Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- 1 Classical Theory and Environmental Sociology: Toward Deeper and Stronger Roots
- 2 Globalizing Environmental Sociology
- 3 An Embodied Materialist Sociology
- 4 The Environmental Sociology of the Good: Nature, Faith, and the Bourgeois Transition
- 5 Microsociological Perspectives in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
2 - Globalizing Environmental Sociology
from Part I - Theory in Environmental Sociology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- 1 Classical Theory and Environmental Sociology: Toward Deeper and Stronger Roots
- 2 Globalizing Environmental Sociology
- 3 An Embodied Materialist Sociology
- 4 The Environmental Sociology of the Good: Nature, Faith, and the Bourgeois Transition
- 5 Microsociological Perspectives in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses what a more thoroughly globalized environmental sociology might look like, and the need to re-think more deeply the ways in which we conceptualize environmental sociology. Five challenges are discussed: i) the need to better understand globalization itself and the emergence of new sources and forms of authority; ii) the socially uneven causes and impacts of global environmental problems and injustices; iii) the task of democratizing science by asking whose voices are missing and whose knowledge counts in the understanding of global environmental matters; iv) the need for a more cosmopolitan environmental sociology that is sensitive both to local particularities and to shared concerns at the national and transnational levels; and v) the question of how environmental sociology might contribute to debate about possible and desirable global futures. The chapter concludes by arguing that responding to these challenges and engaging productively with other disciplines requires a sociology that unsettles boundaries between the social and natural sciences and partipates on equal terms in the production of environmental knowledge.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 30 - 46Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Archibugi, D., Koenig-Archibugi, M., and Marchetti, R. (eds.) (2012). Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bache, I., and Flinders, M. V. (eds.) (2004). Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S., and Mahony, M. (2017). The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nature Climate Change, 7, 311–13.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (2015). Emancipatory catastrophism: what does it mean to climate change and risk society? Current Sociology, 63(1), 75–88.Google Scholar
Berg, M., and Lidskog, R. (2018). Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: a deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 27(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Bhambra, G. K., and Santos, B. de Sousa (2017). Introduction: global challenges for sociology. Sociology, 51(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., and van Lente, V. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(3), 285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality, 3rd ed., Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Cohen, R., and Kennedy, P. (2013). Global Sociology, 3rd ed., Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Daly, I. (2018). Affective brain-computer interfacing and methods for effective state detection. In Nam, C. S., Nijholt, A., and Lotte, F., eds., Brain–Computer Interfaces Handbook. Technological and Theoretical Advances, New York: CRC Press, pp. 147–64.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
EASAC (European Academies’ Science Advisory Council) (2018). Negative Emission Technologies: What Role in Meeting Paris Agreement Targets? EASAC Policy Report 35, Halle, Germany: German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina.Google Scholar
Erikson, K. (1995). New Species of Trouble: Human Experience of Modern Disasters, New York: NortonGoogle Scholar
Gaede, J., and Meadowcroft, J. (2016). A question of authenticity: status quo bias and the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18(5), 608–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givens, J. E. (2018). Ecologically unequal exchange and the carbon intensity of well-being, 1990–2011. Environmental Sociology, DOI:10.1080/23251042.2018.1436878.Google Scholar
Harris, P. G. (2009). World Ethics and Climate Change: From International to Global Justice, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield-Dodds, S., Schandl, H., Newth, D., Obersteiner, M., et al. (2017). Assessing global resource use and greenhouse emissions to 2050, with ambitious resource efficiency and climate mitigation policies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 403–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M. (2010). Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 558–64.Google Scholar
ISSC and UNESCO (2013). World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments. Paris: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Kasperson, J. X., and Kasperson, R. E. (2005). Social Contours of Risk Volume I: Publics, Risk Communication and the Social Amplification of Risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Kelman, I. (2010). Hearing local voices from Small Island Developing States for climate change. Local Environment, 15(7), 605–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausmann, F., Schandl, H., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., and Jackson, T. (2017). Material flow accounting: measuring global material use for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42(1), 647–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidskog, R., Mol, A., and Oosterveer, P. (2015). Towards a global environmental sociology? Legacies, trends and future directions. Current Sociology, 63(3), 339–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidskog, R., Soneryd, L., and Uggla, Y. (2010). Transboundary Risk Governance, London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Lidskog, R., and Waterton, C. (2016). A cautious welcome to the Anthropocene. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 395–406.Google Scholar
Lockie, S. (2007). Deliberation and actor-networks: the ‘practical’ implications of social theory for the assessment of large dams and other interventions. Society and Natural Resources, 20(9), 785–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockie, S. (2014). Climate, scenario-building and governance: comprehending the temporalities of social-ecological challenges. In Lockie, S., Sonnenfeld, D., and Fisher, D., eds., The Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change, London: Routledge, pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
Lockie, S. (2015a). What is environmental sociology? Environmental Sociology, 1(3), 139–42.Google Scholar
Lockie, S. (2015b). Emergent themes? A year in the life of environmental sociology.Environmental Sociology, 1(4), 237–40.Google Scholar
Panara, C. (2015). The Sub-National Dimension of the EU: A Legal Study of Multilevel Governance, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Perdue, R. T. (2017). Superintelligence and natural resources: morality and technology in a brave new world. Society and Natural Resources, 30(8), 1026–31.Google Scholar
Prell, C., and Sun, L. (2015). Unequal carbon exchanges: understanding pollution embodied in global trade. Environmental Sociology, 1(4), 256–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reith, G. (2017). Addictive Consumption. Capitalism, Modernity and Excess, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogenity. In Featherstone, M., Lash, S., and Robertson, R., eds., Global Modernities, London: Sage, pp. 25–44Google Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–5.Google Scholar
Schandl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., et al. (2017). Global material flows and resource productivity: forty years of evidence. Journal of Industrial Ecology, doi:10.1111/jiec.12626Google Scholar
Schandl, H., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Wiedmann, T., Geschke, A., et al. (2016). Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132, 45–56.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, D., and Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 359–74.Google Scholar
Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction, 2nd ed., New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shove, E., and Spurling, N. (eds.) (2013). Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and Climate Change, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shue, H. (2014). Climate Justice. Vulnerability and Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Sousa, Santos, B. (2016). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., and McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1938), 842–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., and Ludwig, C. (2015a). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., et al. (2015b). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347 (6223), 1259855.Google Scholar
Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0. Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, New York: Knopf Publishing group.Google Scholar
Transhumanist Declaration (2009). Accessible at http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/Google Scholar
Walker, G. (2011). Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by