ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY IA ASSIGNMENT

ABHIPRITI SEN

2022/30

BA HONS. SOCIOLOGY (6th SEM)

Q. Do realism and social constructivism represent two opposed strands of thought? Discuss.

Introduction:

Environmental sociology, as defined by Bell (2015) is the field that deals with the study of the
community in its broadest sense—encompassing both human society and the natural world. This
subfield seeks to analyze the deep interconnections between ecology (the study of natural
communities) and sociology (the study of human communities) to explain the origins of
environmental conflicts and propose practical solutions to contemporary environmental
challenges.

Riley E. Dunlap's article ‘The maturation and diversification of environmental sociology: from
constructivism and realism to agnosticism and pragmatism’ discusses the maturation and
diversification of environmental sociology, emphasizing how the field has evolved in response to
increasing complexity and globalization of environmental issues. Over the past three decades,
environmental sociology has gained greater legitimacy, seen through more publications in
top-tier journals and expanding job opportunities. However, it remains a field in flux, with
ongoing debates over theory, methodology, and focus.

Realism and social constructivism have long been considered opposing perspectives in
environmental sociology, with realists emphasizing the objective materiality of environmental
problems and constructivists focusing on their social and ideological construction. However, the
evolution of the debate suggests a growing recognition that both perspectives offer valuable
insights, leading to newer frameworks such as critical realism and pragmatism.
The field initially grappled with how to conceptualize societal-environmental interactions, along
with the very definitions of “society” and “environment”. While these debates persist, they have
been reshaped by larger social changes, including the transition from modernity to
postmodernity, reflexive modernity, and risk society. Globalization has further influenced
environmental sociology, making environmental issues more interconnected and requiring more
sophisticated analytical approaches.

Theoretical Shifts in Environmental Sociology:

A major shift has been the decline of the traditional realist vs. constructivist debate, replaced by a
new divide between environmental agnosticism and environmental pragmatism. Environmental
agnosticism, more common in Europe, takes a skeptical stance toward environmental data and
focuses on symbolic, cultural, and ideational aspects of environmental issues. In contrast,
environmental pragmatism, more prevalent in North America, prioritizes empirical research and
measurement of environmental conditions rather than problematizing them.

The author also explores how historical and geographical contexts continue to shape the
evolution of environmental sociology, particularly the contrasting approaches in Europe and
North America. He reinforces that while environmental sociology has matured as a discipline, it
remains dynamic, with ongoing theoretical and methodological debates reflecting broader global
and intellectual trends.

The environment: changing conceptualizations and expanding foci of the field:

Dunlap explores the evolving conceptualizations and expanding focus of environmental

sociology. He highlights how early environmental sociology in the U.S. distinguished among
built, modified, and natural environments due to urban design interests. The simplistic model of
"additions" and "withdrawals" (Schnaiberg, 1980) is now seen as inadequate in capturing
society's complex interactions with the biophysical environment.

The author emphasizes the need to integrate ecological concepts, particularly ecosystem services,
to provide a more comprehensive framework for environmental sociology. It introduces a
simplified model by Dunlap and Catton (2002) that identifies three key functions of the
environment: Supply Depot (Provides resources for human consumption), Waste Repository
(Absorbs waste generated by human activities) and Living Space (Serves as the space for human
habitation, work, and consumption).

Dunlap explains how environmental issues arise when these functions are overused or conflict
with one another. For example, industrial pollution can render living spaces uninhabitable, while
resource depletion impacts long-term sustainability.

The increasing focus on global environmental problems has led to a shift in environmental
sociology toward larger-scale concerns like deforestation, climate change, and biodiversity loss.
The field now engages with interdisciplinary efforts such as sustainability science and ecosystem
services research.

World-systems theory (WST) explains global environmental inequalities as wealthy nations

exploiting poorer ones for resources, waste disposal, and ecological burden-shifting. These
global inequalities illustrate how economic and political power influences environmental
degradation, reinforcing patterns of ecological exploitation. Dunlap mentions that while
environmental sociology has made significant progress, there remains a divide between those
who focus on analyzing ecological data and those who critique the conceptualization of
environmental issues.

