The Shortcomings of Eco-Modernization
Jenny Freedman
Environmental Sociology
November 22, 2021
Eco-modernization represents a push for more environmentally friendly economic & social relations, typically reflected in government initiatives or policies (Vail, 2008:84). With greater social concern, consumers push for environmentally friendly products. However, individual choices as consumers aren’t enough to create sustainable change as opposed to legislation and changes in larger corporations. On top of the fact that individual action can only get so far, our overarching capitalistic society allows for greenwashing, or changes on a surface level to appease the public. The existence of a new wave of environmentalism is still important, but it is just as important to analyze its efficacy. Eco-modernization fails to acknowledge that solutions must be found at the institutional level, as the environmental crisis is not a micro-level issue.
Environmental interest groups, activist groups and social movements along with individuals create public pressure which, in turn, leads to social and legislative change. The issue is that at the core of the environmental movement, protecting the environment at all costs is not the main goal; profit plays a major role. Major overconsumption, specifically in the United States, has not stalled. The demand for more products, however, does not come from consumers. Large corporations tell you what you need, which is characterized by the Marxist idea of fetishization of the commodity (Class Notes, November 18, 2021). The modern market creates demands in order to create more profit. This has been the case for many years; however, it is presented differently in the modern era considering how new technologies rapidly merge with society.
Assessing the legacy of the wave of environmentalism in the 1970s allows one to understand how modern environmentalism was formed. In analyzing how people discuss environmental issues, politicians often framed their conversations around the ownership of natural resources. Water, air, and numerous natural resources could be directly equated with power, and the modern environmental movement is reflective of such frameworks. On the other hand, conversations more often bring in the view of ecocentrism today. In the 1970s, the movement was very human centered, which is highlighted through the term anthropocentricism. People treated the environment as it serves humans and viewed air and water as free resources (Devall 2006:175). Now there is an increased detachment between humans and natural resources. It is important to separate ourselves from the historical and cultural view of owning water, air, and land. I also notice an increased urgency to address issues today, as environmental damage is directly affecting more communities with higher visibility than it was in the late 1900s. We can see the effects of not listening to past activists.
A key issue of the modern environmental movement is that awareness, as well as the movement itself, is growing but the urgency of the environmental crisis has not hindered. Greenwashing is a possible cause that creates a façade of progress while, in reality, effective and sustainable change cannot be made on the micro level. Individuals can only hold so much power, while corporations are not held accountable for the innumerable damage they cause to the environment. The mainstream environmental movement is equally political as it is environmental, which is at the root of its’ inability to provide sustainable improvements. Much of the change that needs to occur is at the governmental level (Speth 2010:12). As Karl Marx observed, politics and economics are incredibly interconnected, and one must confront both and acknowledge their relationship.
Mainstream environmentalism ignores the role of capitalism in environmental destruction and capitalist attitudes embedded in the system. Eco-modernization works within the existing system; however, this fails to confront overconsumption and corporate greed. Additionally, the scope of the issue cannot fully be acknowledged if we see this as only a present issue. The environmental crisis requires participation on the macro, meso, and micro level. Corporations must make substantial changes in order to support the shift of individual lifestyles to support the environment. Furthermore, the required urgency on part of privileged communities does not exist. Individuals most affected by environmental destruction are low income and communities of color; such communities are often silenced, and they do not have the political power required to make social change. The work of grassroots organizations, however, should absolutely be commended and pushed forward (Devall 2006:169).
Eco-modernization needs green intersectionality in order to highlight the environment as a way to address other social causes, including racism, sexism, and classism. Moreover, institutional resistance is key; as a society, we can utilize modern technologies in diverse ways to support the environment and envision a hybrid future (Vail, 2008:86). It is necessary to ask ourselves: what does a more humane future look like and how do we make it? I suggest an emphasis on grassroots organizing found in local communities where environmental problems occur. This type of activism is most often founded by principles of healing and a need for sustainability rather than a reach for power. Environmental activists must address how the environmental movement affects queer, trans, and BIPOC communities.
Environmental Sociology
November 22, 2021
Eco-modernization represents a push for more environmentally friendly economic & social relations, typically reflected in government initiatives or policies (Vail, 2008:84). With greater social concern, consumers push for environmentally friendly products. However, individual choices as consumers aren’t enough to create sustainable change as opposed to legislation and changes in larger corporations. On top of the fact that individual action can only get so far, our overarching capitalistic society allows for greenwashing, or changes on a surface level to appease the public. The existence of a new wave of environmentalism is still important, but it is just as important to analyze its efficacy. Eco-modernization fails to acknowledge that solutions must be found at the institutional level, as the environmental crisis is not a micro-level issue.
