An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First Century€¦ · · 2015-09-08An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First Century ... the sociological enterprise, ... innovative

SO39CH12-Pellow ARI 29 June 2013 15:2

An Environmental Sociologyfor the Twenty-First CenturyDavid N. Pellow and Hollie Nyseth BrehmDepartment of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455;email: [email protected], [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2013. 39:229–50

The Annual Review of Sociology is online athttp://soc.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145558

Copyright c© 2013 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

Keywords

environment, ecosystems, humans, nonhuman natures, power, socialinequality

Abstract

Environmental sociology has become a mature field within the disci-pline of sociology. We consider several of the key theories that definethe core and boundaries of the field, calling attention to debates andunresolved questions. We contend that two of the defining features ofthis field are (a) attention to the inseparability of human and nonhumannatures and (b) attention to the role that power and social inequality playin shaping human/nonhuman interactions. These two characteristics ofenvironmental sociology also reveal strong links between this field andthe broader discipline, in light of recent reexaminations of classical soci-ological writings. We conclude with a consideration of new directionsenvironmental sociologists might take toward building an even morerobust, interdisciplinary, and critical area of study.

229

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


INTRODUCTION

Environmental sociology is now four decadesold and has come a long way from a fledglingsubfield to a growing, interdisciplinary area ofstudy with a plethora of articles in leading socialscience journals, scores of books published withacademic presses, several scholarly journalsdevoted to the field, and a respected sectionwithin the American Sociological Association.Environmental sociologists regularly appearin the national and international media, advisegovernmental bodies and policy makers aroundthe world, and secure considerable researchfunding from public and private institutions.In this review, we consider the evolution of thisfield and explore several key areas of inquiryand debate within and outside of its expandingboundaries.

As when one reviews any sizable andexpanding field, we chose to emphasize sometopics and exclude others. For example, owingto space limitations, we do not examine theliteratures on human ecology, postmaterialism,and environmental concern (for excellentreviews and analyses, see Borden 2008, Dunlap& York 2008, and McCright & Dunlap 2008).Furthermore, a substantial portion of theliterature featured here comes from scholarsoutside of the discipline of sociology in orderto highlight the interdisciplinary nature ofenvironmental sociology’s reach and sociolog-ical aspects of this interdisciplinary research.Finally, this review expands upon previousAnnual Review of Sociology articles by revisitingand rethinking the origins of environmentalsociology, its interdisciplinary influences andpossibilities, the strong thread of politicaleconomy in the field, and the contributionsto the study of risk and disasters (see Dunlap& Catton 1979, Goldman & Schurman 2000,Rudel et al. 2011, Tierney 2007). We alsoexplore topical areas not considered in previousreviews, such as environmental criminology,radical social movements, the labor and theenvironment nexus, and Critical AnimalStudies.

ORIGINS OF ENVIRONMENTALSOCIOLOGY

Environmental sociology emerged alongsidewhat scholars have termed the New Ecolog-ical Paradigm (NEP)—a perspective that be-came prevalent during the 1960s as a responseto the loss of ecosystems and nonhuman speciesdue to the growth of industrialization and ur-banization in the United States and Europe.Drawing from the ideas of early preservation-ists and conservationists such as Aldo Leopold,John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, Robert Mar-shall, George Perkins Marsh, and later, RachelCarson, the NEP calls for a healthy balancebetween human economic activities and theneeds of ecosystems, arguing that human so-cial systems must reduce their demands andimpacts on nonhuman nature (Catton & Dun-lap 1980, Dunlap & Catton 1979, Dunlap &Van Liere 1978). The NEP highlights thefragility of the biosphere and the extraordinaryharm that human society has visited upon itthrough material extraction and industrial pol-lution, and it reflects the dominant perspec-tive of mainstream environmental movementsin the United States.

While environmental sociology emergedwithin this broad cultural and political context(Freudenburg 2009), it was also a response tothe perceived human exemptionalism withinthe classical sociological tradition. That is, thescholarship of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim,and Max Weber—and therefore much of thebody of sociological ideas that followed—was viewed as mired in an anthropocentricepistemology that was stubbornly resistantto the possibility that nonhuman natures andecosystems could shape human society andvice versa (Buttel 2002, Durkheim 1950).However, recent scholarship that reevaluatesthe work of early sociologists suggests thathuman exemptionalism may have actuallybeen more characteristic of sociology thatemerged after World War II, when an em-phasis on technology and the human conquestof nonhuman natures reached new heights(Foster 1999), whereas foundational writings

230 Pellow · Nyseth Brehm

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


by Durkheim, Marx, Weber, and others were,in fact, more interdisciplinary and attuned tohuman/nonhuman interactions than we hadpreviously recognized (Rosa & Richter 2008).

Since its emergence, environmental soci-ology has matured as a body of scholarshipthat builds on earlier research that challengesconstructed boundaries among human society,nonhuman natures, and the built environment(Canan 1996, Catton 1982, Freudenburg et al.1995, Goldman & Schurman 2000, Tierney1999). Scholars in this field routinely draw onclassical sociological theory to demonstrateits relevance for analyses of environmentalcrises (Dunlap & Michelson 2002), and recentresearch has recuperated significant evidenceof classical theory’s ecological foundations,thus contributing to a more ecologicallyoriented sociological canon and strengtheningthe legitimacy of environmental sociologyitself (Foster 1999, Foster & Holleman 2012,Merchant 2005).

Interestingly, the field’s initial existence onthe margins of sociology may have been anasset in that it encouraged environmental so-ciologists to extend their reach and intellectualbreadth beyond the parameters of sociology(Dunlap & Catton 1979, p. 266; Dunlap &Michelson 2002; Laska 1993). Environmen-tal sociologists frequently collaborate withclimate scientists, geographers, limnologists,economists, political scientists, urban planners,historians, legal scholars, anthropologists,psychologists, and biologists, producing muchmore robust and defensible accounts of socioe-cological reality. Though interdisciplinarityis not unique to environmental sociology,it is something that the larger discipline ofsociology would do well to embrace moreenthusiastically.

Although interdisciplinarity has its benefits,sociology is unique in bringing the core conceptof inequality to the forefront. Inequality (andthe distribution, circulation, and use of powermore broadly) has always been at the heart ofthe sociological enterprise, and environmen-tal sociology offers a unique and powerful way

of theorizing and applying that concept. Theproblem of inequality is rightly a key focus formany sociologists. However, most sociologiststhink about, study, and teach the subject fromwithin a particular—and therefore limited—framework. This might include economic, po-litical, institutional, racial, gender, and nationalinequalities, all of which are important for un-derstanding how social systems work for thebenefit of some groups and to the disadvantageof others. But by focusing exclusively on humaninequality, we miss how far and wide inequali-ties actually extend, what their impacts are, andhow we might address them. Environmental so-ciology’s promise is to expand our understand-ing of inequality by making sense of the oftentense and violent relationships among humans,ecosystems, and nonhuman animal species. Bydoing so, we not only might achieve a bettergrasp of inequality’s ramifications, but we alsocan deepen our understanding of the nature ofinequality itself. For example, some researchsuggests that social inequality among humansactually reinforces or even causes environmen-tally harmful practices (Bookchin 2005, Boyce2008, Gaard 2004).

A focus on inequality reaches to the coreof sociology past and present, as it is clearly akey concern in the writings of Karl Marx andMax Weber. Indeed, recent reexaminationsof the ecological foundations of Marx’s andWeber’s writings reveal strong support for anenvironmental sociology that focuses on theproblems of inequality and power, primarilyas embodied in capitalist economies andstatecraft (Gibson 2009, Foster 1999, Foster& Holleman 2012). Marx and Weber weredeeply concerned about the harmful effectsof modernity and its capitalist cultures andinstitutions on marginalized populations (e.g.,workers and Native Americans), ecosystems,and the future of democracies (Marx 1974,1976; Weber 1930, 1977, 1988). Their writingsunderscore that the power of nation-states,corporations, and bureaucracies to exert influ-ence by some humans over others is exceededperhaps only by the power that humans enjoy

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Sociology 231

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


over the nonhuman world. Thus, we proposethat environmental sociology’s contributionto the broader field is the combination of afocus on the inseparability of human societyfrom nonhuman natures and the centrality ofinequality and power that shape both.

WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENT?WHAT IS NATURE?

Many sociologists and other environmentalstudies scholars are highly skeptical of the useof the term “natural,” as it suggests that socialrealities just happen and are fixed rather thansocially constructed. Scholars inside and out-side of sociology have argued that nature is a“terrain of power” (Moore et al. 2003, p. 1), anideological battleground (Haraway 1991), anda construction that privileges elite classes, mas-culinism, heterosexism, white supremacy, andhumanism (Gaard 2004). Furthermore, sociol-ogists have been at the forefront of researchon the ways that certain socially marginalizedpopulations live in communities with dispro-portionate environmental risks, thus leading toa redefinition of the environment from a con-cept restricted to nonhuman natures to onethat is inclusive of built and social environ-ments (Bullard & Wright 2012). Thus, the en-vironment and nature are concepts that revealthe presence of politics, power, and inequality.Environmental studies scholars have, in recentyears, been explicit about expanding the defini-tion of the environment beyond the traditionalnineteenth and early twentieth century Euro-pean/US images of nature, wilderness, nonhu-man animals, oceans, forests, etc., to also in-clude those places where humans live, work,learn, pray, and play (Adamson et al. 2002).

In the next several sections, we considermany of the leading paradigms and theoreticalperspectives that have influenced and shapedenvironmental sociology over the decades, fol-lowed by emerging areas of study with clearrelevance to the field. Each of these traditionsis evolving, but they center on the themes ofinequality, power, human/nonhuman interac-tions, and environmental degradation versussustainability.

