Ecological modernization as a theoretical device ... · strengths and weaknesses Ørnulf Seippel a a Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway Available online: 18 Jun 2010

This article was downloaded by: [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU]On: 28 March 2012, At: 09:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20

Ecological modernization as a theoretical device:strengths and weaknessesØrnulf Seippel aa Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway

Available online: 18 Jun 2010

To cite this article: Ørnulf Seippel (2000): Ecological modernization as a theoretical device: strengths and weaknesses,Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2:4, 287-302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714038562

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714038562

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningJ. Environ. Policy Plann. 2: 287–302 (2000)

Ecological Modernization as a Theoretical Device:Strengths and WeaknessesØRNULF SEIPPEL*Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT Ecological modernization has become a central concept in environmental social science. The purpose ofthis paper is to take a closer look at this concept as a theoretical device. Two criteria structure the analysis. First, somecentral writings in the sociology of science are applied to identify what a theory should be taken to mean, and what functionsit could be supposed to fill. Second, modernization is obviously an important aspect of ecological modernization, and I willshow how the discourse on ecological modernization coheres to this more general sociological discourse. The conclusionconcedes that it seems reasonable to point out a shift in environmental discourse, as the theory on ecological modernizationdoes, but that, if the concept is to play a fruitful role in future environmental social science, one should (i) try to develop amore focused typology, (ii) interpret the typology as more explicitly reflecting a historical phenomenon (as having bothcauses and consequences), and (iii) develop it in a middle-range direction. As a theory of modernization, ecologicalmodernization remains underdeveloped with regard to classical themes as functional differentiation, rationalization andindividualization. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: ecological modernization; social theory; discourse; typology

Introduction

Not many years ago, one could safely introducepapers in environmental sociology complainingabout the scant attention paid to environmentalproblems by social theorists. Today, environ-mental sociology abounds with concepts at-tempting to provide general accounts of therelationship between modern society and envi-ronmental problems: ecological rationality, eco-logical communication, reflexive modernizationand ecological modernization, to mention a few.Thus, while the situation not long ago wascharacterized by a lack of theoretical ap-proaches, the current situation, perhaps, repre-sents an overload of theory. Consequently, it istime to reflect more systematically on some ofthese theoretical concepts’ achievements andfuture prospects. Hence, the purpose of thispaper is to take a closer look at one of theseconcepts: ecological modernization. Whileother contributors to the ecological moderniza-tion discourse employ environmental concerns

(Blowers, 1997), normative guidelines (Christ-off, 1996) or socio-empirical data (Neale, 1997;Reitan, 1999) as a benchmark for critique, thepurpose of this paper is more theoretical. Theintention here is, first, to summarize what theconcept has been taken to mean by variouscontributors and, second, to identify some of itsmerits and failures as a theoretical concept, andthereby also, to indicate some challenges forthose working with the concept in the future.Thus, the aim is both to provide an overview ofhow the concept has been applied so far, and toevaluate its utility as a theoretical concept.Achieving the latter goal requires explicit evalu-ative criteria, and I will rely on two such crite-ria: reflections upon (i) what a theory basicallyis and does, and (ii) the more general discourseon modernization.

The paper consists of seven sections (includ-ing this introduction). The next section willexamine what ecological modernization hasbeen taken to mean by some of today’s mostcentral authors in the field. In the section enti-tled ‘What is social theory?’, I will present somecriteria from the sociology of science to iden-tify, at a general level, what a theory is and

* Correspondence to: Institute for Social Research, Munthes gate31, Postboks 3233 Elisenberg, 0208 Oslo, Norway. Tel: +47 2308 61 23; fax: +47 23 08 61 01; e-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 2 February 2000

Accepted 13 September 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel288

what functions it might fill. Thereafter, I willinvestigate how ecological modernization oper-ates and functions as a theory according tothese criteria. The section entitled ‘Theories ofmodernization’ introduces some core elementsfrom the general discourse on modernization,and is followed by a discussion of ecologicalmodernization in light of this general discourse.The final section sums up the preceding analy-ses, and outlines some challenges for thoseworking with ecological modernization at atheoretical level.

Ecological modernization: a review

The concept of ecological modernization isboth applied in empirical analyses and devel-oped as a theoretical concept. Obviously, bothuses involve theoretical concerns, hence, bothempirical and theoretical approaches will betaken into consideration. The following reviewof the employment of the ecological moderniza-tion concept will have a certain qualitativeflavour; the idea being to let the distinctivenessof various contributions speak for themselves.Evaluative criteria and more stringent analyseswill follow in sections three to six, entitled‘What is social theory’, ‘Ecological moderniza-tion as theory’, Theories of modernization’, and‘Ecological modernization as modernization’,respectively.

Albert Weale: the new politics of pollution

Weale (1992) applies the concept of ecologicalmodernization both to illustrate general changesin environmental policies during the 1980s, and,more specifically, to explain differences betweenBritish and German approaches to the topic ofacid rain. As a premise for these analyses, heemphasizes that ideological factors, besides ra-tional-choice perspectives and institutional ap-proaches, should play an autonomous role.Thus, for Weale (1992, p. 75), ecological mod-ernization is an ideology, without any canonicalstatement, and this ideology, fundamentally, ac-quires its meaning when contrasted with thepolicy strategies of the 1970s that supposed

‘. . . that the character of environmental prob-lems was well understood; that environmentalproblems could be handled discretely; that end-of-pipe technologies were typically ade-quate . . . ’. The common reaction to thisapproach was that this most likely meant toavoid the basic problems rather than to solvethem—‘the costs do not disappear, they aremerely pushed forward and possibly magnifiedin the process’ (p. 76)—and the most decisivebreak between this traditional approach of the1970s and ecological modernization lies in anew understanding of the relationship betweenthe economy and the environment. Ecologicalmodernization challenged the widespread beliefthat there was a zero-sum trade-off betweeneconomic profit and environmental concerns,and argued instead that a sound environment isa precondition for economic activity and, viceversa, that the environment could mean prof-itable business: ‘. . . the ecological modernisa-tion sees it [environmental protection] as apotential source for growth’ (Weale, 1992, p.76). Thus, while economic and ecological con-cerns were previously seen as contrary, they are,in time, taken to be mutually reinforcing factors.

Weale also attempts to show that ecologicalmodernization in itself (as a specific ideology)and the context within which it has to operatediffer greatly. This is illustrated through a com-parison between the British and German ap-proaches to the issue of acid rain. In both cases,there was a conflict between a ‘clean-air coali-tion’ and an ‘economic feasibility coalition’. Inthe German case, however, a kind of synthesisdeveloped between these two approaches,whereas no such synthesis occurred in theBritish case. In sum, ecological modernization isan ideology—which, according to Weale, isneither coherent, well-formulated nor uncontro-versial—held by some (most?) of those takingpart in the policy process and that substantiallycovers the understanding of the economy inlight of changing environmental affairs.

