Search

This article discusses environmental sociology's theoretical and empirical paradoxes. Environmental sociology came into the picture after the mobilization of the environmental movement in the U.S. in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There has been a sea change in environmental sociology. The author believes that considering mainstream environmental sociology as reflecting several paradoxes is a productive approach to restoring some of the coherence of the field. The fragmentation of environmental sociology has its roots in two factors. The expansion of the empirical scope of environmental sociology by environmental sociologists is one of the factors. There are a number of environmental-sociology specialty areas these days, consisting of numerous theoretically driven and empirically driven areas of inquiry. Another factor responsible for the fragmentation of environmental sociology is its political sociologization, along with the fact that the scope of political sociology has itself increased, and as a result, it has become more fragmented.

The work of Pellow, Gould, Schnaiberg, and Weinberg (particularly Schnaiberg `s The Environment and his notion of the treadmill of production) became one of the most influential strands of North American environmental sociology during the late 1970s and early 1980s for a number of reasons. It is fair to say, however that the treadmill of production is not as predominant in environmental sociology in the early 21st century as it was two decades ago. Some of the reasons for this are unfortunate products of our time-for example, the declining role of neo-Marxism in a scholarly community that must watch its back in an era of neoliberalism. In the final portion of this article, the author discusses some shortcomings of the treadmill framework that have led to its being less influential than formerly and lays out an agenda for further treadmill of production inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses environmental sociology in relation to environmental degradation and environmental reform in the U.S. Focus of environmental movements on national and international environmental groups; Concerns on the trade liberalization and trade agreements; Contribution of environmental regulation to environmental protection in the country.

While environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources nominally focus on the same subject matters, in practice the literatures in the two subdisciplines have tended to be quite separate intellectual enterprises. Environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources have different origins, their practitioners tend to have distinctive institutional locations, their problematics are different, and their theoretical tendencies differ considerably. I provide an overview of the divergent courses that have been taken within these two areas of inquiry, with stress on their institutional histories and intellectual legacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'new rural sociology' arguably represented the most significant watershed in the development of rural sociology during the 1970s and 1980s. I argue, however, that the new rural sociology, especially its dominant traditions of Chayanovian and neo-Leninist Marxism, has now been almost entirely superseded as a theoretical position in agrarian political economy by the international food regimes, commodity chains/systems analysis, regulationist, and actor-network traditions. In addition, Wageningen School research on `farming styles' and the 'cultural-turn' within rural sociology and rural studies have arisen, in part, as challenges to the more structuralist styles of reasoning within agrarian political economy. Parallel trends in the sociology of development are also discussed. The paper concludes with an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of these new late twentieth century traditions in agrarian political economy, particularly in comparison with the new rural sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces the contributions to the World Congress special issue on 'Agricultural Change: Class, State, Technology, and International Food Regimes in the Late 1980s'. The papers are placed in the context of recent trends in the literature in the sociology and political economy of agriculture. Trends highlighted are the decreased dominance of deductive theories and the increased attention given to commodity systems and rural social structures, to international food and agricultural regimes and international commodity complexes, to the sociology of agricultural science and technological change, to the dynamics of agricultural crisis, and to understanding the relations between production and circulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many observers of environmentalism and the environmental movement have emphasized the role of rural values in the emergence of environmental concern. It is noted that social scientists have often been unclear as to what is meant by rural values, and it is argued that rural values can be conceived of as pertaining to at least two distinct dimensions of sentiment—agrarianism and ruralism. Data from a statewide sample of Wisconsin residents are used to test the hypothesis that ruralism is more strongly associated with environmental concern than is agrarianism, Only weak support for this hypothesis is obtained among the total sample; however, the results for the upper-middle class are more in accord with it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three years of survey data show that over time concern with pollution and support for the environmental movement were drawn from increasingly broader bases of social structure. Environmental concern moved downward in the class structure. However, the spread of environmental concern did not substantially affect working class strata, only the lower-middle class. Certain social aggregates remained indifferent regarding environmental problems during the peak of movements support in 1970. Chief among these were persons with low education, rural farm residents, and those economically dependent upon suggested to be important determinants of support for a resistance to environmental reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This theoretical analysis focuses on the properties of conservative, liberal, and radical paradigms in social science and their application to the growth/no-growth debate in environmental policy literature. We find conservatives working with an evolutionary model of society which suggests that environmental problems are imperfections to be remedied by science, technology, and the free market. Liberals recognize the benefits and costs of growth, and they articulate ways to minimize the costs through state regulation and planning. Radicals argue for state ownership of the means of production and new cultural values about growth as the only effective environmental policies. This analysis closes with a discussion of the future of the growth debate in terms of these paradigms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduces articles about the relationships and distinctions between natural resources and environmental sociology, published in the March 2002 issue of the periodical 'Society and Natural Resources.' Social pressures to distinguish between resources and environment; Linguistic difference between resources and environment.