POLITICAL ECONOMY

Political economy perspectives within thefield of environmental sociology focus on theeffects of capitalism and modernity on socioe-cological well-being (Foster 1999, Gould et al.2008, O’Connor 1988; for a more in-depthexamination, see Rudel et al. 2011). Many ofthese studies reflect a Marxist viewpoint in thatwhen struggles over the means of productiontend to favor the capitalist classes, they alsoproduce greater ecological damage and masssocial suffering. Thus, this body of research isof great importance for linking inequality toecological harm.

Two competing theoretical perspectiveswithin this tradition are ecological moderniza-tion and the treadmill of production. Ecologicalmodernization contends that, although pro-cesses of modernization and globalization oftenresult in environmental degradation, they alsocan encourage policies and programs designedto improve environmental quality within statepolicy making and corporate practices (Mol2003). Ecological modernization theoristsargue that industrial society has entered a newperiod—that began in the 1980s—marked bynew technologies, innovative entrepreneurs,and farsighted financiers bringing abouta generation of industrial innovation thatcan secure ecologically sustainable futures(Sonnenfeld 2000). In fact, the argumentsuggests that continued modernization isactually necessary for societies to achieveecological sustainability. However, this theorytends to overstate the degree to which insti-tutions and societies have become ecologicallysustainable.

The treadmill of production theory, on theother hand, contends that capitalist economiesbehave like a treadmill; as economic devel-opment intensifies, so does the degree ofecological degradation. Within this model, thecapitalist state underwrites private accumula-tion while also addressing the social upheavalsassociated with that system (falling wages,rising inequalities, structural unemployment,and environmental harm). The logic of such a


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


system dictates that ever greater investmentstoward economic growth will usher in solutionsto the socioecological crises the system causedin the first place. Accordingly, investors, thestate, consumers, and working-class popula-tions intensify their commitment to economicgrowth in order to generate goods for sale onthe market, income for workers, and legitimacyfor nation-states despite the inherent illogicof such an approach (Schnaiberg 1980). Notsurprisingly, ecological modernization scholarscontend that this theory overstates the degreeto which market economies are ecologicallyharmful.

Hence, the debate between the treadmillof production and ecological modernizationcenters on the degree to which industrializedsocieties and modernization are supportive ofecological sustainability. Although much of thescholarship is generally divided between studiesthat find support for one or the other perspec-tive (see, for example, Bonds & Downey 2012,Mol 2003), several studies find partial supportfor both, depending on the context ( Jorgenson& Clark 2012, Mol & Sonnenfeld 2000). Clark& York (2005) argue that one of the majorshortcomings of theories such as the treadmillof production and ecological modernization, aswell as O’Connor’s (1988) second contradic-tion of capitalism (i.e., the tendency for capitalto exhaust the ecological basis of its productionsystem), is that, by limiting their analysis to howmuch human activities disrupt ecosystems, theyfail to take nonhuman natures more seriously.Rather, these theories should also examineecological processes and cycles more closely.Moreover, as Hooks & Smith (2004) note,none of these theories accounts for the deepcommitment to militarism and geopolitics onthe part of dominant nation-states, a commit-ment that produces significant socioecologicalharm as well. We would add that these perspec-tives also fail to take seriously the relationshipbetween market economies and gender, racial,and other inequalities, which are as importantas class inequalities. Thus, these politicaleconomy perspectives narrowly define therole of capitalism by positing that the primary

tension is between economic and ecologicalgoals.

In an exciting development that links en-vironmental sociology to classical theory, theconcept of metabolism has recently been recu-perated by political economy–oriented schol-ars who borrowed it from Marx’s body ofwork. Thus, unlike ecological modernizationand the treadmill of production, the conceptof metabolism directly connects contemporaryenvironmental sociology with classical sociol-ogy. Metabolism refers to the general relation-ship of exchange between human societies andnonhuman natures. The metabolic or ecologi-cal rift indicates the disruptions of ecosystemprocesses and the environmental harm pro-duced by humans in general and capitalism inparticular (Foster et al. 2010). This has dire con-sequences for socioecological inequalities andfor relations that characterize the dominationover nonhuman nature and over human beingsby elites. As Foster et al. (2010, p. 47) write:

This ecological rift is, at bottom, the prod-uct of a social rift: the domination of humanbeing by human being. The driving force isa society based on class, inequality, and ac-quisition without end. . . . No solution to theworld’s ecological problem can be arrived atthat does not take the surmounting of capi-talism, as an imperialist world system, as itsobject.

The metabolic rift is a productive developmentin the field because it connects current researchto classical theory and links sociology with aninterdisciplinary array of scientific literaturesfocused on ecosystem dynamics.

WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY ANDWORLD POLITY THEORY

Taking a more global approach, world systemstheorists contend that the historical economicdevelopment of core (wealthier) nations oc-curred as a result of ecological degradation,social upheavals, and economic underdevel-opment of nations within the global periphery


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(Bunker & Ciccantell 2005). According toworld systems scholars studying ecologicallyunequal exchange, this basic relationshipcontinues in the contemporary era, as wealthynations gain disproportionate access to capitaland externalize the costs of capital accumula-tion onto nations in the Global South (Austin2010). For example, not only are some corenations dumping toxic waste in and exportingthe most hazardous production facilities tothe periphery, they are also extracting energyand other forms of ecological wealth from theperiphery and paying less than market value forit (Rice 2007). In the process, core nations mayappear to be greening their industrial policies,whereas peripheral nations might seem to beless committed to ecological sustainability,but this relationship actually reveals continuedglobal inequalities among nation-states andregions whereby the core has the power andcapacity to outsource its most ecologicallyinjurious practices abroad (Bonds & Downey2012, McKinney 2012).

Research on ecological footprints, or “theamount of biologically productive space. . .tosupport the average individual in a given so-ciety” (York et al. 2003, p. 282), has madeeven further advances in measuring the degreeto which unequal exchange affects nations andecosystems in the world system. These inequal-ities among nations are not only rooted in vastdifferences in gross domestic product and thesize of respective economies, but they are alsomade possible and reinforced by the unevennature of military power ( Jorgenson & Clark2009). Specifically, those nations with greatermilitary power are able to negotiate more favor-able terms of trade, thus increasing their con-sumption and utilization of global ecologicalmaterials. This research is made possible by theimport and use of ecological economics, thusrevealing the interdisciplinary growth withinenvironmental sociology. However, it is dif-ficult to measure ecological effects that occuroutside the boundaries of the nation-state, sug-gesting that some sort of post-state method andorientation could prove useful. Echoing Clark& York’s (2005) critique of various environ-

mental sociological theories that pay insuffi-cient attention to nonhuman ecological pro-cesses, McKinney (2012) encourages scholarsof world systems and unequal exchange to in-corporate knowledge and ideas from the phys-ical sciences in order to realize the promise ofenvironmental sociology and of a more robustsociology more generally.

Overall, political economy perspectiveswithin environmental sociology are criticalto understanding the link between socialinequality and ecological dynamics. Evenso, these theories are fundamentally rootedin a Marxist orientation that does not paysufficient attention to the dynamics of racismand patriarchy in the division of social andenvironmental benefits and costs.

Drawing upon a related theory of glob-alization, world polity scholars—also oftencalled world society scholars—argue thattransnational networks, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), andepistemic communities transmit culturalmodels and ideas constructed in world societyto nation-states and communities. Thesescholars explore the global influences onpro-environmental state policies and, morerecently, global environmental organizations.Unlike many of the previous theories, worldpolity theory emphasizes culture rather thaneconomy, politics, and power.

According to this perspective, the principleof environmental protection became institu-tionalized in world society through modelsthat were constructed and propagated throughglobal cultural processes (see, for example,Frank et al. 2000, Schofer & Hironaka 2005).This world environmental regime then diffusesthese models to nations, as it encourages statesto adopt new environmental laws and policies,and as states and NGOs work to change theviews and behaviors of society, governments,and other actors. Clearly, not every countryobeys the global norms, although over timenorms are theorized to have a major effect onbehavior.

Beyond a focus on policy making, thetransnational structure of the world polity


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


may also influence domestic associations. Forexample, Longhofer & Schofer (2010)examined voluntary associations devoted toenvironmental protection around the globe andfound that environmental destruction is not asignificant predictor of the formation of theseorganizations. Rather, global forces, such asinternational NGOs, are powerful catalystsfor launching environmental associationsin the Global South. Furthermore, ties toglobal forces, such as through membership ininternational environmental NGOs, may alsohelp mitigate environmental harms associatedwith global economic integration ( Jorgensonet al. 2011).

There are several limitations to the worldpolity approach. First, although it emerged inpart as a response to what scholars viewed asworld systems theory’s overly strong empha-sis on political economic power, world polity’sfocus on cultural practices, such as the diffu-sion of environmental protection principles andnorms, often neglects the role of power in thoseprocesses. Second, world polity scholars tend toskirt over the question of agency among nation-states as it concerns the adaptation and articu-lation of environmental protection principles.Finally, the level of analysis is primarily focusedat the nation-state even though arguably mostenvironmental harms are unequally distributedwithin countries.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The global environmental threats associatedwith the political economy and world polityhave measurable effects on the everyday expe-riences of people around the world. Further-more, the material impact of social inequalityis reflected in the highly uneven distribution ofenvironmental harm and privileges in societiesaround the globe, which is the primary con-cern of environmental justice (EJ) studies. EJis, according to the field’s founding scholar, thenotion that all people and communities are en-titled to equal protection under environmen-tal health laws and regulations (Bullard 1996,p. 445). EJ studies emerged as a response to

the need to study the problems of environmen-tal racism and inequality, and although thereare numerous ways to define these concepts,sociologists and other EJ scholars stress thatthey are not fundamentally environmental is-sues. Rather, environmental inequality is firstand foremost a social problem, driven and le-gitimated by social structures and discourses(Hurley 1995, Sze 2007).

