of cooperation.

The concepts of any social or environmental movements are the means of spreading ideas. They usually do not have formal leadership nor do they have any formal goals and objectives. Movements do not accomplish something tangible but all of these expand the ideas. The ideas that help to create majorities, the ideas that seek to change people’s habits not what they have in soul. Soul only feels. Many of our feelings do not change into our habits. So if we are really serious, lets change our habits that will make the our earth way better a place to live in.  

Let’s  choose a  sustainable approach  that  will create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in a productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and environmental requirements of present and future generations without much damage to environment. For example, “Tea Party Movement” introduced ideas that seek people to change their habits. The wave of environmentalism movement spread ideas to change people habits. We may introduce a new technology to change people’s habit to have minimum impacts on the environment. It may be possible without giving up our previous beliefs, norms and values but changing the technology that supports.

If we discuss on defining what ecosystem is all about, there is no exact definition. Different people and organizations define it on their own as per their own goals and objectives. We need to create a baseline before we make any judgments. But, how can we create baseline to define “ecosystem” is a big challenge in itself. However, we can definitely argue that it is all about managing our ideas. The ideas that that seek to address our environmental phenomena and problems around us.  There are at all times controversies how human conceptualize to understand  nature and non-human world.

In this context, as I went through the essay In Search of Nature” William Cronon (1995)   I just wanted to mention briefly about the contested notion of understanding our nature and environment.  The essay describes the social construction of nature how people conceptualized differently in different circumstances.
 The first category Cronon describes is “nature as naïve reality” (p.34) According to Cronon some people think about the natural world in terms of “our time, our place and our culture” (p 35).   These people refer to nature as all of creation or a “monolith that can be described holistically in much the same as God” (p 35) .This leads us to the conclusion that nature is very simplistic and uncomplicated. However, Cronon feels that this is wrong because this view implies that nature exists without cultural context.
The second category Cronon describes is nature as a moral imperative. The  shift from “this is the way x really is” to “this is the way x should be.” (p.36). Some Americans see ideal nature as being a pristine wilderness untouched by humans or their culture.  According to Cronon this view of nature gets its foundation from the European Enlightenment.  This view sees nature as a secular deity much the same as western tradition cites god as its moral authority.
The third category Cronon describes is “ nature as Eden” (p.36)  The myth of Eden describes a perfect landscape and only someone who is evil did not want to preserve it.  Cronon describes how some people see the Amazon Rain Forest as the perfect Eden while others see the coast off of California as the perfect Eden.  In this context, it clearly reflects how differently people narrate the concept of culture.
The fourth social construction Cronon describes is nature as “artifice, nature as self-conscious cultural construction.” (p.39). This view is based on the idea that once we know what nature is and know what it should look like, we can reshape it. Human can modify the landscape  and turn it into modern and feel virtual.But, in doing so it becomes so artificial.  Cronon gives the example of Disneyland and Orange County to illustrate a how engineers and developers have been able to remake the nature and reflect their ideals.   This idea can again be connected to Corono’s idea to describes is “nature as virtual reality” (p.43)  Cronon refers to computer models that capable of producing the ideal form of nature. 
The other notion of understanding is “nature as a commodity.” (46). According to Cronon,  viewing nature as commodity in today's world of capitalism has largely influenced the modern American attitudes.  It is argued like any other market goods, nature can traded and  turn into profit..  This concept  has had devastating ecological effects  on the environment in the last ew decades. Cronon provides the examples of the destruction of the great herds of bison, flocks of passenger pigeons in nineteenth century and the degradation of wetlands are examples of the environment being destroyed by humans seeing nature as a commodity.
The last but not least, social construction of understanding nature is “nature as a demonic other, nature as avenging angel, and nature as the return of the repressed.” (p. 48). Even though humans feel that they have achieved a lot by controlling nature, there are cases when natural disasters as hazards such as volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, it clearly makes us to feel that that nature is still more powerful than humans.
When I look at the evolution of human civilization from the stone-age to the age of science and technology, I am of the feeling that the meaning of environment and nature is getting more vast and complicated in terms of its meaning in a given context. This is because, I am of the opinion that the  components of the environment are profoundly influenced by  human induced social, cultural, economic, political and technological activities. For example, built structures, materials and technological innovations have exploited g the natural resources that have adversely affected the natural environment and wilderness. Therefore, I am of the view that environment can be understood as two distinct categories, one is natural world of plants, animals, air, water and soil of which man himself is a part; and other is the man-made world of social institutions and objects which he has created for himself to fulfill his desires. In this frame work, I opine that the inter-connected relations between natural environment and man-made environments constitute the border meaning of environment.
References:
 Bullard, R. D. (1983). Solid waste sites and the black Houston community. Sociological Inquiry 53, pp. 273–228.
Bullard, R. D. (1990). Dumping in  Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality.  Boulder, CO: Westview Press (12).
Bullard, RD (2000). People  of Color Environmental Groups Directory. Flint, MI: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
Bullard, R.D,   (2004). The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, p.144.
Cronon, William. (1995),  “Introduction:  In Search of Nature” in Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature.  New York:  Norton, pp.23-56.
Cutter, S. L. (1996).  Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 20,  pp. 529–539.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., & Shirley, W.L. (2003).  Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84, pp. 242–261.
Coalition against Bayer Dangers(2005,) CBGnetwork(at)aol.com, retrieved on April 15,2012.
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” found at http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/execordr.html. Retrieved on April 9,.2012.
Evans, Mei Mei (2002), “’Nature’ and Environmental Justice” in the Environmental Justice Reader, eds. Joni Adamson, Mei Mei Evans, and Rachel Stein.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 181-193.

