Arecology

"Society" can be defined in many ways with many nuances, but we generally use the term here as a large-scale aggregate of individuals that exist together and create, maintain, and transform norms, practices, and structures associated with beliefs, interests, security, identity, etc. These norms, practices, and structures are intertwined with ecological issues and the natural world, though the concept of society is often abstracted from nature and natural processes. At times it is difficult to see the interrelation of these issues, which is why we are highlighting some major issues in contemporary society. In this section we focus on some of these social norms, practices, and structures that are affected by ecological issues and vice versa, with an emphasis on social justice.

Jump to a Practice

Race
The connection between environmental/race issues is not a difficult one to make. In the 1980’s, two staggering publications drew direct ties between environmental degradation and injustices toward communities predominately populated by ethnic minorities; these publications became the impetus for a movement combating what is known as ‘environmental racism.’ The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) published Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities in 1983 (GAO Archive). The findings were that African Americans were the majority in three out of four communities where toxic landfills are located. Because the GAO study and publication was limited by its regional scope (Southeast U.S.), the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice conducted a nation-wide study and published its findings in Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites (the twentieth anniversary follow-up study—Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987-2007—is available at EJnet). The initial UCC-CRJ publication revealed that the most significant factor in determining the location of hazardous waste sites was that of race; twenty years later, the trends still persist. Though the phrase is rarely heard and its precise meaning debated, ‘environmental racism’ generally refers to the disproportionate impact of environmental contamination in communities of racial minorities. Environmental racism is as much an eco-crisis as a racial-crisis, and the National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit has sought to combat both. First in 1991 and then in 2002, the NPCELS have brought people of color together to address environmental, health, and economic concerns as they pertain to race. To access documents from these summits and to get an analysis of environmental racism in the 21st century see Environmental Justice Resource Center. For definitions and a brief history of environmental racism (including national and international examples) see World Council of Churches. For extensive resources and links regarding environmental racism, visit the Environmental Justice Resource Center and Ejnet. To locate environmental burdens in many U.S. communities, including land, air, and water pollutants, visit Scorecard.

Class
Socio-economic class has ecological correlations as well, and is often closely connected to race, etc. The environmental movement can at times be an elitist class movement saddled with a middle-class framework for green living. For instance, the origins of environmentalism (then conservationism or preservationism) were motivated, in part, by class conflict. At the end of the 19th century, as the middle and upper class grew fond of outdoor sports, large numbers of rural and immigrant poor were restricted from using conserved lands. The affluent realized the importance of preserving the land in the face of population increase and industrialization and saw the value of such lands. The result was selling ‘conserved’ land to the highest bidder and thus excluding the economically disadvantaged (see Grist: Environtmental News and Commentary). In regards to the environmental movement’s contemporary elitism, consider the 51 ways suggested in Time magazine to reduce one’s environmental impact: nearly every suggestion requires the ownership of real estate, a vehicle, modern technological gadgets, or expendable income to spend on eco-friendly goods. These remedies plague environmentalism with elitist/middle class expectations. The most disheartening aspect is the prevalence of toxic or hazardous waste that often correlates with lower socio-economic communities (see University of Michigan’s Environmental Justice Case Studies). On the positive side, however, there is also an increasing effort to create a more realistic and non-biased relationship between class and environmentalism. Poverty Environment Net, for instance, is a web-based resource index intended to promote the reduction of poverty by way of environmental management. Also, there has been an increased attempt by religious groups (e.g. National Council of Churches) and secular agencies (e.g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Environmental Justice) to educate about and enforce environmental justice (the fair treatment of all people in regards to environmental laws and policies, regardless of race or income).

Gender
The movement know as eco-feminism regards the oppression of women and nature as inseparable. In fact, the interconnection between sexism and environmental destruction share the same culprit of patriarchy. Patriarchal ideologies are hierarchical in value dualisms (a/b i.e., a above b)—men/women, culture/nature, logic/emotion—woman are associated with the body and the earth while men are associated with the mind and spirit. These ideologies shape the patriarchal paradigm that holds men most valuable and powerful while nature is of least value and power; hence oppression of women and nature is justified. Eco-feminism decries any effort to separate sexism from destruction of the environment. (For more detail, history, an e-journal, or index to eco-feminist links visit Ecofem). For specific connections between the objectification of women and nature, see Feminists for Animal Rights. This educational organization emphasizes the common experience of women and animals through sexism (assigning less value on the basis of gender) and speciesism (assigning less value on the basis of species). Also consider the work of the Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment. CWPE is an alliance that draws a web of connections between sexism, racism (predominately toward immigrant minorities), and environmental devastation. Eco-feminist efforts draw strong ties between sexism and ‘ecocide.’ Women, for example, bear the burden of sharing their body’s toxic build-up with their children. According to Natural Resource Defense Council’s findings, a nursing child ingests environmental contaminants stored for decades in mother’s fat, which is drawn from top produce breast milk. Also, socialized gender roles and expectations put women disproportionately (with nature) in harms way. Consider the role of domestic chores or the societal expectation of beauty. Women’s Health and the Environment points out that household cleaners are replete with carcinogenic toxins and the cosmetic industry has little regulation on its use of chemicals—both could cause potential health disasters. For further theoretical and concrete connections visit Silent Spring Institute and Women’s Health and Environmental Network.