Maarten Hajer: the politics of environmentaldiscourse

As an introduction to Hajer’s (1995) work, it isuseful to pay attention to his very explicit

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 2: 287–302 (2000)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ecological Modernization as a Theoretical Device 289

anti-realist position that results in a social con-structivist approach addressing the question ofhow we conceive of environmental problems.More specifically, it is Hajer’s intention to see‘. . . how certain dominant perceptions of aproblem are constructed and how political deci-sion-making takes place in this context of, andthrough, essentially fragmented and contradic-tory discourses within and outside the environ-mental domain’. (p. 15). In short, Hajer attemptsto see how social constructions of the environ-ment related to policy questions have changed,and to analyse ‘. . . ecological modernization asthe new dominant approach to conceptualizingenvironmental problems . . . ‘ (p. 4).

To achieve this aim, Hajer provides both amethodological vocabulary for the discursiveapproach and applies this method in a compara-tive study of the acid rain issue in the Nether-lands and Britain. In the context of this paper,however, I will restrict myself to examiningwhat remain the more general characteristics ofHajer’s diagnosis of ecological modernization.Where Weale stresses that ecological modern-ization becomes what it is in contrast to adominant perspective of the 1970s, Hajeragrees—describing this preceding period as fo-cusing on legislative measures through a non-holistic approach and disregarding environ-mental problems as genuine problems—but seesthe discourse of ecological modernization asrepresenting a blend of divergent approachesmanifest in three texts: Limits to Growth (Mead-ows et al., 1972), Blueprint for Survival (Goldsmithet al., 1972) and Small is Beautiful (Schumacher,1976). Together, this gives ecological modern-ization the form of ‘. . . a policy strategy that isbased on a fundamental belief in progress andthe problem-solving capacity of modern tech-niques and skills of social engineering’ (Hajer,1995, p. 33). Furthermore, ‘[i]n the most generalterms ecological modernization can be definedas the discourse that recognizes the structuralcharacter of the environmental problematiquebut none the less assumes that existing political,economic, and social institutions can internalizethe care for environment’ (p. 25).

More specifically, ecological modernizationapproaches the environmental problems as cal-culable, as a positive-sum game and, in princi-

ple, as reconcilable to economic growth (Hajer,1995, p. 26). When these ideological changesare interpreted in a wider context, four factorsstand out as having caused the emergence ofecological modernization: (1) radicalizationcaught up by economic recession, (2) changeswithin the environmental movement, (3) newenvironmental issues and (4) the factualavailability of an alternative discourse. More-over, this shift in understanding of the environ-mental problems has, according to Hajer (1995,pp. 28–29), considerable consequences forother social institutions: the judicial and admin-istrative structure of policy-making is changing,science is ascribed a new role, both micro- andmacro-level economics are affected, the legisla-tive discourse changes character, and ‘ecologicalmodernization acknowledges new actors, in par-ticular environmental organizations and to alesser extent local residents’.

Despite a somewhat different context andempirical setting, the core of Hajer’s approach ismuch the same as Weale’s: an ideological shiftconcerning the relationship between the envi-ronment and the economy, which takes place,first and foremost, within political circles. But,in Hajer’s work, there is also a tendency toinvolve other institutions, and it is not that clearwhere the core of ecological modernization is tobe found. The two differ in the way theyinterpret this ideological shift, Hajer having amuch wider and looser agenda than Weale, and,generally, giving the impression of a more gen-eral shift with more decisive implications.

John Dryzek: the politics of the earth

In Dryzek’s (1997) world of ecological dis-courses, ecological modernization is understoodas one of two sustainability discourses (the otherbeing sustainable development), which in turn isalso an expression of one of four predominateecological discourses of modern society. Basi-cally, Dryzek identifies ecological moderniza-tion as a political–economic discursiveformation. With regard to content, Dryzek(1997, p. 141) suggests that ‘Ecological modern-ization refers to a restructuring of the capitalistpolitical economy along more environmentallysound lines . . . though not in a way that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel290

requires an altogether different kind of politicaleconomic system’ (cf. Hajer, 1995, p. 25). More-over, ‘. . . the key to ecological modernizationis that there is money in it for business’(Dryzek, 1997, p. 142). Dryzek specifies thebenefits of ecological modernization for busi-ness in four points: pollution prevention pays, itbecomes more expensive to solve the problemin the future, a better environment is achieved,and there is money to be made in selling greengoods and in prevention products.

This ecological–economic view implies a‘. . . political commitment, to the enlightenedlong term rather than the narrow-minded shortterm’ (Dryzek, 1997, p. 143), and commitmentsthat include ‘foresight, attacking problems attheir origins, holism, greater valuation of scarcenature, and the precautionary principle’ (p. 143).Moreover, Dryzek identifies four discourseelements: a system approach (holistic), ananthropocentric relationship towards nature,key partners (governments, business, reform-oriented environmentalists and scientists), andkey metaphors (ecological emphasizing theunity of economy and ecology in oikos andmodernization as belief in progress).

When it comes to interpreting environmentalpolicies, Dryzek is more reluctant than, forexample, Weale to assign any important role toecological modernization, or ideology in gen-eral. The basic condition for Dryzek is capital-ism, and what makes some countries able tobolster their capitalist economies is first andforemost a corporate ordering of political influ-ence, rather than ideological frames.

Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren: politicalprogramme and social theory

Mol and Spaargaren have contributed to thediscourse on ecological modernization both to-gether and independently (Spaargaren & Mol,1992; Mol & Spaargaren, 1993; Mol, 1995,1996; Spaargaren, 1997), and they distinguishbetween ecological modernization as theory andas a political programme. As a socio-politicalprogramme it is a description of the historicalprocess that has taken place, as a theory of

social change it is an attempt to develop exist-ing social science models (Spaargaren, 1997,p. 21).