Hughes, Pamela L (2011), “Environmental Justice Case Study”, University of Scranton, Pennsylvania.
 Gabrielson, Teena (2012), “Class Lecture Notes”, ENR-5890, Environmental Justice, Spring Semester, University of Wyoming.
Gouveia V.  and Ticker J. (2003). Toxic Chemicals and Childhood Cancer: a Review of the Evidence
Taylor, D. (2000). The Risk of the Environmental Justice Paradigm. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 43, pp. 508 – 580.
Global Environmental Change (2006), Climate and Vulnerability, found at http://www.journals.elsevier.com/global-environmental-change/pdf, retrieved on April 2,2012.
Flynn, J.,  Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994).  Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks. Risk Analysis, Vol. 14(6), pp. 1101 – 1108.
Fox, F.A. , Grropman,J.D. ,&  Burke, T. A (2003). Evaluating Cumulative Risk Assessment for Evaluating Cumulative Risk Assessment for Environmental Justice: A Community Case Study, pp. 203-209 .
Jones, R. E. (1998). Black concern for the Environment: Myth Versus Reality. Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 11, pp. 209 – 228.
Kates, R. W., & Kasperson, J. X.  (1983).  Comparative Risk Analysis of Technological Hazards (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,Vol. 80 (22), pp.7027-7038.
Kumpulainen, S.  (2006). Vulnerability Concepts in Hazard and Risk Assessment, found at  http://arkisto.gtk.fi/sp/SP42/4_vulnera.pdf, retrieved on April28,2012.
Lucy H. Ford(2003). “Challenging Global Environmental Governance: Social Movement Agency and Global Civil Society.” Global Environmental Politics Vol 3(2), p 125.
Mills, John Stuart (2001), Utilitarianism.  Dover Publications.
Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1998). Is there a “race” effect on concern for environmental quality?  Public Opinion  Quarterly, Vol. 62, pp.  475 – 505.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (2005), Bayer’s Investigation Report, found at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=444, retrieved on February, 26, 2012.
Rawls, John (2001),  Justice as Fairness:  A Restatement.  Cambridge, MA:  Belknap Press. Pp 11-25.
Satterfield, T. A., Slovic, P., Gregory, R., Flynn, J., & Mertz, C. K. (2001).Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology.  London : Earthscan, , pp. 69 – 83.
Schlosberg, D. (2003). The Justice of Environmental Justice: Reconciling Equity, Recognition, and Participation in a political movement. Moral and  political reasoning in environmental practice, pp. 77-106.
Schlosberg, D (2007). Defining   Environmental Justice.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of  Risk. Science, Vol.236, pp. 280 – 285.
Susan C. (2006).  “The Geography of Social Vulnerability:  Race, Class and Catastrophe” SSRC. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter. Retrieved on  April 11, 2012.
Satterfield,T.A,  Mertz, . C.K. Slovic, P. (2004). Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the face of risk, Risk Analysis, 24 (2004), pp. 115–129.

U.S, National Environmental Justice  Advisory Council (2004). Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiples Stressors: Environmental Justice and Commutative Risk/ impacts, p.
“USA Today Special Report: The Smokestack Effect – Toxic Air and America’s Schools,” published in USA Today January 2009, retrieved on February 24, 2012 found at http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index
U.S.  Census  Bureau, 2010. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4806128.html retrieved on February 27, 2012.
Young, Iris Marion (2011), Responsibility for Justice.  New York:  Oxford University Press, pp. 90-97.
Yohe, G., & Tol, R. S. J (2001).. Indicators for Social and Economic Coping Capacity – Moving Toward aWorking Definition of Adaptive , found at Capacityhttp://www.aiaccproject.org/resources/ele_lib_docs/gyoheindicators.doc.pdf, retrieved on April 22,2012/
Zimmerman, R (1986). The Management of Risk, In V. T. Covello,  J. Menkes ,and J Munpower, The Revaluation and Management of Risk , New York: Plenum,  pp. 435-460,

The changing perspectives of Management.