Societal-environmental interactions:

In the 1970s, societal-environmental interactions were mainly studied at the micro-level,

focusing on human behavior within built environments. A distinction emerged between the
sociology of environmental issues—which examined public opinion, activism, and the social
construction of environmental problems—and environmental sociology, which sought to analyze
broader societal-environmental interactions. Over time, as studies on social disparities in
environmental exposure grew, environmental sociology adopted a more inclusive definition
encompassing various environmental issues.

By the early 1990s, a cultural shift in sociology led to a rise in social constructivism, challenging
the materialist foundations of environmental sociology. Scholars like Dunlap and Catton had
initially emphasized both symbolic (ideational) and non-symbolic (material) interactions
between society and the environment. However, this shift pushed the field toward a stronger
focus on symbolic and cultural dimensions, sparking debates on how to integrate materialist and
symbolic perspectives in environmental sociology.

The Material:

In the article, “Environmental Sociology” by Chung En Liu and Bell, they talk about the
realist-constructionist debate in environmental sociology, which emerged in the 1990s and
extended into the 2000s, revolving around the tension between materialist and idealist
explanations of environmental issues.

The materialist approach emphasizes the economic structures that drive environmental
degradation, with early theories, influenced by Marxism, identifying production as the root
cause. Schnaiberg’s treadmill of production argues that capitalism's demand for growth depletes
resources and worsens ecological harm. Similarly, Logan and Molotch’s growth machine theory
highlights how urban development prioritizes profit over environmental sustainability. Later,
ecological modernization theorists like Mol and Spaargaren proposed that capitalist democracies
could integrate sustainability, though critics view this as overly optimistic. Materialist
perspectives underscore the deep interconnection between economic systems and environmental
crises while recognizing the contested pathways through which institutional and cultural changes
might promote sustainability.

The Ideal:

The idealist approach in environmental sociology examines how culture, ideology, moral values,
and social experiences shape human interactions with nature. Dunlap’s paradigm shift research
suggests that environmental awareness has roots in moral and philosophical traditions, such as
Leopold’s land ethic, which advocates ecological responsibility. Social status also plays a role,
with privileged groups often displaying less support for environmental causes than expected.
Cultural worldviews influence environmental attitudes, as conservative and individualist
ideologies tend to correlate with climate skepticism. A social constructionist perspective reveals
that concepts of nature are shaped by cultural contexts and can have tangible effects, such as
early national park policies that displaced local communities. The realist-constructionist debate
further examines how environmental issues are framed, emphasizing the need to critically assess
environmental ideologies to prevent unintended consequences in policy and activism.

The realist versus constructivist debate:

Realists worried that social constructionist perspectives might undermine the material reality of
environmental problems like pollution or climate change. Constructionists, however, did not
deny these problems but argued that understanding environmental ideologies was crucial to
avoid misguided solutions that could create new conflicts (e.g., India's drastic birth control
policies due to concerns over population growth). Ultimately, environmental sociologists now
recognize that both material and ideological dimensions interact, and rather than choosing one
approach over the other, they aim to integrate both perspectives for a more comprehensive
understanding.

Dunlap mentions the realist-constructivist debate centered on the perceived excesses of

postmodern relativism, which realists criticized for questioning the existence of an objective
reality and the reliability of scientific knowledge. Realists defended their position by drawing on
critical realism, acknowledging the social construction of environmental issues while
emphasizing the importance of scientific evidence. Constructivists, in turn, distanced themselves
from extreme relativism and instead defended epistemological relativism, arguing for a
contextual analysis of environmental knowledge. However, critiques by scholars such as Benton
(2001) and Murphy (2002) highlighted the limitations of constructivist approaches that avoided
taking a definitive stance on the reality of environmental problems.