As a historical process, they understand eco-logical modernization as part of a three-stagemodel where the first two periods correspondmore or less with the periods found in Wealeand Hajer. While Weale emphasizes the impor-tance of the established version of environmen-talism of the 1970s, and Hajer that of threedifferent (both radical and established) environ-mental discourses, Mol & Spaargaren (1993)point out what they call detraditionalization ora counter-ideology as the forerunner to ecologi-cal modernization, which is, in turn, succeededby reflexive modernization.1 Next, they describethe essential difference between the first twoperiods in more general terms than Weale andHajer, and say ‘. . . that the second major up-surge of environmental concern brought an endto the conception of the environment as anexternal factor with regard to the institutionalorganisation of production and consumption.Thus, environmental interests became institu-tionalised within the economic sphere . . . ’ (Mol& Spaargaren, 1993, p. 437). At the same time,however, ecological modernization is also char-acterized as ‘. . . the dominant perspective inthe present-day environmental discourse . . . ’(Mol & Spaargaren, 1993, p. 433). According toMol & Spaargaren, ecological modernization is aconstructive approach that assigns pivotal rolesto science and technology, and explicitly statesthat this is a change within modernity. Morespecifically, they locate ‘its origin in the eco-nomic sphere’ (Spaargaren, 1997, p. 23). As apolitical programme, it means an end to ‘ad-hoc,pragmatic, end-of-pipe solutions’ and ‘. . . a re-defining of the role of the state vis-a-vis civilsociety, with both market actors and environ-mental movements redefining their former roles’(Spaargaren, 1997, p. 25).

In a recent attempt to defend ecologicalmodernization against its critics, Mol (1998)suggests five criteria to identify ecological mod-ernization: (i) the transformation of the role ofthe nation-state in environmental reform; (ii)the increasing involvement of market actors anddynamics in environmental reform; (iii) thechanging role of science and technology; (iv)modification in the position, role and ideology


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2


of environmental NGOs; and (v) the emergenceof a new environmental discourse.2

Furthermore, Mol & Spaargaren (1993) add anew and more original twist to their interpreta-tion of ecological modernization, when theyassert that environmental interests have gainedindependence from (i) political and ideologicalinterests and (ii) economic interests. Taken to-gether, we are (iii) about to have ‘. . . an au-tonomous ecological sphere, possessing its ownspecific domain and rationality vis-a-vis the po-litical, cultural and economic spheres’ (Mol &Spaargaren, 1993, p. 437). This idea is mostthoroughly elaborated by Mol (1995, 1996).

What is social theory?

The aim of the following sections is to evaluatethe fruitfulness of the concept of ecologicalmodernization in two respects: as a generaltheory and as part of the discourse on modern-ization. The two analyses follow identical pat-terns; first evaluative criteria are presented(sections ‘What is social theory’ and ‘Theories ofmodernization’) and then evaluative analysesfollow (sections ‘Ecological modernization astheory’ and ‘Ecological modernization as mod-ernization’). The final part of the paper dis-cusses and concludes the analyses.

Theory in general

With respect to what a theory is, there isprobably, to a certain extent, a common senseagreement: theory involves some kind of ab-straction, saying something general about (em-pirical) particulars. Typically, this includes adescription and a general statement about therelationship between two or more entities. Onthis general level, what distinguishes a goodtheory from a poor theory is its internal logicand consistency: how the elements of the the-ory make up a coherent unity. This is, againrather generally, achieved by establishing afruitful typology that is somehow put into alarger context, interpreted or explained ascaused by something preceding it, and subse-quently, leading to or causing something to

succeed it. In a more strict sense, a theoryimplies an explanation of an empirical finding:particular general assumptions generate concretehypotheses that are confronted with empiricaldata (Jasso, 1988).

Theory and sociological substances

To distinguish further between various kinds ofsociological theories, one might follow Alexan-der (1987, p. 15), who emphasizes that: ‘Presup-positions about action and order are the ‘tracks’along which sociology runs’. This implies thatvarious sociological theories are characterizedby differences in their understanding of socialaction and social order. First, there are differ-ences with regard to the degree of rationalityassigned to social actors. Second, there is dis-agreement with regard to the question of socialorder: which social order mechanisms, at whichlevels, are important, and how do they con-tribute to coordination of social action? Thesebeliefs about individual freedom and social or-der constitute the moral and intellectual ‘ratio-nale’ for the subject of sociology, and one’sstance on these questions reflects, according toAlexander, presuppositions of a metaphysicalcharacter. Thus, with the outset in such meta-physical presuppositions, sociological theoristsare mostly rather ‘narrowly’ concerned withspecific ontological segments of the socialworld: either social systems or individual ratio-nal choices.

Theory and empirical challenges

Merton’s (1968) classification of theories has amore practical aim, and is particularly con-cerned with the relationship between theorizingand empirical research. In this respect, Mertondistinguishes between different kinds of socio-logical theory, spanning from general concep-tual theory to free-floating empirical data. Onthe one hand, sociology often operates at ageneral level, involving discussions of ‘concepts’that might lead to fruitful typologies that, inturn, could contribute to a better understandingof the kinds of phenomena in focus. Occa-sionally, concepts will also indicate relevant


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel292

empirical research strategies. The main prob-lem with such general approaches is that notenough attention is paid to how relationshipsbetween entities are actually to be understood,and how more concrete hypotheses are to begenerated. Merton’s (1968, p. 143) succinctconclusion says that ‘General orientations donot suffice’. On the other hand, sociologistsoccasionally find empirically validated covaria-tions, which they take to be complete theo-ries. Yet, the problem is that even thoughempirical relations are tracked down, one isnot able to state what these relations imply,they are not lifted to an abstract level. Mer-ton’s ‘middle-range’ ideal then raises the chal-lenge of providing an appropriate theory forspecific purposes, and, in particular, his con-cern is theory that mediates between concreteempirical observations and more generaltheory.

Alexander and Merton provide classifica-tions that direct attention to important chal-lenges for those working with social theories;they point to important features of what atheory might look like, what it covers, what itmight achieve and how it functions. In thefollowing section, these typologies will be ap-plied to detect strengths and weaknesses withregard to ecological modernization as a theo-retical concept.

Ecological modernization as theory

Ecological modernization as general theory

At a general level, the challenge is simply tosort out the descriptive elements of the vari-ous concepts of ecological modernization—what kind of classifications and typologiesthey are based on—and, subsequently, to seehow ecological modernization is understood aspart of a larger setting: what it succeeds andwhat it precedes. Thus, the first and obviousquestion is: what is described as ecologicalmodernization? The answers are not all com-patible, but they do point in the direction ofa core, which is probably most explicitlyspelled out by Weale. Ecological moderniza-

tion is a shift in the ideology held by most ormany of those involved in the policy pro-cesses of modern societies, and which haseconomic matters in light of environmental af-fairs as its reference. Moreover, there is alsogeneral agreement that ecological moderniza-tion is based upon—or at least, not contraryto—the implicit belief in science, technologyand progress so characteristic of modernity.Although most analyses seem to share thesecharacteristics, there is a tendency to slidefrom this rather concrete and specific perspec-tive to describe the changes assigned to eco-logical modernization in a more general andless exclusive way. At another level, there isalso an inclination to interpret this term asboth analytical and normative: as what shouldtake place if the environment is to be saved.

