By Jack Kamysz and Henry Chapman
Definition
An intensification is an increase in strength or magnitude (or intensity) of something. This is a descriptive ism that can be used to describe many things such as movements, actions or even other isms. For example, agriculture intensification is an increase in productivity. Intensification of war is an increase in conflict or military spending. In the study of the environment, intensification can be used to describe trends in eco modernism, post-naturalism or sustainability (to name a few) as they grow in prominence or popularity in society. Intensification is useful in describing trends over a period of time or when making a comparison as well.
“ ”
Context
Intensification was originally associated with the emergence of agriculture about 12,000 years ago. It was also associated with the unprecedented increase in the size and density of human populations in some regions around the world. The era which this ism was first introduced is known as the Big Era Two, intensification and extensification. This era would lead into the Big Three Era, which continued the same trend of population intensification. Intensification of population then was taken even further in Big Era Four. Population growth then was not only increasing agricultural output, but also the output of pastoral nomadism. Big Era Four intensification happened in new parts of the world where only foragers, or if any humans at all, previously lived. These places included southern Africa, the grassy steppes of northeastern Eurasia, the Yangzi River Valley in China, parts of Oceania (Pacific Islands), Mesoamerica, and Andean South America. After the initial introduction of the idea of intensification some 12,000 years ago, the next recorded use of the word, either as a standalone or with other isms, spiked periodically from 1500-1800. The use of the word then began to increase exponentially in 1850 and peaked in 1977. The use of the word is now on the decline, back to where it was during the 1950’s. Today the word is less used by its singular self and instead added to other isms to help understand them better. Intensification always has its place in agriculture, but is now used to help understand isms such as anthropocene, modernism, nature, etc.
There has been a major debate about agricultural intensification. On one side, there is Malthusian Theory and the other is Boserup’s Theory. Malthusian Theory was derived by Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus in his 1798 writings titled, An Essay on the Principles of Population. The Malthusian Theory entails that agricultural methods determine population via limits on food supply. Boserup’s theory countered that of Malthus. Her theory is that population change drives the intensity of agricultural production. Boserup’s Theory also was criticized by Cowgill (1975), stating that intrinsic rates of population increase cannot be assumed and that increases in productivity may result by seizing “new opportunities.” Other criticism of Boserup’s Theory saw environmental characteristics, abundance, and innovations, mainly technological but also social, as means of increasing productivity without necessarily decreasing efficiency. Generally, today people tend to see intensification as a negative description for our social and economic processes.
Critique
In the context of environmental studies, intensification is a term that is mainly used to describe negative actions occurring in the world or is commonly associated with problems in society. In the Gale encyclopedia of science, it is stated that, “It is likely that an intensification of Earth’s greenhouse effect would have large climatic and ecological consequences” (Freedman and Gilman 2008, pg. 2012). Notice the association of the negative word consequence and the term intensification and how intensification is used to describe the escalation of a harmful process.
As a mainly negative term, it seems slightly confusing and contradictory to see intensification used along with a positive process like sustainability. Sustainability is a goal of the agricultural movement that would initially seem to directly conflict with something negative like the intensification of the global population. In a tone similar to that used in the Gale text, the BioScience article states (in regards to agricultural production competition with population) that, “Sustaining these rates of average annual yield growth until 2050, if it is even possible, would require widespread intensification of fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation regimes” (Hunter, Smith, Schipanski, Atwood, Mortensen 2017). The authors use the word intensification to describe an increase in a negative action (pesticide use) in regards to an overall positive goal of sustainability.
The use of the term intensification to describe mostly negative actions is a weakness. While the ism could very easily be used with a positive connotation, it is not often seen that way in popular discourse. Individuals in society tend to juxtapose the term intensification with negative processes, events and actions which promotes feelings of confusion and apprehension. It can signal a loss of control over the isms it is paired with. It prevents an individual from fully understanding an issue or process because it leads people to automatically form a one sided opinion. Although the term intensification is used to describe other isms, the paired ism determines what the strengths and weaknesses of intensification are. For example, intensification of apocalypticism, would be seen by most as bad because of the word apocalypse. This then gives intensification a negative meaning as well. The weakness of intensification is it’s lack of effectiveness as a descriptive ism, it only absorbs the negative or positive meaning of the paired term rather than supplement it and form a combined meaning.
Conclusion
Intensification is a ism that has been around for centuries, starting with an intensification of agriculture. The word itself is generally used along with other isms to help understand them better. It can be used alongside a lot of isms and words to describe how there is an increase of strength or magnitude of the particular term it is paired with. Furthermore, use of the word has exploded exponentially in the past hundred years, due to the vast amount of social changes and issues that have arisen. Much of this increase of use is due to an increase of environmental affairs in the past century. Intensification in environmental discourse can both be good and bad. This is because of intensification weakness of absorbing either a negative or positive meaning from the paired term and it’s inability to add updated meaning.
Even though intensification has a generally negative meaning to it, the use of this ism should still be invoked by environmentalists/environmental scholars. This is because it is a way to help understand other isms. The use of intensification is generally used to describe something negative that is increasing in our social affairs, such as an intensification of global warming. It is possible though to change the popular connotation of this word. If environmentalist or environmental scholars started using intensification more with beneficial isms, the general negative tone of the word would change to a more positive tone. It would also allow for greater understanding of the described processes as opposed to automatic negative associations. Furthermore, there is no reason to not use intensification in our language. Intensification helps us to see the negative and positive of certain situations in our lives.
Sources:
Freedman, Bill, and Larry Gilman. “Greenhouse Effect.” The Gale Encyclopedia of Science, edited by K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, 4th ed., vol. 3, Gale, 2008, pp. 2012-2016. GVRLModified,go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL.LACCMAIN&sw=w&u=lacc_main&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX2830101084&asid=6b6d151cef3523c696ad5e76bf794a8a. Accessed 22 Mar. 2017.
Mitchell C. Hunter, Richard G. Smith, Meagan E. Schipanski, Lesley W. Atwood, David A. Mortensen; Agriculture in 2050: Recalibrating Targets for Sustainable Intensification. BioScience 2017 bix010. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix010
“Ester Boserup.” 2017. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ester_Boserup&oldid=770584257.
Morgan, Christopher. 2015. “Is It Intensification Yet? Current Archaeological Perspectives on the Evolution of Hunter-Gatherer Economies.” Journal of Archaeological Research 23 (2): 163–213. doi:10.1007/s10814-014-9079-3.
“World History For Us All: Big Era 4.” 2017. Accessed March 23. http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/eras/era4.php.
“Malthusianism.” 2017. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malthusianism&oldid=770330976.