Çevre Sosyolojisi: Kavramsal ve Teorik Gelişmeler

Yıl 2010, Sayı: 24, 271 - 283, 01.08.2010

Nahide Konak

Öz

Bu makalenin temel amacı, çevre sosyolojisinde kavramsal ve teorik gelişmeleri incelemektir. Bu inceleme yapılırken makale çevre sosyolojisinin tanımınıve alanını, geleneksel sosyolojiye olan eleştirilerini; ve toplum ve fiziksel çevre arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeye yönelik ortaya çıkan kuramsal perspektifleri sunacaktır. Bu teorik perspektifler Kuzey Amerika’da gelişen Yeni Ekoloji paradigması, Eko-Marksist perspektif, Kapitalist SanayileşmişRasyonalitenin Rasyonelsizliği teorisi ve Avrupa’da gelişen Risk Toplumu teorisi ve Ekolojik Modernleşme teorisini kapsamaktadır. Geleneksel Kuzey Amerika çevre sosyolojisi, çevresel bozulma ve yıkımın nedenlerini açıklamaya yönelik faktörler üzerine yoğunlaştığıiçin sürdürülebilir toplum nasıl olur veya ne tür sosyal düzenlemeler getirirsek çevresel iyileştirmelere katkıda bulunuruz sorusu üzerinde çok az durmuştur. Bunun tersine, Avrupa’da gelişen ekolojik modernleşme teorisi endüstrileşmişkapitalist toplumlar çevre krizini aşmak için ne tür reformlar geliştirmişlerdir sorusunu analiz ederek genel anlamda çevre problemlerini çözmeye yönelik neler yapılıyor ve neler yapılmalıdır sorusu üzerinde durmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre ve Toplum, Çevre Sosyolojisi, Çevre Sosyolojisi Teoriler

Environmental Sociology: Conceptual and Theoretical Developments

Öz

William R. Catton and Riley E. Dunlap are among the first sociologists who analyzed the meaning of the rise of environmentalism for sociology. They have played an important role in the definition, development and institutionalization of environmental sociology within sociology. Environmental sociology is defined as a sub-discipline of sociology that analyzes mutual interrelations or relationships between society and physical environment. They argued that environmental sociologists must integrate environmental variables into their sociological analyses. Since the 1970’s environmental sociologists have integrated environmental variables as either independent variables or dependent and control variables into their sociological analyses. Most environmental sociologists agree that mainstream sociology was constructed as if nature did not matter. Moreover, they also agree that classical sociologists failed to recognize the significance of biophysical environment and to theorize inseparable interrelations between society and environment. Even though environmental sociologists critiqued the definition of mainstream sociology and classical sociological theories when they defined the field of environmental sociology, they utilized classical social theories when they constructed their green perspectives. For example, William R. Catton and Riley E. Dunlap have been influenced by Durkheim’s sociology when they established New Ecological Paradigm NEP . Similarly, John Bellamy Foster, James O’Connor and Alan Scheinberg who established eco-Marxist perspective utilized Max’s sociology when they theorized the relationship between society and environment. Raymond Murphy has been influenced by Weber’s sociology while developing irrationalities of rationalization of industrialized capitalism theory. Risk society theory, developed by Ulrich Beck, and the Ecological modernization theory, developed by Herbert Huber and others, have been influenced by modernization theory. New Ecological Paradigm NEP emphasizes on culture as being the sources of environmental problems and solutions to them. According to NEP, modern social consciousness has been influenced by dominant western worldview, and this consciousness is the main causal force for creating environmental problems in societies. Eco-Marxist perspective includes treadmill theory and the theory of second contradiction. In general, for eco-Marxist perspective, capitalist system is the main causal force for environmental crisis. Capitalist societies try to solve economic and social crisis by economic growth. Economic growth means more production and consumption that lead to the use of more natural resources and creating more environmental pollution. Thus, environmental degradation and crisis is necessary for the continuation of the capitalist system. According to treadmill of production theory, owners of the industry, the state and workers tend to build an alliance to facilitate economic growth because they all benefit from it. Thus, the state plays a contradictory role in helping environmental destruction and protection. For Murphy, in his irrationalities of rationalization of industrialized capitalism theory, the root causes of environmental problems is monopoly power –seeking profit in capitalist market or communist party power seeking dominance and power—its exploitive relations with nature. Thus, bureaucratic elite power and decisions are the sources of risks of industrial accidents, accumulation of toxic waste and ecological degradation. For Beck, societies are transforming from simple modernization to risk society. He argues that in risk society, people feel that they are under risks due to environmental degradation. In addition, in risk society, conflicts concentrated on pollution and the distribution of environmental risks. The ecological modernization theory argues that global environmental problems can be solved within the existing or a little modified social, economic and political institutions without departing from economic growth, capitalism and globalization. So, in contrast to the eco-Marxist perspective, the ecological modernization theory argues that capitalism and its institutions are not in fundamental conflict with the environment. Current economic institutions and mechanisms can be modified and transformed according to the ecologic rationality criteria. While the North American environmental sociology tends to focus on explaining the root sources of environmental degradation and problems, the North European environmental sociology tends to focus on the questions of what should have been done and what needs to be done to solve environmental problems. These theoretical assumptions have been continued to be tested not only in North American and European countries but also in developing countries, which would provide further theoretical and empirical contributions to the environmental sociology

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environment and Society, Environmental Sociology, Environmental Sociological Theories