With respect to the understanding of thisdiscursive shift as part of more general histori-cal changes, there also seems to be agreementup to a certain point: a discursive formationappeared in the 1980s, as a reaction to some-thing in the 1970s, and, for some, with reper-cussions for a third stage emanating in thelate 1980s. Various constellations of ideologi-cal discourses are seen as the most importantprecursor to ecological modernization, but ex-actly what these formations entail varies.Weale emphasizes a strong ‘establishment atti-tude’ prioritizing economic interests as theideological background and catalyst for eco-logical modernization. Mol and Spaargarenseem most concerned with a radical and anti-modern posture as triggering ecological mod-ernization, while Hajer operates with threedifferent environmentalisms leading to ecologi-cal modernization. In addition to these cul-tural precursors to ecological modernization,other factors are also considered. Weale inter-prets ecological modernization (an ideology)as one of three factors explaining policies withregard to pollution (the others being institu-tions and individual instrumentalism). Hajerintroduces economic recession, new environ-mental problems and a new environmentaldiscourse as factors leading to ecologicalmodernization. There are also differences withregard to what these discursive shifts implyfor other institutions. While Weale, in his


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2


rather specific project, interprets the influenceof ecological modernization as part of the pol-icy on environmental pollution in two westerncountries, Hajer points to implications for al-most all important social institutions of modernsociety.

In short, the baseline of the environmentalmodernization discourse seems to imply that ashift is taking place in policy discourses. Yet, ifthe concept is to function analytically, there is aneed for clearer answers as to exactly whichdiscourses to focus upon (where, when), andwhat these discourses substantially refer to.There are also diverging opinions as to howthese discursive formations fit into the largerhistorical lines of modernity. Finally, there is atendency to confuse this shift in discursive con-tent with changes in the topic of the discourse;a change in the (political) understanding of theeconomy is taken to mean a factual shift in theeconomy. In sum, this could be taken to meanthat ecological modernization, in a strict butconventional sense, does not currently qualify asa theory. It is a case-based (inductive) descrip-tion of a developmental trend, but the attemptsto infer from these particular cases to generaltheories are not very convincing. Nonetheless,the impression given is that this is a processtaking place in most western countries.

Ecological modernization and theoretical substance

Alexander distinguishes between theories ac-cording to their ontological reference; whetherthey are occupied with the question of socialorder, or individual–instrumental action. Eco-logical modernization is understood as a shift indiscourses, ideologies or belief systems thatfunction as frames of reference; that is, theygive direction to thought and action. Hence,ecological modernization is a perspective mostlyconcerned with social order; that which makesaction possible.

This raises at least five important theoreticalchallenges. The first is (again) to specify whichsocial order arenas should actually be in focus.Where and when is the discourse labelled ‘eco-logical modernization’ to be found? Is it to befound within one subsystem of the political

system (the administrative apparatus), in thewhole political system, or in all social systems?Second, this ‘new’ discourse must be seen inrelation to other cultural discourses. Third, thisset of cultural discourses must be analysedwithin a wider setting that includes structuralfactors. Fourth, this broad set of enabling andconstraining structural and symbolic patternsshould be interpreted in relation to a wholerange of social ‘agents’: institutions, organiza-tions, groups and individuals, at global, regional,national and local levels. The point here is notto assert that the more factors present in ananalysis the better—to a certain extent, theopposite is preferable: ‘explaining as much aspossible with as little as possible’ (King et al.,1994, p. 29)—but to explicate possible ways toanalyse a specific discourse.

Furthermore, a more theoretical query is alsoinvolved. If ecological modernization is said tobe a policy discourse providing stabile frames ofreference, the question is what kind of socialorder it thereby contributes to: not only itssymbolic or semantic content but what role(s) itplays with regard to coordination of social ac-tion. It is not self-evident that the prevalence ofone specific discourse also has significant impli-cations for all behaviour concerned, becausestructural interests, ideological factors and moreidiosyncratic proclivities have important roles toplay. From this perspective, a more detailed andspecific account of how this specific discourseinfluences various kinds of values, attitudes andconcrete social interaction is required.

Ecological modernization, theory and empiricalchallenges

Merton’s typology of sociological theories spansfrom abstract unempirical conceptualizing toempirical findings without theoretical bearings.Ecological modernization is applied somewhatdifferently by the authors reviewed here, yet themost general impression is that the discourse onecological modernization is what Merton calls‘conceptual’: a clarification and specification ofgeneral concepts. According to Merton, thisoften implies a certain vagueness with regardto definitions of the relationship between fac-tors covered by the concepts. In some of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel294

writings reviewed above, ecological modern-ization is slightly more concrete and specific,and Mol (1995) even claims to operate withhypotheses, although of a ‘sensitizing’ kind,which implies that there are still problemswith respect to stating specific empirical as-sumptions and hypothesis. These ways totheorize imply problems that require (i) a bet-ter understanding of the relationships betweenthe factors that enter into the discourse, and(ii) that they should be more convincinglyconnected to empirical data. In sum, the theo-retical state of ecological modernization de-mands middle-range theories (Merton, 1968).Finally, and almost paradoxically, the ecologi-cal modernization perspective is also vulnera-ble to the opposite criticism because itoccasionally takes the form of empirical state-ments without clear theoretical implications: ashift in ideological orientation is observed, butthe general and theoretical implications andcauses of this shift remain unclear.

The various problems emerging from thisshort discussion of ecological modernization inlight of a few simple typologies indicate thatthere are many challenges facing those work-ing at a theoretical level with the concept ofecological modernization. My aim has primar-ily been to present some perspectives thatmake it possible to identify some potentialproblems facing those operating within thisdiscourse. Which of the challenges brought tolight here can be accepted as important bythose involved remains an open question.Nonetheless, the need to clarify the basic ty-pology (what is ecological modernization?), aproper level and mode of interpretation (tem-porally: causes and implications), and its appli-cation with regard to empirical work are allimportant aspects that should be taken seri-ously if the discourse on ecological modern-ization is to contribute in a constructive wayto the understanding of the society–environ-ment nexus.

Theories of modernization

Modernization is chosen as the key term char-acterizing the ‘socio-ecological change’ taking

place in the 1980s. The aim of this section isto take a closer look at the concept of mod-ernization as it is conventionally used, andthen to evaluate the discourse on ecologicalmodernization in light of the ‘normal’ applica-tion of this core concept. There are two ways,both applied in this paper, to characterize theprocess of modernization: historically and ana-lytically.