EJ scholarship developed in the UnitedStates during the 1970s and 1980s as scholarsrealized that environmental hazards dis-proportionately affect poor communities,communities of color, and other marginalizedpopulations.1 In 1993, Stella Capek intro-duced the EJ frame, which articulates theissue as going well beyond the problem ofdisproportionate hazards; it is about ordinarypeople demanding respect for their grassrootsdefinition of the situation, while gaining accessto democratic processes and power.

Nevertheless, most of the EJ studiesliterature has focused on documenting andexplaining disproportionate hazards, such aslandfills, mines, incinerators, and pollutingfactories. Hundreds of studies have docu-mented that racial minorities, people of lowersocioeconomic status, and other marginalizedcommunities are disproportionately affected bytoxic facilities, largely through their residencebut also through the location of institutions,such as schools (see, for example, Crowder &Downey 2010). As a result of different method-ological approaches, levels of analysis, sourcesof data, geographical locations, and types ofhazards, scholars debate the relative degree towhich environmental inequality exists in vari-ous communities. A plethora of studies of envi-ronmental inequality provide strong evidenceof racial inequalities (Downey 2006, Mohai

1Although EJ studies is relatively new, environmental injus-tice is not. For example, at the core of colonialism were manyenvironmental injustices, as people and land were exploitedfor the benefit of colonizers (Du Bois 1977 [1935]). How-ever, the more recent intensification of global industrial andtechnological production has exacerbated the problems ofenvironmental injustice.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


& Bryant 1992), whereas other studies findevidence that other social categories, such asage, poverty, and class, matter as much or morethan race, depending on the context (Mennis &Jordan 2005, Pastor et al. 2002), and yet othershave found only nominal or no evidence ofenvironmental inequality (Oakes et al. 1996).

Though EJ studies has traditionally focusedon race (and, to a lesser extent, class), soci-ologists have been exploring other intersec-tions of inequality and the environment inmore recent years. For example, gender is acategory that scholars are paying more atten-tion to, as women are often physically andsocially relegated to some of the most toxicresidential and occupational spaces in commu-nities and workplaces—an undertheorized ex-ample of environmental inequality (Pellow &Park 2002). Several recent studies documentthe ways that women experience and resist dis-criminatory environmental policies in work-places, residential communities, and elsewhere(Buckingham & Kulcur 2010). Ironically,women activists in the EJ movement are lesspolitically visible because they tend to work forsmaller, community-based organizations thatrarely make headlines and survive on volun-teer labor and small grants, despite the factthat women form the overwhelming majority ofthe movement’s leadership (Bell & Braun 2010,Brown & Ferguson 1995). Lastly, the verymaterial landscapes being polluted and foughtover in EJ struggles are deeply imbued withmeanings that are gendered, sexualized, and ex-pressed as such in local and global imaginaries,state policies, corporate practices, and activistresistance campaigns (Adamson et al. 2002).

Citizenship, immigration, indigeneity, andnation are also linked to environmental inequal-ities (Taylor 2009). Immigrants in the UnitedStates are more likely than non-immigrants tolive in residential communities with high levelsof pollution (Bullard et al. 2007, Hunter 2000,Mohai & Saha 2007). Ethnographic studies re-veal similar dynamics and demonstrate how ide-ologies of exclusion and nativism support theproduction and maintenance of such an unequalsocioecological terrain (Park & Pellow 2011,

Pellow & Park 2002). Furthermore, in coun-tries throughout the globe, indigenous peoplesare systematically excluded from participationin environmental decision making, evicted fromtheir lands, disproportionately exposed to pol-lution, and restricted from using ecological ma-terials within their territories (Agyeman et al.2010, Smith 2005).

The international trade in hazardous wastesoffers a prime example of global environmentalinequality, and a growing body of research paysattention to the social, cultural, and economicdriving forces behind the waste trade (Clapp2001, Frey 1998). A cursory examination ofthe nations importing waste (legally or illegally)into their borders illustrates that they are gener-ally states on the geopolitical and economic pe-riphery, nations that have endured colonizationand are often populated primarily by people ofcolor; thus, the global waste trade is a form oftransnational environmental inequality that il-luminates stark Global North/South divisions(Pellow 2007).

Climate change also offers a powerfulwindow into the problem of local and globalenvironmental inequality and has thus beentheorized through an EJ lens (Bullard &Wright 2012). For example, EU nations, theUnited States, Canada, Australia, and Russiaare responsible for the vast majority of globalcarbon emissions, whereas sub-Saharan Africais responsible for only 2% (Hoerner & Robin-son 2008). Although they contribute far less tothe causes of climate change, people of color,women, indigenous communities, and GlobalSouth nations often bear the brunt of climatedisruption in terms of ecological, economic,and health burdens—giving rise to the conceptof climate injustice (Roberts & Parks 2007).These communities are among the first toexperience the effects of climate disruption,which can include natural disasters, rising levelsof respiratory illness and infectious disease,heat-related morbidity and mortality, andlarge increases in energy costs. Similarly, in astudy of the microclimate of Phoenix, Arizona,Harlan et al. (2006) find that neighborhoodswith lower median incomes, lower educational


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


attainment, higher poverty rates, and largerpopulations of people of color were also thecity’s most intensely heat-stressed neighbor-hoods, with the fewest resources to cope withsuch environmental conditions. Those neigh-borhoods with higher educational attainment,higher incomes, and larger Anglo populationsexperienced less heat stress because they weremore likely to have air-conditioned homes; tohave roofing materials to reflect rather thanabsorb heat; and to have green space, parks,and vegetation that can provide cooling andheat-mitigation properties. Thus, addressingthe causes of climate change requires a criticalfocus on inequality (Athanasiou & Baer 2002,Roberts & Parks 2007).

EJ studies is becoming more interdisci-plinary, witnessing an extension of researchinto areas of greater theoretical breadth, andexpanding the social categories under consid-eration, particularly with stronger attention togender, sexuality, and, increasingly, nonhumannatures. There is also a greater depth withwhich scholars are envisioning the question ofjustice as it relates to sustainability (Agyeman2005, Harrison 2011, Schlosberg 2007). Whenthe demand for EJ was first declared, muchof the scholarship emphasized distributivejustice. In other words, the focus was onissues of equity regarding the distribution ofenvironmental injury. Recent scholarship hascalled for the literature to move beyond thisdistributive paradigm (Schlosberg 2007), andwhile we concur with the goal of expanding thefield’s orientation, this particular effort risksoverlooking the fact that inequality is at theroot of the problem and that this is inherentlya distributional question. Earlier EJ scholarsactually went to great pains to point out thatthey were not simply advocating a more evenand democratic distribution of industrial pol-lution and other hazards—they wanted to seethe entire system that produced these hazardstransformed (Faber 1998, Hamilton 1993,Schnaiberg 1980, Taylor 1997). Moreover, wecontend that the dynamic nature of distribu-tional politics and impacts has yet to be fullyexplored. For example, environmental inequal-

ity has been defined almost entirely through thelens of environmental disadvantage, whereasenvironmental privilege goes largely unexam-ined (Norgaard 2011, Park & Pellow 2011,Taylor 2009). Environmental privilege allowsaccess to coveted amenities, such as forests,parks, green space, healthy food, coastal prop-erties, and elite neighborhoods. In our view,environmental privilege is the flip side and asource of environmental injustice/inequality.Thus, although many studies seek to documentthe distribution of environmental damage, thedeeper distributional questions around wherepower resides and how privilege drives envi-ronmental injustice are only beginning to beexplored.

RISKS, DISASTERS,AND HAZARDS

Sociological research on risk analysis, disasters,and hazards is extensive and has had broad im-pacts on scholarship inside and outside of theboundaries of sociology and the social sciences.Sociological research on risk can be divided intoseveral subareas, including technological andnatural disasters, among others (see Beamish2002, Kroll-Smith & Couch 1990, Weber &Peek 2012). Prominent examples of technolog-ical risks include reactor meltdowns at nuclearfacilities, toxic leaks and explosions at industrialchemical facilities, and oil spills. Natural disas-ters often include earthquakes, hurricanes, heatwaves, floods, and landslides. We first considertechnological risks.

Much of the research on technologicalrisks underscores that, generally, some groupsimpose risks on others (e.g., the wealthy on thepoor), revealing the importance of power andsocial inequality (Perrow 1984). Sociologistsincreasingly embrace the perspectives that riskis socially constructed and that power and polit-ical economic dynamics play key roles through-out any struggle over such risks (Freudenburg& Pastor 1992, Tierney 1999). Some of themost exciting research on technological risksand hazards focuses on grassroots responsesto such threats by individuals, community


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


organizations, and social movements that chal-lenge the state’s and/or industry’s definition ofthe risk situation and its implications (Brown2007, Widener 2011). For example, in Brown’s(2007) study of social responses to breast can-cer, asthma, and Gulf War–related illness, hefound that, across the United States, scientistsand community activists are collaboratingto challenge the dominant epidemiologicalparadigm, which emphasizes individual, be-havioral, and genetic causes of illness to theneglect of other possible causes. Activists andscientists counter the dominant epidemiolog-ical paradigm by articulating an alternativepublic paradigm—a framework that empha-sizes broader social structural, technological,and environmental factors in the production ofillness and a claim that the public has a stake inthe direction and outcome of scientific studies.