The concept of managing  events and consequences   in society since medieval ages to modern has changed drastically. Whether it is environmental or health concern, people in medieval ages much believed that those were the punishment of the god. For example “Black Plague” was one of the most devastating epidemics in human history, peaking in Europe between 1348 and 1350, took away lives of many people. Similar, is the case of yellow fever outbreak in USA and malaria in different parts of the globe.  People in general then  believe that it was due to the divine intervention of god that made such things possible. They blamed the heavens for such consequences occurring in the society. How to manage and deal with such societal problems in such era was a big pragmatic question.  We can predict that only way to manage such problems during hard times was praying to god. The formula would be to make god happy, the sooner the god listened you, the sooner it would make human beings free from such distressful moments. This was a story from medieval ages that dealt with the concept of management process to deal with most of happenings.

Human civilization from historic times to the age of science and technology has brought huge changes in human beliefs and values along its various evolutionary stages. In the same way, we have developed different approaches to manage different disasters and hazards occurring across the globe. Today, much of scientific methods and techniques have made this possible without much depending on god.  What made the management process entirely different than that of mediaeval era? This is probably because we now know the causes such of such phenomena. We know the cause and effects relationship of these phenomena. We have tools and techniques to deal these issues.  In the medieval times, people simply did not know the exact reasons behind those incidents. Though entirely different, I respect both the ideas. This is because these were the ideas that came out of people’s mind as per society’s will and consensus. It was only way to deal those issues. The democratic society always respects consensus built upon majorities.  

The ideas never die. The concept of praying to god at the time of hardships still exists today. Despite the dominance of science, we have stories of spirit, witchcraft that deal with the issues of treatment and cure. Mostly in the developing countries where the presence of science is very weak, where the ignorance prevails, these are the still the common practices. People first visit to a priest who is believed to be sole agent of god, then to a village witch doctor. The final choice is the medical doctor if all others efforts go in vain.
The concept of managing things around much affected our values instilled in us. There are multiples ways to interpret the same phenomena on the basis of nature. They are much affected by public and private virtues. Public virtues are directed towards common good. And private virtues reflect individual efforts to manage self-issues. At this point, we do need to critically think of “tragedy of commons” dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. Sometimes we need to sacrifice our principles to deal what it make sense to manage things for the common good. 
 Human intervention for shake of managing environment was based on various discourses based on domains of capitalism and environmentalism. These discourses which were one thought mutually exclusive and competing in late 60s are now perceived as compatible forces. The wave of ideas developed by free market based environmentalist in mid 70s brought up a new window to manage and deal with environmental issues. The idea of incentives and mutual benefits has laid to the ideas such as carbon trading among the nations, a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, government regulations and market based incentives such as tax breaks have been adopted by federal agencies and state agencies  to recognize the best available technology that tackle environmental issues around us. Despite these efforts, I  am bit worried about the nature and basic priorities of developed nations like the United States who has  profoundly contribute to  environmental pollution such as emission of  greenhouse  gas yet  never thinks of endorsing “Kyoto Protocol” which aims to fight against global climate change. This is where the “tragedy of commons” brings the dilemma. Are we here to destroy the environment or save the mother earth, it’s up to us. As we are all known that these practices will not help any nations in particular and global society at large, nor the environment will sustain long, are we doing something to minimize? We all believe action speak louder than words. Let’s hope it’s not the issue of environmental politics, if it is, let’s overcome it.

 

 

Are all our ideas political in Social Intercourse?

Human ideas are immense. It is the idea of human that has ruled the world, how to use natural resources and everything on the planet earth is much predetermined by our ideologies.  Not every idea may bring in benefit; some ideas are experimented and then implemented. Some implemented ideas produce good results and some ideas produce fairly bad. If every idea were thought to be productive and enhancing the quality of living creatures and nature around us, there would not be any debate on the ideas produced by humans. There would not be any issue of politics embedded in any of human accomplished ideas and activities. For example, there would not be much of environmental degradation and crisis that every creature on earth is facing today mainly due to human induced ideas and activities.