Kaynakça

• Beck, Ulrich. (1992). Risk Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Beck, Ulrich. (1994). Reinvention of Politics: towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization. (Edited by Ulrich Beck). Reflexive Modernization. Cambridge: Polity.
• Been, V. (1994). Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Sitting or Market Dynamics? Yale Law Journal, 103, 1383-1422.
• Benton, T. (1991). Biology and Social Science. Sociology, 25, 1-29.
• Benton, T. and Redclift, M. (1994). Introduction. (Edited by Michael Redclift and Benton, Ted. Social Theory and the Global Environment. New York: Routledge, 1-27.
• Bunker, S. G. (1996). Raw Material and the Global Economy: Oversights and Distortions in Industrial Ecology. Society and Natural Resources, 9, 419-430.
• Burch, W. R. Jr. (1976). The Peregrine Falcon and the Urban Poor: Some Sociological Interrelations. (Edited by P. J. Richerson ve J. McEvoy III.) Human Ecology: An Environmental Approach, North Scituate, MA: Duxbury, 308-316.
• Buttel, Frederick H. (1978). Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm? The American Sociologist, 13, 252-256.
• Buttel, Frederick H.(1986). Sociology and the Environment: The Winding Rosuj toward Human Ecology. International Social Science Journal, 109, 337-356.
• Buttel, Frederick H. (1987). New Directions in Environmental Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 465-488.
• Buttel Frederick H. (1996). Environmental and Resource Sociology. Rural Sociology, 61, 56–76.
• Buttel Frederick H. (2003). Environmental Sociology and the Explanation of Environmental Reform. Organization and Environment, 16, 306-344.
• Catton, W. R. (1976). Why the Future Isn’t What it Used to be (and How it Could Be Made Worse Than it Has to Be). Social Science Quarterly, 57, 276-291.
• Catton, W. R. (1980). Overshoot: the Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Pres.
• Catton, W. R. (1994). The Foundations of Human Ecology. Sociological Perspectives, 37, 74-95.
• Catton, W. R. and Dunlap, R. E. (1978a). Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13, 41-60.
• Catton, W. R. and Dunlap, R. E. (1978b). Paradigms, Theories, and the Primacy of the HEP-NEP Distinction. The American Sociologist, 13, 256-259.
• Catton, W. R. and Dunlap, R. E. (1980). New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 15-47.
• Dikkens, P. (1992). Society and Nature: Towards a Green Social Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Dunlap, R. E. (2002). Environmental Sociology: A Personal Perspective on Its First Quarter Century. Organization and Environment, 15, 10-36.
• Dunlap, R. E. and Catton, W. R. (1979a). Environmental Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 243- 73.
• Dunlap, R. E. and Catton, W. R. (1979b). Environmental Sociology.”( Edited by Timothy O’Riordan and Ralph D’Arge). Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning, vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 57-85.
• Dunlap, R. E. and Catton, W. R. (1994). Struggling with Human Exemptionalism: the Rise, Decline and Revitalization of Environmental Sociology. the American Sociologist, 25, 5-30.
• Dunlap, R. E. and Michelson, W. eds. (2002). Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
• Faber, D. ed. (1998). The Struggle for Ecological Democracy. New York: Guilford.
• Faber, D. and Grossman A. (2000). the Political Ecology of Marxism. Capitalism, Nature and Socialism, 11, 71-77.
• Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundation for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 366-405.
• Foster, J.B. (2002). Ecology against Capitalism. Monthly Review Press: New York.
• Frank, D. J., Hirinaka, A. and Schofer, E. (1999). Nation-State and the Natural Environment over the Twentieth Century. American Sociological Review, 65, 96-116.
• Goldblatt, D. (1996). Social Theory and the Environment. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
• Gottlieb, R. (1992). Forcing the Spring. Washington, DC: Island Press.
• Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon.
• Harper, C. L. (1996). Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Humphrey, C. R. and Buttel, F. H. (1982). Environment, Energy and Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Humphrey, C. R., Lewis, T. L. and Buttel, F. H. (2002). Environment, Energy and Society: A New Synthesis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Irvin, A. (2001). Sociology and the Environment. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
• Kovel, J. (2002). The Enemy of Nature: the End of Capitalism or the End of the World? New York.
• Martell, L. (1992). Ecology and Society. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
• Mibrath, L. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Mol, A. P.J. (1995). Refinement of Production: Ecological Modernization Theory and the Chemical Industry. Utrecht: Jan van Arkel/International Books.
• Mol, A. P.J. (2002). From Environmental Sociologies to Environmental Sociology? A Comparison of U.S. and European Environmental Sociology. Organization and Environment, 19, 5-27.
• Mol, A. P.J. and Sonnenfeld D. A. eds. (2000). Ecological Modernization Around the World. London: Frank Class.
• Murphy, R. (1994). Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing Relationship. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
• Murphy, R. (1997). Society and Nature: Social Action in Context. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
• Murphy, R. (2002). Sociology as If Nature Did not Matter: An Ecological Critique. (Edited by R. Scott Frey). The Environment and Society Reader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• O’Connor, J. (1998). Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York and London: Guilford. Sachs, W. ed. (1993). Global Ecology. London: Edward Elgar.
• Schnaiberg A. (1975). Social Syntheses of the Societal-Environmental Dialectic: The Role of Distributional Impacts. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 5-20.
• Schnaiberg, A. (1980). the Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schnaiberg, A. and Gould, K.A. (1994). Environment and Society: the Enduring Conflict. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Spaargaren, G and Mol, A.P. J. (1992). Sociology, Environment and Modernity: Ecological Modernization as a Theory of Social Change. Society and Natural Resources, 5, 323-344.
• Szasz, A. and Meuser, M. (1997). Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory. Current Sociology, 45, 99-120.
• Yearly, S. (1996). Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization. London: Sage.