In the new issue of Environmental Philosophy (the journal of the International Association for Environmental Philosophy), an excellent article by Brian Treanor appears. Entitled "Turn Around and Step Forward: Ideology and Utopia in the Environmental Movement," (Environmental Philosophy 7 [2010]): 27-46) Treanor's argument explicates how Paul Ricoeur's work on the social imaginary--including the dialectic between ideology and utopia--can be fruitfully applied to environmental thought. These terms allow us to make a much stronger case for the need to move away from simply seeking technical fixes, and toward a shift in understanding.
Through his argument, Treanor shows the need for re-envisioning our social thinking about environments, rather than always relying on pragmatic compromise. Imagination is key here. In fact, I think imagination has been not been sufficiently dealt with in environmental philosophy, especially as a social--not simply individual--phenomenon. As a result, this essay is an important addition to environmental hermeneutics (and environmental philosophy more generally). It is also an excellent summation of this aspect of Ricoeur's thought; the portions related to Ricoeur would be profitable for philosophers, even if uninterested in the ecological dimensions Treanor is focused on.
Another reason this is a particularly useful and informative article is that Treanor applies his argument to two case studies. One case study is Shellenberger and Nordhoaus' thesis on "the death of environmentalism." The other is the work of David Brower.
Treanor is seeking to better analyze environmental thought, and thus push it forward. Here and elsewhere, he advocates a narrative approach. He tells us that a one sentence guideline would be: "Environmentalists should hold fast to a utopian vision of a sustainable future, articulated in compelling narratives, while remaining on alert for unconventional allies and unexpected opportunities for forwarding our agenda" (p. 40). I would recommend reading this article, to see exactly what he means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree. This was an excellent article. I particularly appreciated Brian's argument for the use of narrative to supplement "arguments based on climate science or economics and grounded in statistics and scientific data" (p. 41). While such argumentation is irreplaceable, most people are moved by differing types of stories. As Brian noted, not everyone is moved by just one type of narrative, so the use of several types of narratives can appeal to the widest range of people.
ReplyDeleteAs an afterthought, as a matter of environmental justice, the stories of the people living and making a living on the Gulf Coast certainly need to be told.
Thanks for the kind words. I wrote this article--along with another on environmentalism and public/political virtue for the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics--because of a need I felt to give some of my work a more practical relevance. I don't think I've gotten there yet, and continue to work on this front through op-ed pieces and activism. But felt for awhile now that philosophy has lost it's voice in public discourse--new happenings like The Stone in the New York Times notwithstanding--and that this absence seems even more acute in the area of environmental philosophy. Given the scope and seriousness of the various environmental crises with which we are faced, it seems odd that environmental philosophers are not more vocally engaged in public debates (that is, debates that are relevant to the non-philosophical public) on these crises.
ReplyDeleteNow, I do *not* mean to suggest that all academic work or all philosophy should have a practical application. Far from it. Part of the value of philosophy and other aspects of a liberal education is that they are not 'useful' in a base pragmatic or economic sense--and that's a good thing.
So, I guess a relevant question for us is: "where does environmental hermeneutics stand with respect to this question?" That is, should environmental hermeneutics be engaged with public, non-philosophical debates about the environment? Can it be? If it should be so engaged, what sorts of environmental hermeneutics show promise for public application?
The question of engagement: that is difficult, to say the least! It is in this area that the work in religion and ecology has perhaps been more successful than philosophy. For while both theology and philosophy take up the issue of value and worldviews, theological reflection has more explicit practical extension.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental theology and "religious environmentalism" has a natural constituency: religious communities and spiritual seekers. There are also institutionalized communities outside the academy. Thus religious groups have made a number of inroads into environmental action. Philosophy does not have the same kind of audience or public persona.
Philosophy diverges from religious thought at this point, in other words. Where is the natural constituency for philosophical speculation? Environmental hermeneutics, then, can merely be a descriptive parlor game for academics. Or, it can offer a creative way of understanding how and why we reflect on the world in the ways that we do. This way of understanding--as you suggest--needs to have a concrete, social application.