By Sabrina Cerquera and Thea Crowley
Definition/ Relevance
Over the years many environmental movements have gained spotlight and popularity in the field of environmentalism, amongst the many classical and progressive theories stands the Ecological Modernization theory. As we aim for a more environmentally conscious future, ecological modernization stands as a theory that support the idea of a progressive movement forward with the correlation of economic, political, and cultural standpoints.
According to Oxford University Press, Ecological Modernization is:
The belief that economic development and environmental protection are compatible, that industrial economies can be reconciled with nature by means of markets, politics, and cultures, and that a sustainable balance can be achieved through environmental management, environmental policy, cleaner technologies, and the ‘greening’ of institutions.
Through this school of thought, we are able understand that re-adapting and changing our environmental thoughts and actions in all different sectors (i.e. political, cultural, etc), can allow us to make not only ecological progress but also economic growth and development.
Context
Ecological modernization emerged in the early 1980s. It was developed by Joseph Huber, Martin Jänicke, and Udo Simonis. Huber, a German economist, believed in that as time progressed economics and the environment began to affect how industrialization progressed. Originally during the industrial revolution, people evolved from the typical agrarian lifestyle through the development of technology. Huber believed that ecological modernization could be recognized through economic actors. These actors can promote environmental reform “by certification of products and processes, by environmental audits, and by competition of environmental performance and the creation of niche markets” (Mol 1997). Ecological modernization is often used as a synonym for strategic environmental management, industrial ecology, eco-restructuring, and so on (Buttel 2000).
Ecological Modernization is mostly talked about amongst sociologists that view it as a social theory (Fisher 2001). As a social theory, it is understood as a progressive movement towards political action through the economic market. As it takes on technophilic approach to green technology, promoting the theory amongst many individuals that are interested in green politics (Buttel 2000). From 1980 to now there has been an upward trend in the discussion of ecological modernization, this can be due to the advancements in technological resources.
Ecological Modernization can be compared to several other Isms. Ecomodernism, which advocates the use of technology to get past classic environmental thought, is comparable to Ecological Modernization. Modernization is the process, to which the goal is modernism. While ecomodernism needs the process of modernization, the ecological modernization theory is not used as evidence for ecomodernism. Another theory that goes along with ecological modernization is Neoliberalism. This idea is largely focused in the use of the economic market to dictate the doings of the government. It takes away the power from the state and gives to the market. This is similar to the belief in ecological modernization that economics are a base for progress especially when paired with technology.
Interest Over Time
Critique
In the spotlight of including technology in the economic development of ecological modernization, many have critiqued how easy and practical it is to execute. When introducing new technologies to work with, it is important to practice environmental responsibility in order for results to be seen (Cohen 1997). A common debate that questions environmental responsibilities is nuclear energy and the effects it can have on individuals and the waste that it produces. Many worry that in the promotion of ecological modernization, market value and economics play a promotion for capitalism. Many eco-socialist are against the expansion of capitalism In addition to the formulation as a social theory, ecological modernisation has been specially tailored to serve as a political programme and a corporate competitiveness- enhancing strategy (Cohen 1997). With the promotion of more technology, it can become harmful to the economy causing execution faster in technology than what would be good for the planet, this can cause backlashes as individuals take advantage and worry more about the economical value and lose perspective of the goal to move progressively forward in learning and implementing new environmental ideologies to the world. Promotion of money in technology and in the economic market can difficult for some countries to execute; most countries will likely encounter great difficulty achieving ecological modernisation (Cohen 1997).
The ecological modernization theory has been deemed “too good to be true” by many of its critics (Fisher 2000). There are several reasons for this, One being that the theory lacks deep roots in respected ideas of how the state of politics actually works. Also, people doubt the theory’s applicability in places other than where it was developed. Take the United States’ industrial practices, for example, the US utilizes resources differently from any other country and that being said, it does not fit in the the set black and white nature (change?) of the theory of ecological modernization. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands have similar industrial practices that fit with the model, while the United States does not. Japan, while it barely lags behind the United States when it comes to the economy, is seen as much more ecologically modern. The differences between countries is not fully taken into account with this theory.
The ecological modernization theory is a fairly new theory. It’s youth comes with perks according to supporters like Arthur P.J. Mol. He believes that the Ecological Modernisation Theory is very much a living and growing school-of-thought (Mol 2000). Other critics believe that it is “too good to be true,” but recognizing that the ecological modernization theory is dynamic and can change gives it power. According to some critics its coverage of dynamics of consumption as well as production; its attention to issues of national and civic culture; and its relevance to transitional and newly industrialising as well as advanced industrial countries (Mol 2000). Its dynamicness makes people like Mol think it is a strong theory, while it may seem weak to others based on the same quality.
Conclusion
After learning more about this ism, we learned that it can be complicated in the sense of there being different perspectives on the green technology and economic movement. Ecological Modernization aims to bring together the different fields of politics, technology, and economics; to some individuals this is a hard objective to reach, while others believe it is obtainable and the best movement as we move forward into a more progressive future. Ecological Modernization ties in with the Nature, Ecotypes axis, in the hybrid and pure axis. Some individuals believe in a hybrid environment where non-human realms are interwoven to form a new order, while others believe that the nonhuman realm typified by its own order and harmony (Ecotypes 2017).
However, while many may disagree about the different approaches to ecological modernization, it is important for it to be discussed amongst the field of environmentalism and environmental scholarship because it brings in different perspectives. Issues like climate change need “clumsy solutions” and by recognizing the importance of economics, technology, politics, and cultural values for future progress, ecological modernization opens up that dialogue. It is not a perfect theory and should be regarded with some skepticism. While the theory might not be totally applicable in every place, it has room to adapt and change. This theory should not be the only view on how to change our environmental impact and progress but it is an effective starting point to have a better understanding of how technology can be a part of a greater solution.
Citations
Buttel, F.H. “Ecological Modernization as Social Theory.” Geoforum 31, no. 1 (February 2000): 57–65. doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00044-5.
Cohen, Maurie J. “Risk Society and Ecological Modernisation Alternative Visions for Post-Industrial Nations.” Futures 29, no. 2 (March 1997): 105–19. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00071-7.
Dana R. Fisher, and William R. Freudenburg. “Ecological Modernization and Its Critics: Assessing the Past and Looking Toward the Future.” Society & Natural Resources 14, no. 8 (September 2001): 701–9. doi:10.1080/08941920119315.
Ecotypes. 2017. “Nature.” Accessed March 24. https://ds.lclark.edu/ecotypes/ecotypes-axis/nature/
Mayhew, Susan. “ecological modernization.” In A Dictionary of Geography. : Oxford University Press, 2015. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199680856.001.0001/acref-9780199680856-e-3842.
Mol, Arthur P. J. “Ecological Modernization: Industrial Transformations and Environmental Reform.” In The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 1997. //www.elgaronline.com/9781858984056.00016.xml.