A well-known theoretical perspective inthis literature is the “risk society” (Beck 1995).According to Beck and others, ecological risksare deeply embedded in modern society and areubiquitous, extremely damaging, yet frequentlydifficult to measure (Beck 1995). Their exis-tence and effects require expert knowledge, andeven then, because the sources of these risksare so diffuse, it is difficult to assign blame ordevelop policies that would address the prob-lem (Benton 2002). Beck (1995) argues thatrisks adhere to the pattern of class inequality,with the wealthy living in relatively safe envi-ronments, but contends that, in the long run,all people face the new hazards associated withmodernity. Even so, many scholars find thatthe undemocratic power of private capital overthe state, scientific research, and the public isat the root of the problem of risk (Gould 2012).

The approach that other leading scholars(Canan & Reichman 2002, Giddens 1990) bringto risk and modernity is quite different: Theytend to place greater trust in scientific expertise,actors, and institutions in the effort to manageand reduce risks on a global scale. For example,the Montreal Protocol for the Elimination ofOzone Depleting Substances is perhaps themost successful example of international envi-ronmental decision making on record. Canan

& Reichman (2002) find that the protocolwas the product of several factors, includingpersistent advocacy by leading scientists. Thisdebate reveals two views of modernity: one thatembraces the rise of technological and scientificprowess and another that sees it as imposingrisks on populations and nonhuman natureswithout consent (Alario & Freudenburg 2003).2

Both perspectives may tend to overstate theircase, and there are abundant examples in whichtechnological risks produce great benefitsas well as in which ordinary people—notexperts—manage and negotiate the risk societyin ways that suggest that much more agencyand power is being exercised from below.

The sociology of risk overlaps with and isclosely related to the field of natural disastersand hazards research because these areasof study explore the origins and impacts ofexternal events that disrupt everyday socialbehavior. Generally, sociological research ondisasters asserts that these phenomena haveroot causes in societal actions. Much of the re-search has fallen under the hazards adjustmentparadigm, which posits that people choosehow to adjust to hazards and seek to reducehazard-related losses. As Peek & Mileti (2002)note, this literature examines disasters fromfour angles: preparedness, response, recovery,and mitigation. Contrary to most of the recentsociological work on disasters, much of thepolicy-oriented research on this topic has takenan approach that treats disasters as originatingin atmospheric processes. However, thisliterature has been criticized for artificiallyseparating the natural and social aspects ofdisasters and for deemphasizing the view thatdisasters originate from social actions andconditions (Burby 2006). We concur, as the in-separability of human and nonhuman natures isat the foundation of environmental sociology.

With regard to defining disasters, realistand event-based perspectives in which disas-ters are seen as distinct events have largely

2In many ways, this debate mirrors the ecologicalmodernization–versus–treadmill debate.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


dominated hazards research. However, thefield has increasingly included constructivistperspectives that claim that the notion ofdisaster is socially constructed through media,politically organized responses, policies, andother forces (Aronoff & Gunter 1992). Forexample, Dynes (2000) illustrates that interpre-tations of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake reflectedongoing strains and tensions over challengesto traditional ideas and institutions in Europeat that time. Furthermore, in his researchon the 1995 Chicago heat wave, Klinenberg(2002) shows that extreme natural eventscan cause many deaths without being labeleddisasters, which illustrates the importance thatproperty damage holds in dominant definitionsof disaster (Tierney 2007). Moreover, otherscholars have begun to argue that rather thandefining disasters as nonroutine events, theyshould be understood as normal, commonoccurrences that reflect societal characteristics(Pellig 2003). A drawback of such an approach,however, is that it can lead to the view thatdisasters should receive less attention than theymerit or that they are unwieldy problems withfew viable policy solutions.

Scholars have also analyzed the socialdimensions of disasters, as they often reflectand reinforce inequalities and divisions withinsociety. In one example of how gender influ-ences risk perception, behavior, and the impactof disasters, Seager (2012) noted that duringHurricane Katrina, women were less likely tohave a car or a driver’s license, limiting theirmobility (see also Ariyabandu 2006, Enarson& Morrow 1998). Klinenberg (2002) alsoillustrates that disasters magnify and reproduceinequalities, and comprehensive reviews of theliterature have shown that poverty (Fothergill& Peek 2004) and ethnicity and race (Fothergillet al. 1999) reflect, produce, and influenceinequalities across the social dimensions ofdisasters. However, as Tierney (2007) notes,the field was slow to recognize key sociologicalconcepts pertaining to inequality. Further-more, the field has largely been uncriticalof government and other institutional re-sponses to perceived disasters, perhaps due

to the institutions’ cooperation in research,and has privileged the disaster narratives ofofficial organizations rather than those ofsurvivors and community-based groups. Inrecent years, the field has begun to respond tothese critiques, though more work that takesseriously inequality and other narratives isneeded.

BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OFENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY

In this section, we offer ideas for avenuesof scholarship that, while not central to thefield, have contributed and/or could contributeto important interventions and generativeresearch possibilities. We cover researchconducted by sociologists, though we alsoconsciously build on Goldman & Schurman’s(2000) Annual Review of Sociology article thatmoved well outside the boundaries of envi-ronmental sociology to explore and suggestproductive routes for strengthening the field.Each of the following areas of scholarship isattentive to and raises key questions aboutthe role of power and social inequality in theproduction of environmental outcomes as wellas the inseparability of human and nonhumannatures.

Deep Ecology and Social Ecology

Several other environmental studies perspec-tives outside of sociology have influenced thefield’s core ideas and development. In the early1970s, the Norwegian activist philosopherArne Naess introduced the environmentalphilosophy known as deep ecology, whichsees humans as merely a single species on aplanet with millions of other species that haveintrinsic value. Naess contrasted deep ecologywith what he called shallow ecology, whichseeks to protect and/or improve the health andaffluence of humans in industrialized countries(Naess 1973). Deep ecology, by contrast,seeks a shift in Western values, pushing theWestern concept of the self from anthropocen-trism toward biocentrism—an approach that


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


decenters human beings entirely (see Devall &Sessions 1985).

Deep ecology focuses on targeting Westerncultural values and on the need to reduce thesize of the world’s human population to achievesustainability (Scarce 2006, pp. 337–38). Thatfocus on population size ironically reveals a ma-jor Western cultural bias because the targetsare generally non-Western societies, which aredescribed as nations with high fertility ratesand the primary sources of immigration to theWest (Smith 2005). Moreover, this perspectivedoes not place adequate emphasis on the ex-traordinary ecological impact of consumptionand production by Western nation-states andcorporations. It is also open to critique fromfeminist theorists and activists who point out(a) that an antipopulation growth perspectivetends to view women of color and women fromthe Global South as primary drivers of ecologi-cal crises, and (b) that there is no critical genderanalysis within deep ecology even though muchof ecological injustice affects women and menin vastly different ways and, according to somescholars, a masculinist worldview is largely re-sponsible for many of our environmental prob-lems (see Scarce 2006, p. 39; Smith 2005).

Social ecology is another perspective thathas strong affinities with environmental soci-ology. According to its founder, philosopherMurray Bookchin, hierarchy within humansociety predates and is at the root of the humandomination and control of nature (Bookchin2005). Thus, social ecology calls for theeradication of hierarchy in order to produceecologically sustainable societies marked byegalitarianism and cooperative, communalorganization (Bookchin 1996). In a keen socio-logical insight, Bookchin insisted that all envi-ronmental problems are social problems at rootand therefore must be confronted collectively.

Sociologists have largely ignoredBookchin’s work (White 2008). In a re-cent book, however, sociologist Bob Torreswrites that Bookchin offers a powerful thesisbecause social “[e]cology poses questions thaturge us to think not about piecemeal solutions,but about how we might restructure the entirety

of society along ecological lines,” and that“[o]nly by reorganizing society along radicallyantihierarchical lines, might we live in naturerather than above nature” (Torres 2007, p. 81).

However, Bookchin’s writings are, for somecritics, problematic for their lack of a feministanalysis and for their overall masculinistorientation (Birkeland 1993). Specifically,ecofeminist scholars have challenged socialecology for being less attentive to gender, sex-uality, race, and other forms of social differencethat are frequently not respected in the kindsof small communal groups in which Bookchininvests so much hope (MacGregor 2006).

Ecological Feminism

Much like deep ecology, ecofeminism—whichfirst emerged in the 1970s—proposes a theoryand politics that recognize human interde-pendency with all other beings. However,some ecofeminists charge that deep ecologynaively encourages a oneness or boundary-freerelationship among living beings in a way thatignores actual social differences and historiesof exploitation (Warren 1990). Ecofeminismis an umbrella term that encapsulates a rangeof perspectives whose “basic premise is thatthe ideology which authorizes oppressionssuch as those based on race, class, gender,sexuality, physical abilities, and species is thesame ideology which sanctions the oppressionof nature” (Gaard 1993, p. 1). What makesecofeminism a distinct body of ideas is its po-sition that nonhuman nature and dominionism(i.e., domination over nonhuman nature) arefeminist concerns (Warren 1997b, p. 4). Mostecofeminist writings are outside the boundariesof sociology, although they have increasinglybeen influential in the work of social scientists.For example, in interviews with environmen-talists in British Columbia, Stoddart & Tindall(2011) explore the empirical evidence forecofeminist politics. Indeed, they find evidencethat environmentalists are increasingly focusedon the problem of hegemonic masculinity—those ideologies and practices associated withdominant constructions of masculinity.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Some scholars view ecofeminism as theleading edge of the third wave of feministtheory and politics because it questions thelogic of domination that its proponents believeundergirds all forms of oppression rooted indualistic thought, thus offering a frameworkthat might conceivably unite people acrossnumerous social and cultural divides (Smith2005, Warren 1990). Although dominatedby white female scholars, ecofeminism hasstrongly embraced an antiracist politics (Mies& Bennholdt-Thomsen 1999) and solidaritywith indigenous peoples (Gaard 2001), albeitoften through problematic approaches thatsometimes impose ecofeminism on women-of-color environmental activists and romanticizeindigenous women’s lives (Sturgeon 1997,Taylor 1997). Furthermore, though ecofem-inists have not consistently incorporatednonhuman animals in their analyses (see Gaard1993, p. 6), many others have done so and haveinspired scholars and activists to expand thescope of the logic of domination across species(Plumwood 2000). Recent writings by ecolog-ical feminists have linked this body of workmore substantially to postmodern and post-structuralist theory (Alaimo 2000, Armbruster2000) and queer theory (Gaard 2004).