Modernization in a historical perspective

Most fundamentally, modernization is a pro-cess taking place somewhere in the world at acertain point in time. As an example, Giddenssuggests that ‘ . . . ‘‘modernity’’ refers to modesof social life or organisation which emerged inEurope from about the seventeenth centuryonwards and which subsequently becamemore or less world-wide in their influence’(Giddens, 1990, p. 1). More concrete histori-cal accounts would include the history of po-litical, economic and cultural modernization,and related topics, such as urbanization, secu-larization, the rise in education, shifts in sex-ual roles, new technologies and patterns ofcommunication. Some general aspects of thisprocess will be described more analytically be-low.

The modern era has often been identifiedwith a characteristic of its cultural layer,namely the belief that ‘. . . to be modern is tobelieve that the masterful transformation ofthe world is possible, indeed that it is likely’(Alexander, 1990, p. 16). Although this beliefin progress by many has been understood asthe crux of the process of modernization, thefact is that this process could also be de-scribed through its ambiguity (Offe, 1996),because it embodies countercultural tendenciesalmost from the start; that is, voices lessoptimistic and more sceptical to the instru-mentalism, technologism and alienation inher-ent to modernity. Furthermore, it is alsoclear that ‘nature’ and the ‘environment’ haveplayed important parts at times with respectto the status of the ‘project of modernity’(Touraine, 1981; Eder, 1990; Szerszynski,1996).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2


Analytical perspectives: differentiation,rationalization and individualization

The basic distinction that serves as ‘the differ-ence that makes a difference’ for modernizationis between what is left behind—a traditionalsociety—and what emerges as something new.The essential idea is that traditional societies ofthe past could be seen as whole, well-integratedunits, with a specific determinant dynamic be-tween general cultural patterns and the everydaylife of individuals. Against such a background,the process of modernization involves a form ofdissolution, disembedding and reinstitutionaliza-tion articulated along three dimensions: theemergence of different functional arenas of socialinteraction, an availability of various forms of ratio-nality, and, as a consequence for the subjectsexperiencing this process, individualization.

Functional differentiation

The process of functional differentiation reflectssocietal specialization (‘the division of labour’)and the fact that different social institutions‘take responsibility’ for various tasks, andthereby contribute to the reproduction of soci-ety: material production, societal reproduction,education, distribution of power etc. How andwhy different functions become specialized andinstitutionalized is explained in different ways(Luhmann, 1997; Mark, 1998). In this context,it suffices to point out that there actually arevarious norms, frames, codes and rules thatguide and sanction social interactions withindifferent social arenas.

Rationalization

Whereas traditional world-views (religion,myths) supplied authoritative interpretations ofthe world, modernity is characterized by a sup-portive posture towards questioning such hered-itary world-views. The result is that differentforms of rationality dominate within distinctsocial arenas, various situations and historicalepochs. Rationality might be classified accord-ing to validity criteria corresponding to onto-

logical premises—such as found in the Kantiandistinction between the objective, normativeand subjective—or according to specific instru-mental aims as in ecological modernization:economic rationality vs. ecological rationality.

Individualization

Taken together, the process of functional differ-entiation and rationalization represents a loss ofauthority for traditional world-views—‘. . . thepast loses the power to determine the present’(Beck, 1992, p. 34)—and a host of possibilitiesforce themselves upon the individual to an ex-tent unimaginable in traditional society. As aresult, each and everyone is doomed to make upa life of their own without definite guidelinesfrom outside authorities—‘Die Menschen sind zurIndividualisierung verdammt ’ (People are doomed tobe individualized; Beck, 1993, p. 152).

Holism and subsystems

According to Therborn (1995) and Tilly (1997),one of the merits of conceptualizing society andhistory as modernity/modernizing is the fruitful-ness of holistic approaches, and consequently,the productivity of analysing the (lack of) rela-tionships between social institutions: either asautonomous and isolated social systems commu-nicating ecologically according to their ownrestricted codes and programmes (Luhmann,1986), or environmental politics emerging inthe intersection of political, economic and cul-tural forces (Munch, 1996). Furthermore, it isalso possible to take the study of modernizationin a different and less macro-oriented direction.Modernization does not only mean functionaldifferentiation on the macro level: the differentsocial systems are themselves further differenti-ated. To give an example: the political systemthat has the overall function of sharing powerthrough collectively binding decisions is differ-entiated into subsystems comprising the inter-mediation of interests and values (organizations,political parties and the public sphere), thepolitical institutions themselves and the admin-istrative apparatus. An understanding of how theenvironment is framed within these many


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel296

subsystems would probably be important, bothfor the factual existence of different ecologicaldiscourses, how they interact with each other,and how they influence the process of modern-ization at a macro level.

An analysis of environmental problems withinmodern society often (implicitly) builds uponthese perspectives. Either a functionally differ-entiated system (for example the economy) isblamed for operating according to its own code,and thereby neglecting environmental problems(the critical point being that there is no over-arching system that could impose environ-mentally sound constraints on the many‘autonomous’ systems), or one form of rational-ity (often instrumental rationality) is accused ofbeing too narrow to allow more environment-friendly norms or feelings to influence socialinteraction. Thus, the challenge is to retain thepicture of modern society as manifold and com-plex: numerous social systems, different forms ofrationality and an increasing responsibility forindividuals taking ‘sound’ decisions (cf. ‘ecologi-cal judgement’; Phelan, 1993).

Ecological modernization asmodernization

Historical perspective

Historically, it seems strange to point to a breaklabelled ‘modernization’ at a time when mostothers seem most occupied with the end ofmodernity or, at least, a significant break withinit. What justifies this choice of the term ‘ecolog-ical modernization’, however, is probably that itis not until now that the environment reallybecomes an issue for social systems other thanthose specialized in protest (social movements)and, hence, not until the 1980s that it appearsas an integral part of the process of moderniza-tion. A further justification for using the term isthe optimistic belief expressed in the vision ofecology and economy as reciprocally supportiveconcerns and the importance assigned to trulymodern factors, such as technology and science:a strengthening of the optimistic dimension ofthe ambivalent modernity.