In this connection, sometimes I come across and ask myself -Are all human generated ideas political in social intercourse?  How are human ideas perceived as political? Are these ideas based on the prejudices of science and religion? How do we define that our ideas are scientific in nature and how we come to conclude that modern thoughts are detached from the religion? If we believe in science, scientific beliefs are every changing with time and new discoveries. For example, for many years science believed the earth was flat and it became a huge debate worldwide and it’s not been so many years, science started believing earth as round object or a planet.

We live in the society of democracy. Democracy better works in building majorities. The ideas deemed fit by majorities are implemented and put into action, sometimes even without any pretests and pilot programs. These ideas intended to serve people and nature around us yet do not work as expected. These ideas fail to bring happiness to majority of people who supported those ideas. At this time, the norms of democracy are criticized. We start to believe that nothing is scientific in democracy. Here, where the politics comes into play. Political motives sometimes bring in fame for short period of time and disappear when people come to realize that the ideas they supported in favor of majority, did not work for what they had supported. Such ideas don’t sustain long. People are deceived. Yet, Most of us  feel democracy is "far better than aristocracy or autocracy where a small group of people, monopolize all the resources, protect their monopoly with brute force and do very little for the country" in particular and human society at large.

In pre-historic times, religion was a dominant mode of authority. Majority of the ideas were intended to make god happy. At that time, science was recessive and scientific ideas did not make any great impact on people’s living and culture. Religion laid the ideas. It was not until industrial revolution in Europe, with human society progressing towards so called “science era” with industrial boom new scientific discoveries and innovations, that laid to   dominance  of science in every sphere of life, implementing scientific  ideas and reasoning  and continues to do so even today.

Science has truly been the hot topic of the century. Now, the religion is recessive. However, we face continued debate on - is science boon or curse?  If we were to argue on this topic, it’s never ending. Science technology has made an immense impact on nearly every sphere of daily life. My personal feeling, metaphorically, science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut fruits and vegetables. The same knife can also be used as a lethal weapon. In the same way, science can be used as a tool for the development but like every coin has the other side, science, when it is in wrong hands can be abused. The exploitation of science supported by majority of people in democratic society can result in several disastrous consequences like, deadly environmental pollution and devastating bloodshed which the society has already experienced. I feel that that these activities are much motivated my political moves at the time when we are knowledgeable about what and where goes wrong, when human created nuclear wars continue to destroy life on earth, continue to destroy living environment around us. But, our nature of political dominance over one another in the foundations of science makes us forget what is right and wrong and we tend to use our ideas for bad deals. Thus, the science which has bestowed us with development, progress, expansion and growth has also brandished us with destruction, violence, ruin, devastation and annihilation.  Due to the advent of science the longevity of life has greatly increased. But, this is paving the way for over-population and population explosion, too. This has resulted in mass deficiency of land in most parts of the earth. Today, the ideas are being generated, thinking of auctioning of land even on the moon!

At this time of the day, there are people around us who have strong faith in god and religion. They strongly believe that faith of human and entire life on earth and above all the life of earth itself are predefined by strong coherent forces of active god. So, these people believe that whatever happens on earth is as per gods will and act therefore; god will take of care of good or bad deeds. In this case, my personal feeling is not to generate ideas that are entirely bad for human kind and life on earth. Let’s our personal ideologies not solely be acted upon god’s faith but with self-realization of our potential and capacity to understand what it means to be good or bad as  the result of our actions.

As we discuss on how our ideologies are categorized and defined, my personal view is against the liberals whose conscience put individuals above all. At this point, I argue that with human greed and selfish nature, the ideologies of individuals who seek to benefit themselves may not reach our expectations of sustainability that we as an environmentalist always talk and debate on. Our expectations of sustainability are for future generations too, for those who will have fortune to see and experience what our mother earth has to offer them; in the same manner we experienced and took advantage of. But, what makes things sustainable and remain in equilibrium is also questionable. Our thoughts and how we define equilibrium may bring in new insights and debate when we think that equilibrium brings everything to death and disequilibrium brings everything to life. My opinion is that we should have optimum use of natural resources that neither brings total death to entire ecosystem and resources. This also bring into notion of our debate about bringing order and disorder in society. It depends on whether our ideas are directed towards creating ordered society that brings a difference to it or creating disorder in society that brings in sameness around us. Let the ideology of democracy sustain long as long as we believe it but for the better causes and results around us. Though democracy is politically motivated, conscience of politics should not always be embedded in every ideology that we tend to put them into action. If it is possible somehow, let’s try to keep politics far in some instances and think wisely and consciously for making this world a better place to live in. Let our ideas not every time be directed by our political ideologies but by our ability to understand them and use for producing sustainable and efficient results, more of work than the waste.