Although ecofeminism has evolved over theyears into a mature scholarly literature, it runsthe risk of being overly ambitious and unwieldy.As leading ecofeminist scholar Val Plumwoodputs it, “opposing all forms of oppression is atall order, much more easily proclaimed thanachieved” (Plumwood 2000, p. 287). Even so,no other area of scholarship has attempted toexplicitly address as many forms of social dif-ference and inequality into one intellectual andpolitical project as has ecofeminism.

Environmental Criminology

In a long line of the criminalization of socialbehaviors, ecological violence has recently be-come thought of and theorized as a crime (see,for example, Lynch & Stretesky 2003, South1998, White 2003, Williams 2009 [1996]).Environmental criminology—also called green

criminology3—explicitly explores the act ofecological violence as criminal and, morerecently, examines the influence of ecologicalviolence on crime. As an emergent area ofscholarship, it also pushes the boundaries ofcriminology to consider global issues. Recentscholarship demonstrates that environmentalcrime can take many forms, such as the practiceof bio-piracy, the illegal disposal of radioactivewaste, or noncompliance with regulationsgoverning fisheries (White 2009).

For some scholars, environmental crimesare violations of laws regarding air pollution,deforestation, water pollution, species decline,or other areas subject to criminal prosecutionand sanctions (Situ & Emmons 2000). How-ever, we also recognize that, as with otherforms of crime, environmental crimes are so-cial constructions that invoke different mean-ings across populations. For example, numer-ous issues reviewed in the earlier discussionon EJ have been conceptualized as criminalby criminologists, many of whom embrace theEJ framework (Lynch & Stretesky 2003, South1998). Drawing upon an EJ perspective, Lynch& Stretesky (2003) argue that environmentalcrime may or may not violate existing laws.Rather than focusing solely on violations of reg-ulations and laws, they maintain that criminol-ogists should explore how overlapping forms ofrace, class, gender, and power inequities influ-ence the social construction of environmentallaws in the first place. We concur with Lynch& Stretesky because, increasingly, environmen-tal crimes may best be understood in terms ofjustice, rooted in notions of human, nonhumananimal, and ecological rights that exist far be-yond the boundaries of the state.

Different philosophies concerning human/nonhuman nature interactions have influencedthe various frameworks that criminologists

3Although environmental criminology is used interchange-ably with green criminology, we prefer the former term.Note also that these crimes are different from crimes asso-ciated with insurgent grassroots environmental movements,such as ecological sabotage, which is intended to protect theenvironment.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


draw upon and, in turn, their conceptions ofvictims and perpetrators (Halsey & White 2009[1998]). Within these frameworks, humans,nonhuman animals, and ecosystems could beconceptualized as victims of environmentalcrimes (for an in-depth essay on environmen-tal victimology, see Williams 2009 [1996]).Indeed, environmental damage also often in-volves the exploitation of people (Friedrichs &Friedrichs 2009 [2002]). In the literature, thoseactors considered perpetrators of environmen-tal crimes also vary, though most research hasfocused on corporations (Simon 2009 [2000],Szasz 1986). This corporate-centered focus isimportant but limited because governmentsroutinely perpetrate acts that are injurious toecosystems and their inhabitants. The needfor greater attention to government-initiatedenvironmental crime is underscored by thefact that the legal system is part of the stateapparatus and may be, at times, constructed toobscure and protect such activity.

Beyond the criminalization of ecologicalviolence, other areas of environmental crimi-nology explore how ecological violence influ-ences behavior deemed criminal (Wachholz2007, White 2009). For example, Agnew(2012) proposes that climate change mayinfluence crimes at the individual, corporate,and state levels. Drawing upon strain theory, heargues that climate change may influence thestrain that individuals feel through exposure tovarious frustrations and stressors, such as an un-comfortable rise in temperatures, an increasedfrequency and intensity of extreme weatherevents, or food and water shortages. Agnewand others, including sociologists who do notconsider themselves criminologists (such aspolitical sociologists), also link climate changeto increased social conflict, including conflictwithin states and interstate conflict (Rubin2010). Such conflict could result from compe-tition over scarce resources (e.g., food, water,arable land), forced migration, or myriad othermechanisms, and the conflict itself could takethe form of small intrastate skirmishes, civil war,or perhaps even genocide. However, Agnew(2012) notes that the effects of climate change

are more likely to lead to localized conflictsrather than to civil wars and interstate clashes.

Importantly, there is a lack of peer-reviewedresearch on violent conflict and environmentalcrime because most research is taking placewithin think tanks, government centers,and other organizations that have explored itthrough the lens of security. Furthermore, evenwithin sociology, there is a dearth of researchconcerning the environmental factors associ-ated with armed conflict, something we proposewill become increasingly important for futuresociologists to undertake, particularly as theeffects of climate change intensify. Finally, wesuggest that environmental criminology mightmake serious theoretical and methodologicalefforts to articulate crime outside the restrictiveboundaries of state-based legal discourses.

Social Movements

The study of social movements is hardly new,and many environmental sociologists regu-larly engage this topic. Here we focus on anemerging and promising area of study on socialmovements on the radical edge of ecologicalpolitics. Many waves of social movements havearisen to address socioenvironmental crises(Brulle 2000), several of which draw upon theparadigms we have reviewed in this article. Al-though much has been written about the moremainstream social movements and organiza-tions (such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club)that seek to reform social systems that con-tribute to environmental crises, comparativelyless has been written about radical ecologicalmovements. These movements target whatthey view as the root cause of socioenviron-mental degradation—ideologies that naturalizedomination, such as speciesism and domin-ionism, and authoritarian institutions thatsupport those ideologies, such as the state andcapitalism (Best & Nocella 2006, Scarce 2006).This lack of attention to these social forcesmay be due, in part, to the comparativelysmall size and reduced public visibility of thesemovements. However, the emergence of EarthFirst and the Earth and Animal Liberation


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Fronts in the 1980s and 1990s marked a newstage in the development of ecological politicsin the United States that involved forms ofradical analysis and action that had rarelybeen seen in environmental or animal rightsmovements until that point. By the late 1990s,segments of these movements were convergingaround new ideas and tactics in the UnitedStates and abroad, resulting in a broaderdiscourse that linked ecology, social justice,and animal rights—an intersection of intereststhat we propose merits greater attention infuture research. These movements’ adherentsbelieve that the exploitation of ecosystems andnonhuman species calls for immediate, directaction. They reject structured, bureaucraticapproaches and instead target what theysee as the roots of the problem. Throughdirect actions and the discourse that supportsthem, activists question what they view as theviolence of human inequality, capitalism, statepower, and speciesism. Even so, although thesemovements purportedly reject all forms of hi-erarchy, they also frequently reinforce humandominance, whiteness, and middle-class urbanapproaches to politics because their leadershipand constituents come from those populations.Overall, sociologists have demonstrated someinterest in these movements, but not nearlythe depth of consideration that is warranted(Ingalsbee 1996).

Labor and the Environment

If many environmental sociologists are con-cerned with the production of ecological risk,then a core site of such activity is the workplace.Accordingly, one direction that some environ-mental sociologists have considered is to inte-grate the insights of this field with labor stud-ies and the sociology of work and occupations(Abbott 1993). As an area of scholarship thathas redefined the environment as those spaceswhere we live, work, and play, EJ studies af-fords us the opportunity to theoretically bridgewhat urban planner Robert Gottlieb (2001,p. 281) terms the “work/environment divide”—that gap in our cultural lexicon that produces

a disconnect between spaces and discourses ofwork and ecology. How might reframing theworkplace as a site of environmental concernand struggle shape the future of the field? En-vironmental sociologists might consider mak-ing deeper links to labor and the workplace forseveral reasons. First, numerous studies con-clude that workplaces—like residential areas—are places where people of color and low-income persons frequently face a dispropor-tionately high burden of toxics (Bullard &Wright 1993). Perhaps this is not surprising,as these populations have historically occupiedthe lowest status, highest risk, and lowest payingjobs in the United States. We also know that,from historical research and public health stud-ies, the workplace is a site where many peopleare first exposed to toxics and other pollutants(Hurley 1995). Furthermore, the level and in-tensity of exposure to toxics at work is oftenmuch greater than that experienced by personsliving in homes nearby (and of course, in manycases the home is the workplace).

Moreover, students of environmentalsociology and social movements might havea particularly pronounced interest in thistopic for two reasons. First, cross-movementcoalitions between labor and environmentalmovements are undertheorized and largelyignored in the academic literature, thoughthey are of inherent importance to developinga deeper understanding of the politics andpossibilities of intermovement collaborations(see Obach 2004). Second, research on labor-environment coalitions finds that they succeedwhen they frame their concerns around broadnotions of health (Mayer 2008). There is abudding area of scholarship at the intersectionof environmental sociology, labor, medicalsociology, and social movements (Brown2007), and we suggest that this is an excitingnexus of ideas, methods, and theoretical work.