At the same time, however, it is important toremember that applying the term ‘moderniza-tion’ also implies an empirical assertion: that theenvironment has not contributed to a breakwith modernity; something remains as it hasbeen. This might be so, but the ecologicalmodernization discourse remains persistentlyunclear as to what is characteristic of modernityand what qualifies as a break. On the one hand,ecological modernists are eager to point out thatBeck’s thesis on the risk society is unreliable andtoo speculative (Mol & Spaargaren, 1993), andHajer (1995) explicitly contends that ecologicalmodernization does not involve structuralchanges. On the other hand, most of the con-tributors to the field are eager to point outdecisive changes within modernity: ‘The institu-tions of modern society, such as the market, thestate and science and technology, will be radi-cally transformed in coping with the environ-mental crisis, although not beyond recognition’(Mol, 1996, p. 309). Indeed, while Hajer (1995,p. 25) initially claims that ‘. . . existing . . .institutions can internalize the care for the envi-ronment’, he later opens up the possibility that‘Concrete case studies should show to whatextent the emergence of the discourse of eco-logical modernization leads to a shift from re-medial to anticipatory policy-making strategies,and to what extent the recognition of certainproblems leads to structural change (p. 34).’However, given the absence of criteria specify-ing what qualifies as ‘change’, the dismissal ofthe risk society and others diagnosing decisivebreaks within modern society remains prelimi-nary, and not too convincing.

A sceptic’s response might be to argue thatwhat is implied by the term ecological modern-ization is close to being trivial; what else couldand should an important new issue end up as, ifnot an issue within the hegemonic discourse ofthe society and period from which the issueemerges? Typically, modern social institutionsbring the environmental issue to the fore (albeitin a critical manner), and typically modern insti-tutions are going to deal with it. Contrafactual,as long as post-modernity and environmentalismare taken to be forces inherent to modernity(Lyotard, 1984; Szerszynski, 1996), there arefew alternatives to ecological modernization!


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2


The alternative to this ‘triviality’ could be thatthese theories were addressing a consequentialchange within modernity, but then the termwould be misleading. A concept such as re-flexive modernization is probably more appro-priate to address such phenomena—shifts inemphasis within modernity—than ecologicalmodernization.

Functional differentiation

Although the contributions to the discourse onmodernity differ widely (e.g. Luhmann, 1986 vs.Munch, 1996), the idea of functional differentia-tion leaves the impression of social systems asrather rigidly bound up in their constitutionallogics (codes, media of interaction). Hence, so-cial systems are characterized by a certain iner-tia, which makes significant social change morecumbersome and complicated than indicated inthe literature on ecological modernization,where marginal discursive shifts are assumed tohave significant systemic or structural conse-quences (Peters, 1994). The main reason for thisfailure is that the discourse on ecological mod-ernization provides inadequate analyses of thecharacteristics of the social systems that theyaddress compared with the analyses provided inparts of the general discourse on modernization:the institutions and social systems invoked bythe ecological modernists must have some char-acteristics that make them systems or institu-tions, and which particular characteristic oneassigns to a system/institution has importantimplications for how it is possible to think ofpotential societal changes, whether withinmodernity or as break with modernity.

Most commentators on the process of mod-ernization emphasize, to varying degrees, thatfunctional differentiation implies that no socialsystem should be analysed as forming the centreor hierarchic top of modern society; that is,even though the political system fulfils aspecific and important function, it is only onesocial system among many, and not the system,as is sometimes implied when a change in onespecific policy discourse is portrayed as repre-senting a total and basic societal transformation.This implies that changes identified within one

sphere of society should not automatically betaken to mean changes within other spheres ofsociety, or as changes in society at large. Ignor-ing the constraints inherent to the constitutionallogic of a social system and the disorderedmultitude of such systems makes the analyses ofecological modernization appear a bit simplisticand incomplete—as addressing a traditional co-herent society instead of a modern differenti-ated society.

Rationalization

When it comes to rationalization, on the onehand, ecological modernization does not seemto involve ‘other’ forms of rationality than thoseallegedly predominant in the process of mod-ernization: the belief in progress, science andtechnology is to be taken further. What islacking is an account of which roles other formsof rationality—normative, aesthetical—mightplay in a modern society. On the other hand,ecological modernization seems to imply impor-tant transformations when it comes to ‘ecologi-cal rationality’, as opposed to ‘economicrationality’. First, ecological rationality emanci-pates itself; second, it integrates with its an-tipode (economic rationality), although withoutthreatening the economy as an institution (Mol,1996). This is a thought-provoking and interest-ing idea, which actually runs contrary to thecommon understanding of the process ofmodernization—as differentiation (disembed-ding)—and, taken seriously, raises a lot of ques-tions. A first question is, obviously, what doesecological rationality actually mean or imply?Second, what does it emancipate from? Third,where was or is it to be found if it is, as Mol(1996) says, not political, economical or cul-tural? Fourth, how are the different forms ofrationality to integrate without breaking withthe process of modernization? The case is notthat such reintegration is an inconceivable sce-nario, whether a different functional and ratio-nal process actually reintegrates (re-embeds) isan empirical question. But, if it happens, itshould probably be described as a break withthe process of modernization, the emergence ofsomething new or the return of a premodern


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel298

social formation. Yet, then the term ecologicalmodernization seems rather misleading. Again,not taking the multi-dimensionality of the pro-cess of modernization—here, with respect torationalization—seriously into account resultsin incomplete analyses.

Individualization

Individualization is outlined as a central aspectof the process of modernization, in particular byBeck (1992). This topic, however, is strikinglyabsent in the ecological modernization dis-course. There are two possible reasons for thisneglect. First, this dimension of the moderniza-tion process is not considered important; theauthority of the new environmental discourse isconsidered so imperative that individuals areassumed to comply automatically. Second, it issimply neglected. The result, in both cases,probably discloses an overestimation of the po-tential influence of a discourse, which, thoughprobably important, is surely not determinant ofsocial action. Furthermore, the fact that thisaspect of the modernization process is absent isindicative of a somewhat static understanding ofsocial processes and an underestimation of thedynamics of modern environmental discourses,and opens the possibility of misjudging theiractual influence. The critique of sociology asapplying an oversocialized image of social ac-tion (Wrong, 1961) seems relevant in thiscontext.

