Search

There are at least five obstacles to the viability of ideology critique as a method of analysis in current conditions: (1) there is no ideology-free, God's-eye view through which the critical theorist can analyze other ideologies; (2) few people really believe in explicit ideological justifications for exploitation and domination today, a widespread skepticism that could annul the warrant for ideology critique; (3) conspiracy theories and identity politics have superseded more universalistic and structural forms of critique, which, due to their real and superficial similarities with ideology critique, represent troublesome competitors; (4) ecological degradation is undermining the possibility of the free future that ideology critique implicitly anticipates; and (5) due to the decline of radical labor movements and near-absolute control of consciousness by the culture industry, the audience for ideology critique is so small and distracted that thoughtful, written analyses of ideology may be pointless. Despite these obstacles, I defend ideology critique as a viable and beneficial method. Barrier (5) is the only obstacle that I think has the potential to deliver a death blow to ideology critique in the foreseeable future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In light of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, this project synthesizes and advances critiques of the possibility of a sustainable capitalism by adopting an explicit 'negative' theory of ideology, understood as ideas that conceal contradictions through the reification and/or legitimation of the existing social order. Prominent climate change policy frameworks--the 'greening' of markets (market-corrective measures), technology (alternative energy, energy efficiency, and geoengineering), and growth (the green growth strategy)--are shown to conceal one or both of the two systemic socio-ecological contradictions inherent in the current social formation: (1) a contradiction between capital's growth-dependence and the latter's degrading impact on the climate (the 'capital-climate contradiction') and (2) a contradiction between the potential of using technological infrastructure that aids in emissions reductions and the institutionalized social relations that obstruct this technical potential (the 'technical potential-productive relations contradiction'). Attempts to reform the very techniques and institutions that brought about the climate crisis will remain ineffective and reproduce the social order that results in climate change. After proposing a way in which societies might move out of the ideological trappings of green markets, technology, and growth, two alternatives are proposed: economic degrowth coupled with Marcuse's conception of a 'new technology'. Keywords alternative energy, cap and trade, carbon market, degrowth, emissions trading, energy efficiency, geoengineering, green growth, ideology critique, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change COP21 2015 Paris Agreement, Introduction Stoner and Melathopoulos (2015) succinctly articulate an 'environment-society problematic' (p. 22), a paradox that confuses and worries many: 'environmental degradation increases amid the growth of environmental attention and concern'. [...]

Within Arthur Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophy he set aside a special place for animals. Not only did Schopenhauer show great affection for other species and repeatedly criticize Western anthropocentrism, but he also argued that we could know a great deal about animals by intimately knowing ourselves. Although currently underdeveloped, Schopenhauer's intro-spective methodology sheds light on how we can begin to mend the epistemic human-animal boundary through his emphasis on immediate, concrete knowledge and intuition. In practice too, Schopenhauer's metaphysically grounded ethical system of compassion offers an alter-native to both utilitarianism and deontology to bridge the human-animal moral boundary. For Schopenhauer, if a person recognizes the identical, underlying substance of their self and the animal kingdom, he or she will extend loving kindness and justice to all creatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing from the critical theory of Herbert Marcuse, we expect that the fossil fuel industry will support carbon capture and storage (CCS) because it can further and prolong profitability in the industry. Through a qualitative analysis of fossil fuel company and trade organization framings of CCS, three frames are identified: (1) faith in innovation , or, the belief that any barrier that fetters technological solutions to environmental problems can be overcome; (2) value instrumentalization , or, the predominance of instrumental values when justifying or explaining the benefits of technological solutions; and (3) status quo maintenance , or, the application or anticipated application of technological solutions in order to reproduce the most fundamental processes and social structures that characterize modern societies. Frames tend to omit the following issues and concerns relevant to CCS: (4) potential social and environmental risks (risk minimization); (5) non-instrumental values (value restriction); and (6) possible future scenarios that are qualitatively different than a growing economy powered by increased energy throughput (possibility blindness). The potential climate and energy policy implications of these framings are analyzed and assessed. • The fossil fuel industry promotes carbon capture and storage through three frames. • Faith in innovation : barriers to CCS will be overcome. • Value instrumentalization : justifications for CCS are means-oriented. • Status quo maintenance : CCS can sustain a fossil fuel-based growing economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]