A major concern among realists was that constructivist skepticism toward environmental science
could undermine environmental politics, inadvertently aiding powerful industries seeking to
downplay environmental crises. For example, Burningham and Cooper (1999) suggested that
avoiding direct comparisons between competing environmental claims was not problematic, a
stance heavily criticized by Benton (2001), who argued that dismissing scientific validity played
into the hands of industries eager to discredit environmental concerns. Realists contended that
the deconstruction of climate science often overlooked the political and economic forces working
to suppress scientific findings on climate change, including the role of conservative think tanks
like the Marshall Institute in shaping climate skepticism. They argued that the claims of climate
science critics should be scrutinized just as rigorously as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) to prevent misinformation from dominating public discourse.

This debate also reflected broader divisions within environmental sociology. In the 1990s, many
sociological studies on global warming leaned heavily toward constructivist analyses, focusing
on how climate change was framed as a social issue rather than addressing the material realities
of environmental degradation. Realists found this problematic, as it allowed fossil fuel
industry-backed skepticism to be presented as equally valid to scientific consensus. Over time,
realists sought to demonstrate how economic and political power influenced public perceptions
of climate science and policies, highlighting systematic efforts to discredit climate action.

A pivotal moment came when Bruno Latour, a key figure in strong constructivism, publicly
reconsidered his stance. He admitted concern that social constructionist arguments were being
co-opted by climate deniers to undermine scientific evidence on global warming. His statement,
"Global warming is a fact whether you like it or not," acknowledged a fundamental realist
premise: that despite its limitations, scientific evidence is essential in addressing climate crises.
While Latour’s shift marked a symbolic resolution to the realist-constructivist debate, a broader
divide remains in environmental sociology—between those who focus solely on symbolic and
cultural interpretations of environmental issues and those who integrate material conditions into
their analyses.

From constructivism versus realism to agnosticism versus pragmatism:

Dunlap examines the divide in contemporary environmental sociology, particularly through the
lens of Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism, as interpreted by Carolan (2005). Carolan distinguishes
among three different strata of "nature," each representing varying levels of interaction between
the social and natural worlds:

1.​ 'nature' (in quotes): This is a socially constructed concept, used to distinguish the
"non-social" world, including references to human nature, biology, and the environment.
This understanding of nature is shaped by cultural, ideological, and social factors.
2.​ nature (uncapitalized): This refers to the physical world—forests, rivers, organisms, and
ecosystems—where the sociocultural and biophysical realms overlap significantly.
 3.​ Nature (capitalized): This represents deep, unchanging natural laws such as gravity,
thermodynamics, and fundamental ecological processes. Sociology generally brackets
this level out since it remains relatively stable over human timescales.

This classification sheds light on the broader constructivist-realism divide in environmental

sociology. Scholars who focus on 'nature' (the first stratum) argue that different societies and
groups perceive and construct nature in diverse ways, leading to varying environmental values
and debates that are often detached from objective environmental conditions. However,
environmental realists criticize this approach for overextending the deconstruction of 'nature'
into discussions about actual environmental problems.

The second stratum (nature) is central to environmental science and the study of ecological
problems, but it is approached differently by constructivists and realists. Constructivists analyze
the social processes behind environmental knowledge, questioning the claims made by scientists,
policymakers, and activists. Realists, on the other hand, use empirical indicators to assess
ecological conditions and their societal interactions.

The third stratum (Nature) is rarely considered in sociological discussions, except in extreme
postmodern critiques of natural science, such as those related to the "Sokal Hoax." The general
assumption is that these natural laws remain stable over human timescales, reducing their
relevance to sociological inquiry.

Broader debates in environmental sociology reflect this division. Realists generally accept the
sociocultural construction of 'nature' but reject attempts to conflate it with objective
environmental conditions. They are also critical of constructivists' tendency to problematize and
relativize scientific evidence without engaging in empirical analysis of ecological issues. This
results in a limited form of environmental sociology that neglects the interactions between social
and biophysical systems.

