Graduation Date
1987
Document Type
Thesis
Program
Other
Program
Art
Committee Chair Name
Dr. James W. Carroll
Committee Chair Affiliation
Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty or Staff
Second Committee Member Name
Dr. Jerrald D. Krause
Keywords
Art
Subject Categories
Art
Abstract
In the last two decades we have seen a radical change in people’s attitudes, beliefs, values, national policy, and knowledge regarding the natural environment—something that most people had previously taken for granted. The first Earth Day (April 22, 1970), is generally taken to represent the beginnings of a concerted environmental movement and the corresponding upswing of public attitude and concern for the natural environment. This rise in interest follows the civil rights movement of the early 1960s and the anti-war movement of the mid to late 1960s and early 1970s. Some writers claim that the environmental movement is a derivative of these other two movements which peaked and burned out (Cotgrove, 1982) [for an alternative position, see Humphrey and Buttel, 1982]. In part this is correct, but there is more to the environmental movement than simply being a temporary ”fad” movement. Collective air and water pollution, landscape degradation, resource depletion, pesticide and toxic waste accumulation, etc... have built up to the point at which where they can no longer be ignored and it has become obvious to even the most naive that something is wrong. It can be said that the environmental movement arose at an opportune time in the face of mounting facts and a more than willing following. Because environmentalism is a movement, sociologists* original interest in it was the study of attitudes, constituency composition, and social impact assessment. This became known as the "sociology of environmental issues’* (Humphrey and Buttel, 1982; Dunlap and Catton, 1979). The recognition that something was missing in the methods of sociological inquiry came with these studies: certain human behaviors and interactions could not be fully explained. This missing ingredient turned out to the neglect in sociological theory and analysis of the physical environment. This led to the conclusion by some sociologists that man influences his social and physical environment and these in turn reciprocally affect man. The realization of this and the partial absorbtion of a form of an ecological model into social theory led to the beginnings of "environmental sociology." Environmental sociology’s fundamental distinction from so-called "mainstream” sociology is its use of the environment in its theoretical foundations and methodology (Dunlap and Catton, 1983:4). The environment referred to here is the "physical” as opposed to the "social” environment traditionally studied by sociologists. In 1975 environmental sociology gained sufficient recognition to warrant a section in the American Sociological Association. Yet even with its recognition as a viable form of sociological inquiry, environmental sociology did not produce the changes in sociology that some hoped for or expected. I propose that it is because of the dual influences of modern industrial thought and their own disciplinary selfdefinition that sociologists have only accepted a small part of the "new ecological paradigm” (NEP) (Catton and Dunlap, 1980) and have ignored its most important theoretical ramifications. Paradoxically, environmental sociologists through their own critique of these influences founded environmental sociology. I assert that these influences are far stronger than has been previously imagined, thus causing traditional action in the face of mounting non-traditional problems. The two basic purposes of this thesis derive from the above assertions. The first is illustration of the conditions that led to the foundation of environmental sociology, it’s definition as per Catton and Dunlap, and its current status. The second purpose is illumination of some of the problems that characterized acceptance of the form of environmental sociology that Catton and Dunlap pursued. These two purposes are interrelated. Because of the importance of the dual influences of modern industrial thought and sociology’s definition as a science, part of this thesis identifies and conceptualizes these events. Modern industrial thought, which I consider to be non-ecological, has its historical roots partially in Christianity and primarily in the processes of industrialization. These roots are traced back in time and current manifestations show the types of responses that man gives to environmental/ecological problems presently occurring. I argue that certain types of responses are more ecologically sound than others. I trace sociology’s development as a science through several key contributing influences and show that the current field of sociology is based on the same anthropocentric assumptions of man as free and above the constraints of nature as that of modern industrial thought. Other people have recognized these forces in the development of the field of environmental sociology yet always tend to refer to these events as "given.” This thesis evaluates these events in detail, providing a better understanding of the key theoretical issues of environmental sociology. These theoretical issues are best represented by the framework set up by Catton and Dunlap (1978a; 1978b; 1979; 1980; 1983). They integrate sociological and ecological approaches to form a "new ecological paradigm” (NEP) in which sociologists can pursue their craft in a more "holistic" manner. The foundation layed down by Catton and Dunlap is important in providing a background for the prospective researcher. After the establishment of the basic framework of an environmental sociological model that incorporates an ecological model sociologists have virtually ignored Catton and Dunlap’s core theoretical framework. With the exception of the incorporation of some aspect of the physical environment, practically all other studies in environmental sociology have dealt with peripheral areas that fall within the standardized routines of traditional sociology (Buttel, 1987). Current studies in environmental sociology more frequently derive from the environmental sociology of Allan Schnaiberg (1980), which developed at roughly the same time as that of Catton and Dunlap. The difference in these two developments can be viewed as macro or metatheoretical versus micro