Environmental interest groups, activist groups and social movements along with individuals create public pressure which, in turn, leads to social and legislative change. The issue is that at the core of the environmental movement, protecting the environment at all costs is not the main goal; profit plays a major role. Major overconsumption, specifically in the United States, has not stalled. The demand for more products, however, does not come from consumers. Large corporations tell you what you need, which is characterized by the Marxist idea of fetishization of the commodity (Class Notes, November 18, 2021). The modern market creates demands in order to create more profit. This has been the case for many years; however, it is presented differently in the modern era considering how new technologies rapidly merge with society.
Assessing the legacy of the wave of environmentalism in the 1970s allows one to understand how modern environmentalism was formed. In analyzing how people discuss environmental issues, politicians often framed their conversations around the ownership of natural resources. Water, air, and numerous natural resources could be directly equated with power, and the modern environmental movement is reflective of such frameworks. On the other hand, conversations more often bring in the view of ecocentrism today. In the 1970s, the movement was very human centered, which is highlighted through the term anthropocentricism. People treated the environment as it serves humans and viewed air and water as free resources (Devall 2006:175). Now there is an increased detachment between humans and natural resources. It is important to separate ourselves from the historical and cultural view of owning water, air, and land. I also notice an increased urgency to address issues today, as environmental damage is directly affecting more communities with higher visibility than it was in the late 1900s. We can see the effects of not listening to past activists.
A key issue of the modern environmental movement is that awareness, as well as the movement itself, is growing but the urgency of the environmental crisis has not hindered. Greenwashing is a possible cause that creates a façade of progress while, in reality, effective and sustainable change cannot be made on the micro level. Individuals can only hold so much power, while corporations are not held accountable for the innumerable damage they cause to the environment. The mainstream environmental movement is equally political as it is environmental, which is at the root of its’ inability to provide sustainable improvements. Much of the change that needs to occur is at the governmental level (Speth 2010:12). As Karl Marx observed, politics and economics are incredibly interconnected, and one must confront both and acknowledge their relationship.
Mainstream environmentalism ignores the role of capitalism in environmental destruction and capitalist attitudes embedded in the system. Eco-modernization works within the existing system; however, this fails to confront overconsumption and corporate greed. Additionally, the scope of the issue cannot fully be acknowledged if we see this as only a present issue. The environmental crisis requires participation on the macro, meso, and micro level. Corporations must make substantial changes in order to support the shift of individual lifestyles to support the environment. Furthermore, the required urgency on part of privileged communities does not exist. Individuals most affected by environmental destruction are low income and communities of color; such communities are often silenced, and they do not have the political power required to make social change. The work of grassroots organizations, however, should absolutely be commended and pushed forward (Devall 2006:169).
Eco-modernization needs green intersectionality in order to highlight the environment as a way to address other social causes, including racism, sexism, and classism. Moreover, institutional resistance is key; as a society, we can utilize modern technologies in diverse ways to support the environment and envision a hybrid future (Vail, 2008:86). It is necessary to ask ourselves: what does a more humane future look like and how do we make it? I suggest an emphasis on grassroots organizing found in local communities where environmental problems occur. This type of activism is most often founded by principles of healing and a need for sustainability rather than a reach for power. Environmental activists must address how the environmental movement affects queer, trans, and BIPOC communities.
Works Cited
Devall, Bill. 2006. “The End of American Environmentalism?” Nature and Culture 1(2): 157- 180.
Speth, James Gustave. 2010. “A New American Environmentalism and the New Economy.” Unpublished.
Washington, D.C.
Vail, Benjamin. 2008. “Ecological Modernization at Work? Environmental Policy Reform in Sweden at the Turn
of the Century.” Pages 81-96 in Deborah Auriffeille and Leslie King, editors, Environmental Sociology: From
Analysis to Action. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Speth, James Gustave. 2010. “A New American Environmentalism and the New Economy.” Unpublished.
Washington, D.C.
Vail, Benjamin. 2008. “Ecological Modernization at Work? Environmental Policy Reform in Sweden at the Turn
of the Century.” Pages 81-96 in Deborah Auriffeille and Leslie King, editors, Environmental Sociology: From
Analysis to Action. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.