Critical Animal Studies

Lastly, if environmental sociologists are con-cerned with the implications of the insepara-ble relationship between human and nonhuman


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


natures, then a fruitful area of study is researchon animal-human relations. An emerging fieldthat environmental sociology is already cross-ing paths with is Critical Animal Studies (CAS).CAS is a field that differs significantly from tra-ditional Animal Studies—the area of scholar-ship associated with agriculture and experimen-tal research on nonhuman animals (Best et al.2007). CAS is something entirely different inthat it is dedicated to the abolition of animal andecological exploitation and advances the claimthat there is a commonality of oppressions,such that speciesism, sexism, racism, ableism,statism, classism, militarism, and other hier-archical ideologies and institutions are linked(Torres 2007, Twine 2012). CAS is interdisci-plinary, antihierarchical, and anarchist in thatit rejects reformist, single-issue, nation-based,legislative perspectives on social change. It ex-plores how multiple forms of inequality and op-pression work together to produce the presentsocial terrain in which humans and nonhumanscoexist and asks what can be done to challengesuch arrangements (Best 2009).

CAS is a close relative of ecofeminism andowes some intellectual debt to the deep ecologyand social ecology traditions (Bookchin 2005,Devall & Sessions 1985). It is also part ofthe growing scholarly and political move-ment to articulate a posthumanist critiqueof the academy and society (Cushing 2003).These scholars reject a humanism rooted inspeciesism (i.e., human dominance over otherspecies) and dominionism (human dominanceover nonhuman natures) that reflect, for mostof us, the unexamined and unearned privilegesof membership in the human species. In theirview, the future well-being of humanity isnecessarily bound up with the future well-being of other species and ecosystems. Thatobservation is one of the fundamental lessonsthat Karl Marx’s analysis of the metabolic riftpresents us as well (Marx 1974, 1976, 1981).Finally, CAS has strong affinities with therecent growth and resurgence of interest inanarchist or autonomist theory (see Smith2011). Both environmental sociology andsocial movement theory (and for that matter,

sociology generally) are deeply state-centric intheir orientation toward theorizing and imag-ining social change. And although the state hasclearly been a critical element in the way socialchange unfolds throughout modern history,anarchist and autonomist theories remind usthat there are antiauthoritarian and antihierar-chical ways of governing and making decisionsthat have worked well at various scales for manygroups across numerous societies (Scott 2009).These scholars challenge conventional formsof governance via states out of a concern thatsuch forms of power are often authoritarianand predisposed to exercising what Max Webercalled a monopoly on violence (Weber 2004).Of course, there are numerous theoretical andmethodological challenges and weaknesses tosuch approaches, and their promise can onlybe realized after years of careful and rigorousanalysis and debate.

CONCLUSION

Environmental sociology has entered thetwenty-first century as one of the most promis-ing fields of inquiry within the discipline. Fourdecades since its founding, scholars in this fieldare steadily moving sociology forward in the-oretically and methodologically exciting direc-tions. Furthermore, classical theorists such asMax Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marxare now recognized as early environmental soci-ologists, thus lending greater visibility and sta-tus to the field as a central sociological enter-prise. Both Weber and Marx articulated muchof the core environmental sociological projectby emphasizing the perils associated with thepower of states and capital in the productionof social inequality and differential life chancesacross human and nonhuman populations, andtogether with Durkheim, they acknowledgedthe inseparability of human and nonhuman na-tures. Environmental sociology’s future is in-extricably tied to the future of the discipline ofsociology, and both will gain greater presence inthe academy as they more deeply embrace inter-disciplinarity and critical challenges that otherfields have yet to resolve.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Wesley Longhofer, Rebecca Stepnitz, Karen Cook, and an anonymous external reviewerfor their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

LITERATURE CITED

Abbott A. 1993. The sociology of work and occupations. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 19:187–209Adamson J, Evans MM, Stein R, eds. 2002. The Environmental Justice Reader: Politics, Poetics, and Pedagogy.

Tucson: Univ. Ariz. PressAgnew R. 2012. Dire forecast: a theoretical model of the impact of climate change on crime. Theor. Criminol.

16(1):21–42Agyeman J. 2005. Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. New York: NYU PressAgyeman J, Cole P, Haluza-DeLay R, O’Riley P, eds. 2010. Speaking for Ourselves: Environmental Justice in

Canada. Seattle: Univ. Wash. PressAlaimo S. 2000. Undomesticated Ground: Recasting Nature as Feminist Space. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. PressAlario M, Freudenburg WR. 2003. The paradoxes of modernity: scientific advances, environmental problems,

and risks to the social fabric? Sociol. Forum 18(2):193–214Ariyabandu MM. 2006. Gender issues in recovery from the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: the case

of Sri Lanka. Earthq. Spectra 22(S3):759–75Armbruster K. 2000. Book review of: Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory, and Political Action;

Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature; and: Feminism and Ecology. Fem. Format. 12(1):210–16Aronoff M, Gunter V. 1992. It’s hard to keep a good town down: local recovery efforts in the aftermath of

toxic contamination. Organ. Environ. 6(2):83–97Athanasiou T, Baer P. 2002. Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming. New York: Seven StoriesAustin KF. 2010. Soybean exports and deforestation from a world-systems perspective: a cross-national inves-

tigation of comparative disadvantage. Sociol. Q. 51(3):511–36Beamish T. 2002. Silent Spill: The Organization of Industrial Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressBeck U. 1995. Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society. Amherst, NY: Humanity BooksBell SE, Braun Y. 2010. Coal, identity and the gendering of environmental justice activism in central Ap-

palachia. Gend. Soc. 24(6):794–813Benton T. 2002. Social theory and ecological politics: reflexive modernization or green socialism? In Sociological

Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights, ed. RE Dunlap, FH Buttel, PDickens, A Gijswijt, pp. 252–73. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Best S. 2009. The rise of critical animal studies: putting theory into action and animal liberation into highereducation. J. Crit. Anim. Stud. 7(1):9–54

Best S, Nocella A, eds. 2006. Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth. Oakland, CA: AK PressBest S, Nocella A, Kahn R, Gigliotti C, Kemmerer L. 2007. Introducing critical animal studies. J. Crit. Anim.

Stud. 5:3–4Birkeland J. 1993. Ecofeminism: linking theory and practice. In Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, and Nature, ed.

G Gaard, pp. 13–59. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. PressBonds E, Downey L. 2012. “Green” technology and ecologically unequal exchange: the environmental and

social consequences of ecological modernization in the world-system. J. World Syst. Res. 18(2):167–86Bookchin M. 1996. Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal, Can.: Black Rose BooksBookchin M. 2005. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK PressBorden RJ. 2008. A brief history of SHE: reflections on the founding and first twenty-five years of the Society

for Human Ecology. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 15(1):95–108


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Boyce JK. 2008. Is inequality bad for the environment? Res. Soc. Probl. Public Policy 15:267–88Brown P. 2007. Toxic Exposures: Contested Illnesses and the Environmental Health Movement. New York: Columbia

Univ. PressBrown P, Ferguson F. 1995. “Making a big stink”: women’s work, women’s relationships, and toxic waste

activism. Gend. Soc. 9:145–72Brulle RJ. 2000. Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory

Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressBuckingham S, Kulcur R. 2010. Gendered geographies of environmental justice. In Spaces of Environmental

Justice, ed. R Holifield, M Porter, G Walker, pp. 70–94. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-BlackwellBullard RD. 1996. Symposium: the legacy of American apartheid and environmental racism. St. John’s J. Legal

Comment. 9:445–74Bullard RD, Mohai P, Saha R, Wright B. 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987–2007. New York: United

Church ChristBullard RD, Wright B. 1993. The effects of occupational injury, illness, and disease on the health status

of Black Americans: a review. In Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice, ed. RHofrichter, pp. 153–62. Philadelphia: New Soc.

Bullard RD, Wright B. 2012. The Wrong Complexion for Protection: How the Government Response to DisasterEndangers African American Communities. New York: NYU Press

Bunker SG, Ciccantell PS. 2005. Globalization and the Race for Resources. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ.Press

Burby RJ. 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: bringing about wisegovernmental decisions for hazardous areas. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 604:171–91

Buttel FH. 2002. Environmental sociology and the classical sociological tradition: some observations on cur-rent controversies. In Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights,ed. RE Dunlap, FH Buttel, P Dickens, A Gijswijt, pp. 35–50. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Canan P. 1996. Bringing nature back in: the challenge of environmental sociology. Sociol. Inq. 66(1):29–37Canan P, Reichman N. 2002. Ozone Connections: Expert Networks in Global Environmental Governance. Sheffield,

UK: GreenleafCapek S. 1993. The “environmental justice” frame: a conceptual discussion and an application. Soc. Probl.

40(1):5–24Catton WR. 1982. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana: Univ. Ill. PressCatton WR, Dunlap RE. 1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. Am. Behav. Sci.