Inglis and Bone (2006) extend this debate beyond environmental sociology, arguing that social
scientists have often resisted acknowledging the interpenetration of nature and culture. They
claim that many theorists, including Beck, Giddens, Latour, and Luhmann, have struggled with
the nature-culture divide, often prioritizing cultural explanations while marginalizing the material
dimensions of ecological problems.

Dunlap identifies two broad camps within environmental sociology:

1.​ Environmental Agnosticism: Predominantly European in orientation, this perspective

views environmental issues primarily as symbolic, cultural, and ideological. It
emphasizes the interpretation of environmental discourses rather than material ecological
problems. Agnostics are skeptical of scientific knowledge claims and focus on
understanding the different cultural and social constructions of nature. Their analyses
often remain within the realm of discourse, employing concepts like "hybrids" and
"cyborgs."​

2.​ Environmental Pragmatism: More common in North America, this perspective

acknowledges the material reality of ecological conditions and seeks to analyze their
societal implications empirically. While recognizing that environmental knowledge is
socially constructed, pragmatists use scientific indicators to study environmental
problems and their causes. Their focus is on the interaction between symbolic,
social-structural, and material aspects of environmental issues.​

Environmental agnostics are primarily concerned with understanding different viewpoints on

environmental issues, whereas environmental pragmatists focus on investigating the causes and
consequences of ecological problems. This divide represents a fundamental tension in
environmental sociology between cultural interpretation and empirical analysis.

Examples of environmental pragmatism:

Environmental pragmatism emphasizes the practical use of environmental indicators to examine

the relationship between social and biophysical phenomena. Pragmatists employ diverse data
sources, including national-level indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation,
energy consumption, and ecological footprints, as well as sub-national measures of air and water
quality and community-level data on environmental hazards. Their research spans multiple
theoretical frameworks, including World-Systems Theory (WST), which examines how historical
development patterns, resource distribution, and global economic structures contribute to
environmental degradation. The human-ecological perspective, on the other hand, highlights
demographic factors in ecological degradation, challenging economic-centric views.
Additionally, World Polity Theory (WPT) focuses on the diffusion of global environmental
governance and its role in mitigating environmental damage. Another significant area of
pragmatic research is environmental inequality studies, which investigate disparities in exposure
to environmental risks based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. These studies have
advanced methodologically, often using geographic information system (GIS) tools to map
environmental hazards. By integrating realist-based empirical research with qualitative case
studies, environmental pragmatism fosters interdisciplinary collaboration and generates insights
that are highly relevant for policy-making.

Contextual factors in the evolution of environmental sociology:

Environmental sociology has evolved within specific historical and geographical contexts. The
1970s energy crises shaped Catton and Dunlap’s "new ecological paradigm", emphasizing
ecological limits. Regional differences also influence approaches—Europe tends to focus on
ecological modernization, while the U.S. remains skeptical, emphasizing environmental
degradation. Political contexts, such as the Reagan and Bush administrations’ anti-environmental
policies, have further reinforced American skepticism toward market-driven solutions.

European scholars integrate broader sociological theories, leading to innovative but sometimes
short-lived concepts like "environmental flows." Meanwhile, U.S. environmental sociology has
shifted from securing its place in sociology to adopting interdisciplinary approaches with policy
relevance. Despite increasing global academic exchanges, national contexts continue to shape
environmental sociology, ensuring its ongoing evolution and diversity.

Conclusion:

The evolution of environmental sociology has seen significant progress, particularly in North
America, where the discipline has shifted from ignoring environmental factors to actively
studying societal-environmental interactions. While strong constructivism in the 1990s provided
valuable insights, it risked limiting the scope of environmental sociology. The preference for
environmental pragmatism over agnosticism stems from its empirical focus, but the ideal
approach would merge both perspectives, integrating constructivist insights on values and culture
with pragmatic engagement in material realities. The current diversity of theoretical and
methodological approaches fosters a dynamic and evolving field, ensuring continued growth and
new research directions in the future.

______________________________________________________________________________