Holism and subsystems

One good reason for approaching social pro-cesses through the concept of modernization isthe fact that it allows for holistic analyses; thatis, analysing different social institutions in rela-tion to each other. Such a relational perspectiveis found in Hajer’s (1995) work addressing therelationship between science and politics, and inCohen (1998), who analyses cultural values aspreconditions for ecological modernization. Yet,a more systematic analysis, which goes to thecore of this topic, is not to be found, and amore adequate understanding of such intersys-temic relationships would have provided a

clearer understanding of what actually charac-terizes ecological modernization. Without ex-plicit intersystemic analyses, the understandingof how one specific policy discourse mightinfluence the complex process of modernizationremains superficial and incomplete. The samecritique also applies to the level of subsystems.There are good reasons to expect ecologicalmodernization to proceed with different paceand speed between social systems (e.g. politicsand economy) and, furthermore, within systems,i.e. between different political subsystems (e.g.within a ministry of environmental affairs andministries of transport, energy or finance, withindifferent occupations within the administration),within different political parties, within differentsectors of the economy (new middle class), andwithin different cultural segments of the popula-tion (education, cultural capital). Again, the lackof a clear and explicit understanding of thecomplexity of modern society makes the dis-course on ecological modernization appear toohasty in pointing out only one discursive forma-tion that is, without further ado, interpreted ashegemonic for society.

Conclusions

The aim of this paper has been to take a closerlook at one of the many concepts available forgeneral analyses of the relationship betweensociety and nature: first, to study what, descrip-tively, the concept of ecological modernizationrefers to and, second, to discuss what kind oftheorizing this represents. In this concludingsummary, I will present the main findings fromthe preceding analyses, and thereby also indi-cate some of the challenges facing those work-ing within this discourse.

The immediate strengths of the ecologicalmodernization approach are many. First, itdraws attention to empirical shifts in socialapproaches to environmental issues (i.e. the en-vironmental discourse) that probably take placeand are, if this is the case, important. Second, itseems timely to focus explicitly upon the cul-tural or ideological aspect of this change. Third,labelling this shift ‘ecological modernization’ hassuccessfully brought attention to this field of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2


research. Finally, theorizing in this speculativeway stimulates interest for an important issue.As the focus of this paper has attempted topoint out, however, these advantages also baresome costs.

On a first and general level, the question iswhat kind of descriptive typology ecologicalmodernization presents, how this typology isinterpreted (historically and analytically) as partof a larger context, and whether it is success-fully used to abstract from the empirical cases itis based upon. To address the final questionfirst: the contributions to the ecological mod-ernization discourse do not seem to generatetrue theory beyond descriptions of certain cases.The empirical results from the cases studied areimplicitly taken to have a general validity, butthe research strategies applied are actually notable to support such claims. Attempts to con-struct a theory in the stricter sense of theterm—assumptions, hypotheses, and socialmechanisms are not important in the ecologicalmodernization discourse.

With regard to the typology that makes upthe essence of the diagnosis of ecological mod-ernization, it is possible to extract a commoncore from the various contributors to the dis-course. Ecological modernization points out (i)a policy discourse (both in a very abstract andin a more specific political sense), which (ii) hasthe economic system as its reference and (iii)identifies a shift within this policy discoursereferring to the relationship between economyand ecology. Whereas the functioning of theeconomic system and ecological considerationswere formerly taken to be mutually exclusive,they are now seen as mutually reinforcing. Themain problem is that this concrete and focusedmeaning of the term often becomes obscuredeither by attempts to generate the impression ofa much more general process (inferring that alldiscourses, and even all social systems, are aboutto internalize environmental concerns) or byattempts to turn it into a normative or practicalprogramme (this is what ought to happen if theenvironment is to be saved).

There also seems to be a basic consensus overthe historical interpretation of the ecologicalmodernization typology: the shift that is ad-dressed takes place in the 1980s. Furthermore,

there is a degree of agreement concerning thefact that the most important precursors to thisshift are various ecological discourses of the1970s. There is, however, disagreement regard-ing which of these preceding discourses shouldbe considered most important. There is also adispute as to what succeeds the process ofecological modernization. In a less systematicand less coherent way, different authors alsoinclude non-discursive explanatory factors. To-gether, this gives the impression of a certainhistorical focus, but the elements generating andresulting from this process vary to such anextent that the ecological modernists could rea-sonably be accused of lacking a common under-standing of how the shift termed ecologicalmodernization comes about.

Alexander classifies theories according totheir socio-ontological substance. This raises in-teresting challenges that should be addressed byfuture analyses of ecological modernization.First, it generates an explicit understanding ofthe fact that the ecological modernization per-spective is focused on the question of socialorder. Second, this makes it relevant to specify(i) which and what kind of discourses the eco-logical modernists address, (ii) where and whensuch discourses are to be found, (iii) otherdiscourses of relevance for the ecological mod-ernization discourse and (iv) structural com-ponents of relevance for the ecologicalmodernization discourse. Third, to conduct areliable theoretical analysis, one should beaware of how these discourses and structures(wherein ecological modernization is one ele-ment among many) function, and are of rele-vance for institutions, organizations, groups andindividuals as actors.

Next, Merton’s typology makes it clear thatecological modernization as a discourse mostlyoperates at a rather abstract level that impliestwo important challenges: (i) to establish therelationships between the entities constitutingthe theories more clearly and (ii) to relate thesetheories to empirical data in a way that makes itpossible to state interesting hypotheses, toprovide useful operationalizations and fruitfulinterpretations of empirical data.

Thus, at present, it seems as if theories onecological modernization through a common


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel300

reference to a societal shift most successfullyfunction according to what Blumer (1969) oncecalled a sensitizing concept, lacking ‘. . . suchspecification of attributes or benchmarks andconsequently it does not enable the user tomove directly to the instance and its relevantcontent . . . Instead, they rest on a general senseof what is relevant’ (p. 148). As a conclusionthen, and according to more specific require-ments of what a theory is, it does not seemjustified to speak of ecological modernization asone theory.

Finally, the discourse on ecological modern-ization has been evaluated in light of its parentterm: modernization. Historically, the processof modernization is nothing new, and invokingit today in this context is unexpected whenmost others are occupied with the breaks withinor ends to modernity. Nonetheless, it also seemsreasonable to take this point in time as theoccasion when environmental issues are reallytaken seriously by modern institutions, and toemphasize that the incorporation of the envi-ronment is actually marked by some of the corecharacteristics of what has been known as mod-ernization (optimism, belief in science, technol-ogy etc.).

At an analytical level, more problems appearwhen ecological modernization is read in lightof general theories of modernization. Modern-ization implies functional differentiation, ratio-nalization and individualization. Functionaldifferentiation means that different social sys-tems function according to specific codes orframes; this is what enables them to fulfil socialfunctions. The ecological modernists are notclear as to what characterizes their various so-cial systems and, thus, are unable to recognizethe conditions and possibilities for operatingwithin them or, alternatively, to recognize whena particular system is (not) changed, exhaustedor transcended. The many forms of rationalitythat are considered valid within a modern soci-ety are not reflected in the ecological modern-ization discourse, and one is thus left with arather narrow picture where the forms of ratio-nality one ‘dislikes’ are simply absent from theanalyses.3 The process of individualization ispoorly reflected in the theory of ecologicalmodernization, and this contributes to the im-

pression of a rather static and deterministicunderstanding of how the discourse depicted byecological modernization influences differentspheres of late modern society. In light of thecomplexity found in the many interesting writ-ings on modernity/modernization, the descrip-tion of ecological modernization, as it appearsin the ecological modernization discourse, actu-ally misses many of the interesting theoreticalpoints found in the general discourse onmodernity/modernization.