24:15–48Clapp J. 2001. Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous Wastes from Rich to Poor Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

Univ. PressClark B, York R. 2005. Carbon metabolism: global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric rift. Theory

Soc. 34:391–428Crowder K, Downey L. 2010. Inter-neighborhood migration, race, and environmental hazards: modeling

micro-level processes of environmental inequality. Am. J. Sociol. 115(4):1110–49Cushing S. 2003. Against ‘humanism’: speciesism, personhood, and preference. J. Soc. Philos. 34(4):556–71Devall B, Sessions G. 1985. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs M. SmithDowney L. 2006. Environmental racial inequality in Detroit. Soc. Forces 85(2):771–96Du Bois WEB. 1977 (1935). Black Reconstruction: An Essay Toward a History of the Part which Black Folk Played

in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880. New York: AtheneumDunlap RE, Catton WR Jr. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 5:243–73Dunlap RE, Michelson W, eds. 2002. Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Westport, CT: GreenwoodDunlap RE, Van Liere KD. 1978. The new environmental paradigm. J. Environ. Educ. 9:10–19Dunlap RE, York R. 2008. The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist

explanation: evidence from four cross-national surveys. Sociol. Q. 49:529–63Durkheim E. 1950. The Rules of the Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. 8th ed.Dynes RR. 2000. The dialogue between Voltaire and Rousseau on the Lisbon earthquake: the emergence of

a social science view. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 18:97–115


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Enarson E, Morrow BH, eds. 1998. The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes. Westport, CT:Praeger

Faber D. 1998. The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States. NewYork: Guilford

Foster JB. 1999. Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: classical foundations for environmental sociology. Am. J.Sociol. 105(2):366–405

Foster JB, Clark B, York R. 2010. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth. New York: Mon. Rev.Press

Foster JB, Holleman H. 2012. Weber and the environment: classical foundations for a post exemptionalistsociology. Am. J. Sociol. 117(6):1625–73

Fothergill A, Maestas E, Darlington J. 1999. Race, ethnicity, and disasters in the United States: a review ofthe literature. Disasters 23(2):156–73

Fothergill A, Peek L. 2004. Poverty and disasters in the United States: a review of recent sociological findings.Nat. Hazards 32:89–110

Frank DJ, Hironaka A, Schofer E. 2000. The nation-state and the natural environment over the twentiethcentury. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:96–116

Freudenburg WR. 2009. Sociology’s rediscovery of the environment: setting the stage. Sociol. Inq. 79(4):505–8Freudenburg WR, Frickel S, Gramling R. 1995. Beyond the nature/society divide: learning to think about a

mountain. Sociol. Forum 10:361–92Freudenburg WR, Pastor SK. 1992. Public responses to technological risks: toward a sociological perspective.

Sociol. Q. 33(3):389–412Frey RS. 1998. The export of hazardous industries to the peripheral zones of the world-system. J. Dev. Soc.

41:66–81Friedrichs DO, Friedrichs J. 2009 (2002). The World Bank and crimes of globalization: a case study. See

White 2009, pp. 131–50Gaard G. 1993. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, and Nature. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. PressGaard G. 2001. Tools for a cross-cultural feminist ethics: exploring ethical contexts and contents in the Makah

whale hunt. Hypatia 16(1):1–26Gaard G. 2004. Toward a queer ecofeminism. In New Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality,

and Activism, ed. R Stein, pp. 21–44. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. PressGibson JW. 2009. A Reenchanted World: The Quest for a New Kinship with Nature. New York: Henry HoltGiddens A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressGoldman M, Schurman R. 2000. Closing the ‘great divide’: new social theory on society and nature. Annu.

Rev. Sociol. 26:563–84Gottlieb R. 2001. Environmentalism Unbound: Exploring New Pathways for Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGould KA. 2012. Unsustainable science in the treadmill of production. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol.

Assoc., August, Denver, COGould KA, Pellow DN, Schnaiberg A. 2008. The Treadmill of Production: Injustice and Unsustainability in the

Global Economy. Boulder, CO: ParadigmHalsey M, White R. 2009 (1998). Crime, ecophilosophy, and environmental harm. See White 2009, pp. 27–49Hamilton C. 1993. Coping with industrial exploitation. In Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the

Grassroots, ed. RD Bullard, pp. 63–76. Boston: South End PressHaraway DJ. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: RoutledgeHarlan SL, Brazel AJ, Prashad L, Stefanov WL, Larsen L. 2006. Neighborhood microclimates and vulnera-

bility to heat stress. Soc. Sci. Med. 63:2847–63Harrison JL. 2011. Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressHoerner JA, Robinson N. 2008. A Climate of Change: African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate

Policy. Oakland, CA: Environ. Justice Clim. Change Initiat.Hooks G, Smith CL. 2004. The treadmill of destruction: national sacrifice areas and Native Americans. Am.

Sociol. Rev. 69(4):558–75Hunter L. 2000. The spatial association between U.S. immigrant residential concentration and environmental

hazards. Int. Migr. Rev. 34(2):460–88


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Hurley A. 1995. Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945–1980.Chapel Hill: Univ. N.C. Press

Ingalsbee T. 1996. Earth First! activism: ecological postmodern praxis in radical environmental identities.Sociol. Perspect. 39(2):263–76

Jorgenson AK, Clark B. 2009. The economy, military, and ecologically unequal exchange relationships incomparative perspective: a panel study of the ecological footprints of nations, 1975–2000. Soc. Probl.56(4):621–46

Jorgenson AK, Clark B. 2012. Are the economy and the environment decoupling? A comparative internationalstudy, 1960–2005. Am. J. Sociol. 118(1):1–44

Jorgenson AK, Dick C, Shandra JM. 2011. World economy, world society, and environmental harm in less-developed countries. Sociol. Inq. 81(1):53–87

Klinenberg E. 2002. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressKroll-Smith JS, Couch SR. 1990. The Real Disaster Is Above Ground: A Mine Fire and Social Conflict. Lexington:

Univ. Press Ky.Laska SB. 1993. Environmental sociology and the state of the discipline. Soc. Forces 72(1):1–17Longhofer W, Schofer E. 2010. National and global origins of environmental association. Am. Sociol. Rev.

75(4):505–33Lynch MJ, Stretesky PB. 2003. The meaning of green: contrasting criminological perspectives. Theor. Criminol.

7(2):217–38MacGregor S. 2006. Beyond Mothering Earth: Ecological Citizenship and the Politics of Care. Toronto: UBC PressMarx K. 1974. Early Writings. New York: VintageMarx K. 1976. Capital, Vol. 1. New York: VintageMarx K. 1981. Capital, Vol. 3. New York: VintageMayer B. 2008. Blue-Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy Communities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

Univ./ILR PressMcCright AM, Dunlap RE. 2008. Social movement identity and belief systems: an examination of beliefs

about environmental problems within the general public. Public Opin. Q. 72:651–76McKinney L. 2012. Entropic disorder: new frontiers in environmental sociology. Sociol. Perspect. 55(2):295–317Mennis J, Jordan L. 2005. The distribution of environmental equity: exploring spatial nonstationarity in

multivariate models of air toxic releases. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 95:249–68Merchant C. 2005. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. New York: RoutledgeMies M, Bennholdt-Thomsen V. 1999. The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalized Economy. London: Zed

BooksMohai P, Bryant B. 1992. Environmental racism: reviewing the evidence. In Race and the Incidence of Environ-

mental Hazards: A Time for Discourse, ed. B Bryant, P Mohai, pp. 163–76. Boulder, CO: WestviewMohai P, Saha R. 2007. Racial inequality in the distribution of hazardous waste: a national-level reassessment.

Soc. Probl. 54(3):343–70Mol A. 2003. Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy.

Cambridge, MA: MIT PressMol A, Sonnenfeld D, eds. 2000. Ecological Modernisation Around the World: Perspectives and Critical Debates.

London: RoutledgeMoore DS, Kosek J, Pandian A, eds. 2003. Race, Nature, and the Politics of Difference. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.

PressNaess A. 1973. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Inquiry 16:95–100Norgaard KM. 2011. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT

PressOakes JM, Anderton DL, Anderson AB. 1996. A longitudinal analysis of environmental equity in communities

with hazardous waste facilities. Soc. Sci. Res. 25:125–48Obach B. 2004. Labor and the Environmental Movement: The Quest for Common Ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT

PressO’Connor J. 1988. Capitalism, nature, socialism: a theoretical introduction. Capital. Nat. Social. 1:11–38Park LS, Pellow DN. 2011. The Slums of Aspen: The War on Immigrants in America’s Eden. New York: NYU

Press


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Pastor M, Sadd JL, Morello-Frosch R. 2002. Who’s minding the kids? Pollution, public schools, and envi-ronmental justice in Los Angeles. Soc. Sci. Q. 83:263–80

Peek L, Mileti DS. 2002. The history and future of disaster research. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology,ed. RB Bechtel, A Churchman, pp. 511–24. New York: Wiley

Pellig M, ed. 2003. Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. London: RoutledgePellow DN. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA:

MIT PressPellow DN, Park LS. 2002. The Silicon Valley of Dreams: Environmental Injustice, Immigrant Workers, and the

High-Tech Global Economy. New York: NYU PressPerrow C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic BooksPlumwood V. 2000. Integrating ethical frameworks for animals, humans, and nature: a critical feminist eco-

socialist analysis. Ethics Environ. 5(2):285–322Rice J. 2007. Ecological unequal exchange: international trade and uneven utilization of environmental space

in the world system. Soc. Forces 85(3):1369–92Roberts JT, Parks B. 2007. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy.

Cambridge, MA: MIT PressRosa E, Richter L. 2008. Durkheim on the environment: Ex libris or ex cathedra? Introduction to inaugural

lecture to a course in social science, 1887–1888. Organ. Environ. 21(2):182–87Rubin O. 2010. Social perspective on the symbiotic relationship between climate change and conflict. Soc.

Dev. Issues 32(2):29–41Rudel T, Roberts JT, Carmin J. 2011. Political economy of the environment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 37:221–38Scarce R. 2006. Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement. Walnut Creek, CA: Left

CoastSchlosberg D. 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements and Nature. New York: Oxford Univ.