Economy
An understanding of the overlap between economy and ecology and their mutual influence can be seen in their close etymological relation. Oikos—house or household—as the root of each of these terms (eco), provides a conceptual framework in which to compare the two. Whether the concept of house is limited to a single family residence or expanded to the ‘house’ we call Earth, economy (oiko-nomos) and ecology (oiko-logos) are inseparable. At their base meaning, economy is the law or management of the household while ecology is the knowledge or logic by which we understand the workings of those living in the household. When broadened, economy is the allocation (management) of resources among competing uses and sources while ecology is the relationship between the consumers/users of resources and their environment (which includes the resources) (see Ecology page). Consequently, economics and ecology always coexist and affect each other because they ‘live’ under the same ‘roof.’ The general assumptions and values of two economic models, neo-classical and ecological economics, are ways of seeing different economic systems interact with ecological viability. Neo-classical economics or free-market capitalism (evolving from the work of Adam Smith and the thriving economic model in North America) holds at least two fundamental assumptions that directly affect the environment: (1) each person is a self-interested individual and will buy/consume on their own behalf, which will eventually benefit all, and (2) there is infinite possibility for economic growth given sufficient capital and will, despite overuse of renewable and nonrenewable resources. As such, neo-classical economics values the gratification of individuals motivated by selfish appetites and economic expansion. In this economic system, individuals flourish often at the expense of communal interests and the natural environment—the ecosphere (and community flourishing) is a subset of the broader economy and is mostly avoided. Ecological economics (an economic paradigm generally traced to the work of ecologist Robert Costanza and economist Herman Daly), on the other hand, assumes each person’s needs are only fulfilled when the community’s needs are met. For a quick introduction to EE and those credited for its promulgation visit Grist. In this model, only when the community thrives as a whole will its interdependent contributive parts (not limited to humans) thrive. The primary value of this economic system, in which the market is a subset of the broader global environment, is sustainability (the viable longevity and well-being of the ‘house’ in which we all live). For resources regarding EE see The International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE)or the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont. Visit Earth, Inc to see how one organization is re-imagining capitol, efficiency, and profit to maintain economy in a sustainable environment. Also, for a concise and widely adopted position on economic growth and its deleterious effects on the environment, see The Center for the Advancement of Steady State Economics publication, CASSE Position on Economic Growth.

Globalization
Globalization is used in this context as the transformation of and movement away from past social, political, cultural, economic, and religious conditions to conditions of greater interdependence and integration. This includes the creation of new social networks, the expansion of social relations, and the quickening of global social exchanges. Consider global economics: in the present form of globalization, capitalism is global (allowing money to circulate globally), manufacturing (including ‘telework’) has gone global, tourism has become a global enterprise, global agriculture is a norm, corporations have become global, etc.; with globalization comes a global economic order, an internationalization of trade and services, and a rise in transnational corporations. Each of these three pillars of globalization—global economy, global trade, and global corporations—are associated with the current eco-crisis. The predominant economic order in the world is capitalism, and the leading form is American capitalism, as heavily promulgated by the United States since the 80’s (for more, see Economy piece). While America leads the economic way, it too leads in contribution to climate change per capita. For example, according to World Resources Institute’s CAIT (Climate Analysis Indicators Tool) the U.S. emits more greenhouse gasses than Great Britain, Canada, Russia, India, Brazil, and South Korea. Expansion of American economics and its neo-liberal principles, as is being done in globalization, promotes a consumer lifestyle that the planet cannot sustain. Global trade and transnational corporations (TNCs) are examples of this current. International trade has occurred for centuries but with the increasing permeability of borders in our current context, capitol and labor moves almost effortlessly between borders. The primary vehicle for labor and capitol in this global ‘free trade’ system are TNCs. The modern phenomenon of ‘free trade’ and the immense influence of TNCs are commonly associated with at environmentally destructive habits. Resources native to previously isolated regions are now being sought after as commodities with monetary value. Ancient knowledge of plants and animals, cultural practices, and wilderness which were localized and free are now victim to this global phenomenon. Centuries-old farming practices and indigenous ‘know-how’ are being patented and sold and eventually replaced. The wider outcome of these activities is perhaps the most threatening aspect of the eco-crisis—the loss of biodiversity due in large part to the loss of sustainable cultures and the extinction of much plant and animal life. The Convention on Biological Diversity contains educational resources regarding the current threat to biodiversity. Continuing, where labor is cheap and regulations are lenient, there profit is also sought by TNCs. This has immense environmental ramifications. For example, after the 1993 NAFTA agreement, thousands of manufacturing plants were built just south of the U.S.-Mexico border. Cheap labor flowed in, and virtually unrestricted toxic emission and sludge flowed out. For many more issues similar to the aforementioned two see the Heinrich Böll Foundation. However globalization has several positive effects on the state of the environment. Consider the effects of information accessibility worldwide, which enables the tracking of Earth Trends and watch dog work like the Worldwatch Institute. Also consider the efforts of international collaboration, which have resulted in such treaties as The Earth Charter Initiative and the Kyoto Protocol.