levels of theoretical models, with Catton and Dunlap representing the former and Schnaiberg the latter. This distinction is important in an analysis of the current status of environmental sociology and is be addressed in chapter 5. This thesis sees the work of Catton and Dunlap as being more important than any other in environmental sociology. A basic issue arises as to whether or not sociology can accept the proposed synthesis with ecological-environmental concerns and maintain itself as a distinct discipline—how sociology defines itself as science—distinct and separate from all other sciences. According to Catton and Dunlap, this developmental characteristic traces back to sociology’s early stages with the work of such people as Durkheim (social facts) and Weber (social situations) and to some of sociology’s later period with the work of people like Skinner (social behavior). Catton and Dunlap imply that sociology has since its beginning attempted to get rid of any environmental determinism in order to validate its existence as a discipline separate and distinct From the natural sciences (though environmental determinism does rear its head in sociology from time to time). In other words, that man can be studied sui generis from his non-social environment is a basic tenet of sociological thinking, thus providing one the limits to the existing sociological paradigms. While this is overstated—there are exceptions in the social sciences—this generally characterizes sociology as a whole. This argument supplies some insight into the lack of acceptance of the idea of an environmental sociology. The idea of a sociological paradigm that limits and controls the pursuits of sociology is an important one in the context of this paper. Of all the discussions in sociology, none seems to bring up more disagreement than the issue of paradigms. This disagreement has a very pertinent relationship to the field of environmental sociology and its metatheoretical problems and dilemmas. Kuhn's (1962) ambigious use of the term did not contribute to a clear understanding of paradigms, though his work is generally considered "stellar.” Ritzer’s (1975) notion of multiple paradigms in sociology is probably the most accepted idea in relation to paradigms in sociology. The most distinctive thing about the concept of paradigm has been the tendency For scholars to apply it rather indiscriminately to cover whatever it is they wish to discuss. Thus we get a paradigm that represents worldviews (Pirages and Erlich, 1974), ideologies (Satterfield, 1983), theoretical orientations (Eisenstadt, 1961), and so on. There is no agreement. The literal meaning of paradigm is simply "a modal.” Because of the variety of ways that paradigm is used, there have been some difficulties with Catton and Dunlap’s theory. I believe that elucidation of this problem will shed new light in the understanding of the acceptance or non-acceptance of environmental sociology into the field of sociology. It is important to stress that the purpose of this thesis is not to pursue an environmentally-deterministic model. This thesis seeks an integration of two complementary approaches which cover the realm of what it is to be human and social. Because anthropology is a blending of sciences, there has been more anthropological than sociological research dealing with issues of the environment and ecology. Despite this, I believe that the anthropological approach also falls short of developing an appropriate ecological model. The basic hypothesis of environmental sociology is that what sociology lacks in being able to fully describe humans in interaction can be supplied by the incorporation of the ecological model. The bulk of this thesis deals with the issues outlined above. I propose that in addition to using the "metatheoretical core framework” as layed out by Catton and Dunlap, environmental sociology needs to incorporate the concepts of "environmental 8 land ethic” (Leopold, 1943) and "ecological consciousness" CDevall, 1985). With this integration, perhaps we can understand fully what it is to be human. This entails recognition of human kind as one of the ecologically-interdependent species of the animal kingdom; and as only one of the members of a whole interdependent ecological community which includes animals and plants in a physical environment. I believe that Catton and Dunlap, while they approached this, did not develop an environmental land ethic, nor did they achieve or conceptualize what is referred to as an ecological consciousness, though they may have been heading in that direction. These issues are examined at the end of the thesis. I believe that the integration of these ideas with environmental sociology may be necessary for an attitude change conducive to ecological survival—such a model is a suggestion for further research. I draw from a variety of disciplines to support the position of this paper. Such disciplines include, but are not limited to, history, anthropology, philosophy, economics, physics, biological ecology, and, of course, sociology. Despite the interdisciplinary diversity of the content of this paper, the bulk of the work lies primarily in the field of the sociology of knowledge. The sociology of knowledge attempts to find out what people are thinking at one time or another and relates this within a framework of this social structure. This paper examines the way people think and how thought is manifest 9 in non-ecological activities. The sociology of knowledge perspective provides a basis For the discussion of the apparent non-acceptance of the new ecological paradigm and will serve to clarify its current status. One basic assumption I make is that we are in the midst of an ecological crisis of which we are not, as yet, fully aware. While some issues of this crisis such as pollution, population pressure, resource depletion, and species extinction are easily proven other issues dealing with social and spiritual problems are not, I propose that the eventual establishment of a working Form of environmental sociology may be able to deal with some of these problems. The remainder of this chapter presents chapter outlines For the remainder of the thesis.
Recommended Citation
Lamb, Alan D., "Environmental Sociology. Paradigmatic Subservience and its Future" (1987). Cal Poly Humboldt theses and projects. 2458.
https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/etd/2458