Discussing the concept of ecological modern-ization in light of more general theories ofmodernization gives many suggestions as tohow an improved discourse on ecological mod-ernization might be envisaged. First, with regardto historical aspects, there is both a question ofthe justification of the relevance of the conceptitself. However, more than 15 years after theecological modernization shift was identified,the question of identifying more recent shiftsand studying how they fit into the conceptualframework of ecological modernization shouldbe timely. It would also be time to look for theimplications of ecological modernization, bothin sociological and ecological perspectives. Sec-ond, and analytically, general theories of mod-ernization first and foremost hint at thepossibility for more refined and nuanced analy-ses of the environment as a dimension of soci-etal processes of change.

Notes

1. Hajer has a somewhat similar approach in theconclusion of his book, where he indicates that‘reflexive ecological modernization’ is what theglobalization of the 1990s might bring.

2. These points seem to be a reformulation of the sixsensitizing hypotheses to be found in Mol (1995,p. 58).

3. This is very much the same critique that Lash(1993) directs towards Beck’s thesis on the risksociety.

References

Alexander JC. 1987. What is theory? In TwentyLectures: Sociological Theory since World War II, Alex-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2


ander J (ed.). Columbia University Press: NewYork.

Alexander JC. 1990. Between progress and apoca-lypse: social theory and the dream of reason in thetwentieth century. In Rethinking Progress: Movements,Forces, and Ideas at the End of the 20th Century, Alexan-der J, Sztompka P (eds). Unwin Hyman: Boston,MA.

Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.Sage Publications: London.

Beck U. 1993. Die Erfindung des Politischen. SuhrkampVerlag: Frankfurt am Main.

Blowers A. 1997. Environmental policy: ecologicalmodernisation or the risk society? Urban Studies 34:845–971.

Blumer H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective andMethod. University of California Press: Berkeley,CA.

Christoff P. 1996. Ecological modernisation, ecologi-cal modernities. Environmental Politics 5: 476–500.

Cohen M. 1998. Science and the environment: as-sessing cultural capacity for ecological moderniza-tion. Public Understanding of Science 7: 1–19.

Dryzek JS. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: EnvironmentalDiscources. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Eder K. 1990. The cultural code of modernity andthe problem of nature: a critique of the naturalisticnotion of progress. In Rethinking Progress: Movements,Forces, and Ideas at the End of the 20th Century, Alexan-der J, Sztompka P (eds). Unwin Hyman: Boston,MA; 67–87.

Giddens A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. PolityPress: Cambridge.

Goldsmith E, Allen R, Allaby M, Davoll J, LawrenceS. 1972. A blueprint for survival. The Ecologist 2(1):31–38.

Hajer MA. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse:Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. OxfordUniversity Press: Oxford.

Jasso G. 1988. Principles of theoretical analysis.Sociological Theory 6: 1–20.

King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. 1994. Designing SocialInquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Lash S. 1993. Reflexive modernization: theory. Cul-ture & Society 10: 1–23.

Luhmann N. 1986. O8 kologische Kommunikation. West-deutscher Verlag: Opladen.

Luhmann N. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft.Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main.

Lyotard J-F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition. Man-chester University Press: Manchester.

Mark N. 1998. Beyond individual differences: socialdifferentiation from first principle. American Socio-logical Review 63: 309–330.

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J. 1972. TheLimits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Projecton the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books: NewYork.

Merton RK. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure.The Free Press: New York.

Mol APJ. 1995. The Refinement of Production: EcologicalModernization Theory and the Chemical Industry. VanArkel: Utrecht.

Mol APJ. 1996. Ecological modernisation and institu-tional reflexivity: environmental reform in the latemodern age. Environmental Politics 5: 302–323.

Mol APJ, Spaargaren G. 1993. Environment,modernity and the risk-society: the apocalyptichorizon of environmental reform. International Soci-ology 8: 431–459.

Mol APJ, Spaargaren G. 1998. Ecological moderniza-tion theory: a reply to its critics. Paper presentedto the 14th World Congress of Sociology, Mon-treal, 26 July–1 August.

Munch R. 1996. Risikopolitik. Suhrkamp Verlag:Frankfurt am Main.

Neale A. 1997. Organising environmental self-regu-lation: liberal governmentality and the pursuit ofecological modernisation in Europe. EnvironmentalPolitics 6: 1–24.

Offe C. 1996. Modernity and the State. Polity Press:Cambridge.

Peters B. 1994. Why is it so hard to change theworld? International Sociology 9: 275–295.

Phelan S. 1993. Intimate distance: the dislocation ofnature in modernity. In In the Nature of Things,Bennett J, Chaloupka W (eds). University of Min-nesota Press: Minneapolis, MN; 44–62.

Reitan M. 1999. Ecological modernisation and ‘Real-politik’: ideal, interests and institutions. Environmen-tal Politics 7: 1–26.

Schumacher EF. 1976. Small is Beautiful: A Study ofEconomics as if People Mattered. Abacus: London.

Spaargaren G, Mol APJ. 1992. Sociology, environ-ment and modernity. Society and Natural Resources 5:323–344.

Spaargaren G. 1997. The ecological modernizationof production and consumption: essays in environ-mental sociology. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agri-cultural University.

Szerszynski B. 1996. On knowing what to do: envi-ronmentalism and the modern problematic. InRisk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecol-ogy, Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds). SagePublications: London; 104–137.

Therborn G. 1995. European Modernity and Beyond.Sage Publications: London.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Ø. Seippel302

Tilly C. 1997. Roads from Past to Future. Rowman &Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD.

Touraine A. 1981. The Voice and the Eye. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge.

Weale A. 1992. The New Politics of Pollution.Manchester University Press: Manchester.

Wrong D. 1961. The oversocialized conception ofman in modern sociology. American Sociological Re-view 26: 183–193.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itetb

iblio

teke

t I T

rond

heim

NT

NU

] at

09:

15 2

8 M

arch

201

2

Documents

Ecological modernization as a theoretical device ... · strengths and weaknesses Ørnulf Seippel a a Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway Available online: 18 Jun 2010