PressSchnaiberg A. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford Univ. PressSchofer E, Hironaka A. 2005. The effects of world society on environmental protection outcomes. Soc. Forces

84:25–47Scott J. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT:

Yale Univ. PressSeager J. 2012. Noticing gender (or not) in disasters. In The Women of Katrina: How Gender, Race, and Class

Matter in an American Disaster, ed. E David, E Enarson, pp. 7–9. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ. PressSimon DR. 2009 (2000). Corporate environmental crimes and social inequality: new directions for environ-

mental justice research. See White 2009, pp. 103–15Situ Y, Emmons D. 2000. Environmental Crime: The Criminal Justice System’s Role in Protecting the Environment.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SageSmith A. 2005. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. Brooklyn, NY: South EndSmith M. 2011. Against Ecological Sovereignty: Ethics, Biopolitics, and Saving the Natural World. Minneapolis:

Univ. Minn. PressSonnenfeld D. 2000. Contradictions of ecological modernization: pulp and paper manufacturing in South-East

Asia. Environ. Polit. 9(1):235–56South N. 1998. A green field for criminology? A proposal for a perspective. Theor. Criminol. 2(2):211–33Stoddart MCJ, Tindall DB. 2011. Ecofeminism, hegemonic masculinity, and environmental movement par-

ticipation in British Columbia, Canada, 1998–2007: “Women always clean up the mess.” Sociol. Spectr.31(3):342–68

Sturgeon N. 1997. The nature of race: discourses of racial difference in ecofeminism. See Warren 1997a,pp. 260–78

Szasz A. 1986. Corporations, organized crime and the disposal of hazardous waste: an examination of themaking of a criminogenic regulatory structure. Criminologia 24(1):1–27

Sze J. 2007. Noxious New York: The Racial Politics of Urban Health and Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press

Taylor D. 1997. Women of color, environmental justice, and ecofeminism. See Warren 1997a, pp. 38–81


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Taylor D. 2009. The Environment and the People in American Cities, 1600s–1900s: Disorder, Inequality, and SocialChange. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Tierney K. 1999. Toward a critical sociology of risk. Sociol. Forum 14(2):215–42Tierney K. 2007. From the margins to the mainstream? Disaster research at the crossroads. Annu. Rev. Sociol.

33:503–25Torres B. 2007. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Oakland, CA: AK PressTwine R. 2012. Revealing the “animal-industrial complex”—a concept and method for critical animal studies?

J. Crit. Anim. Stud. 10(1):12–39Wachholz S. 2007. “At risk”: climate change and its bearing on women’s vulnerability to male violence. In

Issues in Green Criminology, ed. P Beirne, N South, pp. 161–85. Devon, UK: WillanWarren KJ. 1990. The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environ. Ethics 12:125–46Warren KJ, ed. 1997a. Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. PressWarren KJ. 1997b. Taking empirical data seriously: an ecofeminist philosophical perspective. See Warren

1997a, pp. 3–20Weber L, Peek L, eds. 2012. Displaced: Life in the Katrina Diaspora. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressWeber M. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: George Allen & UnwinWeber M. 1977. Critique of Stammler. New York: Free PressWeber M. 1988. A letter from Indian Territory. Free Inq. Creat. Soc. 16(2):133–36Weber M. 2004. The Vocation Lectures: Science as a Vocation, Politics as a Vocation. Ed. D Owen, TB Strong,

transl. R Livingstone. Cambridge, MA: HackettWhite D. 2008. Bookchin: A Critical Appraisal. London: PlutoWhite R. 2003. Environmental issues and the criminological imagination. Theor. Criminol. 7(4):483–506White R, ed. 2009. Environmental Crime: A Reader. Devon, UK: WillanWidener P. 2011. Oil Injustice: Resisting and Conceding a Pipeline in Ecuador. New York: Rowman & LittlefieldWilliams C. 2009 (1996). An environmental victimology. See White 2009, pp. 200–21York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T. 2003. Footprints on the earth: the environmental consequences of modernity. Am.

Sociol. Rev. 68(2):279–300


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

SO39-FrontMatter ARI 5 June 2013 17:48

Annual Reviewof Sociology

Volume 39, 2013Contents

FrontispieceCharles Tilly � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xiv

Prefatory Chapter

Formations and Formalisms: Charles Tilly and the Paradoxof the ActorJohn Krinsky and Ann Mische � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Theory and Methods

The Principles of Experimental Design and Their Applicationin SociologyMichelle Jackson and D.R. Cox � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �27

The New Sociology of MoralitySteven Hitlin and Stephen Vaisey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �51

Social Processes

Social Scientific Inquiry Into Genocide and Mass Killing:From Unitary Outcome to Complex ProcessesPeter B. Owens, Yang Su, and David A. Snow � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �69

Interest-Oriented ActionLyn Spillman and Michael Strand � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Drugs, Violence, and the StateBryan R. Roberts and Yu Chen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

Healthcare Systems in Comparative Perspective: Classification,Convergence, Institutions, Inequalities, and Five Missed TurnsJason Beckfield, Sigrun Olafsdottir, and Benjamin Sosnaud � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 127

Institutions and Culture

Multiculturalism and Immigration: A Contested Fieldin Cross-National ComparisonRuud Koopmans � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 147

Sociology of Fashion: Order and ChangePatrik Aspers and Frederic Godart � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 171

v

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Religion, Nationalism, and Violence: An Integrated ApproachPhilip S. Gorski and Gulay Turkmen-Dervisoglu � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 193

Formal Organizations

Race, Religious Organizations, and IntegrationKorie L. Edwards, Brad Christerson, and Michael O. Emerson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 211

Political and Economic Sociology

An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First CenturyDavid N. Pellow and Hollie Nyseth Brehm � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 229

Economic Institutions and the State: Insights from Economic HistoryHenning Hillmann � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 251

Differentiation and Stratification

Demographic Change and Parent-Child Relationships in AdulthoodJudith A. Seltzer and Suzanne M. Bianchi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 275

Individual and Society

Gender and CrimeCandace Kruttschnitt � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 291

White-Collar Crime: A Review of Recent Developments andPromising Directions for Future ResearchSally S. Simpson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 309

From Social Structure to Gene Regulation, and Back: A CriticalIntroduction to Environmental Epigenetics for SociologyHannah Landecker and Aaron Panofsky � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 333

Racial Formation in Perspective: Connecting Individuals, Institutions,and Power RelationsAliya Saperstein, Andrew M. Penner, and Ryan Light � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 359

The Critical Sociology of Race and Sport: The First Fifty YearsBen Carrington � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 379

Demography

The Causal Effects of Father AbsenceSara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 399

International Migration and Familial Change in Communitiesof Origin: Transformation and ResistancePatricia Arias � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

Trends and Variation in Assortative Mating: Causes and ConsequencesChristine R. Schwartz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

vi Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Gender and International Migration: Contributions andCross-FertilizationsGioconda Herrera � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 471

LGBT Sexuality and Families at the Start of the Twenty-First CenturyMignon R. Moore and Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 491

Urban and Rural Community Sociology

Housing: Commodity versus RightMary Pattillo � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 509

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 30–39 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 533

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 30–39 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 537

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found athttp://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANNUAL REVIEWSConnect With Our Experts

ANNUAL REVIEWS | Connect With Our ExpertsTel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of LinguisticsVolume 1 • January 2015 • http://linguistics.annualreviews.org

Co-Editors: Mark Liberman, University of Pennsylvania and Barbara H. Partee, University of Massachusetts

The Annual Review of Linguistics covers significant developments in the field of linguistics, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and their interfaces. Reviews synthesize advances in linguistic theory, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, language change, biology and evolution of language, typology, as well as applications of linguistics in many domains.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME 1:• Advances in Dialectometry, Martijn Wieling,

John Nerbonne• Bilingualism, Mind, and Brain, Judith F. Kroll,

Paola E. Dussias, Kinsey Bice, Lauren Perrotti• Bringing Machine Learning and Compositional

Semantics Together, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts• Correlational Studies in Typological and Historical

Linguistics, D. Robert Ladd, Seán G. Roberts, Dan Dediu

• Cross-Linguistic Temporal Reference, Judith Tonhauser

• Diachronic Semantics, Ashwini Deo• Ditransitive Constructions, Martin Haspelmath• Events and Situations, Sandro Zucchi• Genetics and the Language Sciences,

Simon E. Fisher, Sonja C. Vernes• How Nature Meets Nurture: Universal Grammar

and Statistical Learning, Jeffrey Lidz, Annie Gagliardi• Language Abilities in Neanderthals,

Sverker Johansson

• Quotation and Advances in Understanding Syntactic Systems, Alexandra D’Arcy

• Semantics and Pragmatics of Argument Alternations, Beth Levin

• Sign Language Typology: The Contribution of Rural Sign Languages, Connie de Vos, Roland Pfau

• Suppletion: Some Theoretical Implications, Jonathan David Bobalijk

• Taking the Laboratory into the Field, D.H. Whalen, Joyce McDonough

• The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives, David W. Anthony, Don Ringe

• Vagueness and Imprecision: Empirical Foundations, Stephanie Solt

• Variation in Information Structure with Special Reference to Africa, Tom Güldemann, Sabine Zerbian, Malte Zimmermann

Access all Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Complimentary online access to Volume 1 will be available until January 2016.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

13.3

9:22

9-25

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

Acc

ess

prov

ided

by

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

- B

obst

Lib

rary

on

09/0

8/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Documents

An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First Century€¦ · · 2015-09-08An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First Century ... the sociological enterprise, ... innovative