Environmental Sociology

Ecocentrism is the broadest term for worldviews that recognize intrinsic value in all lifeforms and ecosystems themselves, including their abiotic components. Anthropocentrism, in contrast, values other lifeforms and ecosystems insofar as they are valuable for human well-being, preferences and interests. Herein, the authors examine the roots of ecocentrism and discuss its mixed history of international recognition. They argue that non-human nature has intrinsic value irrespective of human preferences or valuation, and they refute the claim that ecocentrism is misanthropic. They then summarize four key examples from the academic literature in which anthropocentrism fails to provide an ethic adequate for respecting and protecting planet Earth and its inhabitants. The authors conclude that ecocentrism is essential for solving our unprecedented environmental crisis, arguing its importance from four perspectives: ethical, evolutionary, spiritual and ecological. They contend that a social transformation towards ecocentrism is not only an ethical but a practical imperative, and they urge support for ecocentric understanding and practices.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment management (E-waste or WEEE) is a crucial issue in the solid waste management sector with global interconnections between well-developed, transitional and developing countries. Consumption society and addiction to technology dictate the daily life in high and middle-income countries where population consumes large amounts of EEE products (electrical and electronic equipment) which sooner become e-waste. This fraction is a fast-growing waste stream which needs special treatment and management due to the toxic potential of public health and environment. On the other hand, the e-waste contains valuable materials which may be recovered (precious metals, Cu) reused and recycled (metals, plastics) by various industries mitigating the consumption of natural resources. The new challenge of e-waste management system is to shift the paradigm from a toxic pollution source to a viable resource in the context of sustainable development.

One of the defining characteristics of the modern era has been the ascendency and privileging of an instrumental version of reason at the expense of other, competing forms of rationality. Now deeply established and an integral component of Neoliberal discourse, it forms the dominant form of reasoning for many planners, policy-makers, academics and laypersons alike. Drawing on the works of Max Horkheimer and Max Weber, this paper considers the ways in which instrumental reason diminishes policy formulations and undermines democratic culture. It achieves this through a consideration of the exclusion of ‘deep’ green activists from policy formulation and an examination of the Capital approach to sustainability popularised by David Pearce. Recognising instrumental reason as a culturally specific value-laden ideal, this paper teases out the assumptions behind such thought and highlights the potential for alternatives. Such a realisation has important consequences, as the ability for built environment policy-makers to reimagine theory and practice becomes possible only when the veil of instrumental reason, cloaked and presented as a value-neutral ideal, is lifted. It is hoped that such a perspective will contribute to the growing theoretical and philosophical debate in Construction Management research.

This special issue of EAP celebrates 25 years of publication and includes 19 invited essays organized in terms of four themes:
1. Place—lived emplacement, place attachment, and environmental design as place making;
2. Nature—the lived constitution of the natural environment and natural world;
3. Real-world applications of phenomenological principles (transit design; virtual reality; environmental education);
4. Broader conceptual issues (the subjectivity-objectivity duality; phenomenology vs. analytic science; phenomenology as practiced by non-phenomenologists; phenomenological understanding vs. practical applications; parallels between real-world and phenomenological pathways).

Contributors and essay titles are as follows:
David Seamon, “Human-Immersion-in-World: Twenty-Five Years of EAP”;
Robert Mugerauer, “It’s about People”;
Jeff Malpas, “Human Being as Placed Being”;
Eva-Maria Simms, “Going Deep into Place”;
Sue Michaels, “Viewing Two Sides”;
Dennis Skocz, “Giving Space to Thoughts on Place”;
Bruce Janz, “Place, Philosophy, and Non-Philosophy”;
Janet Donohoe, “Can there be a Phenomenology of Nature”;
Tim Ingold, A Phenomenology with the Natural World”;
Mark Riegner, “A Phenomenology of Betweenness”;
Bryan E. Bannon, “Evolving Conceptions of Environmental Phenomenology”;
John Cameron, “Place Making, Phenomenology, and Lived Sustainability”;
Lena Hopsch, Social Space and Daily Commuting: Phenomenological Implications”;
Matthew S. Bower, “Topologies of Illumination”;
Paul Krafel, “Navigating by the Light”;
Yi-Fu Tuan, “Points of View and Objectivity: The Phenomenologist’s Challenge”;
Julio Bermudez, “Considering the Relationship between Phenomenology and Science”;
Edward Relph, “Varieties of Phenomenological Description”;
Ingrid Leman Stefanovic, “Phenomenology, Philosophy, and Praxis”;
Elizabeth A. Behnke, “In Celebration of a Conversation of Pathways.”

Herein we provide a comprehensive review of research pertinent to Lynn White Jr.' s contentions in 'The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis' about the negative environmental impacts of 'Judeo-Christian' ideas as well as subsequent claims that the world's predominant religions are becoming more environmentally friendly. Definitive conclusions are difficult given the complexity of biocultural systems: nevertheless, extant research has identified many themes and dynamics that hinder environmental understanding and mobilization by religious individuals, whether Abrahamic or involved in religions that originated in Asia. Some indigenous traditions, however, appear to foster pro-environmental perceptions and behaviors as do some nature-based cosmologies and value systems, which are often deeply informed by the sciences and direct experience within environmental systems. Our review overturns common misperceptions regarding the role of religion in environmental behaviors and concludes that additional research is warranted to better understand under what circumstances, and with which communicative strategies, religious or other individuals and groups might be more effectively mobilized in response to contemporary environmental challenges. Aasmundsen and two anonymous reviewers, for their helpful comments and suggestions on the initial draft of this article. A small portion of this article was integrated into an article we co-authored (Taylor, Van Wieren, and Zaleha 2016) and is reprinted here with permission of the publisher. 2

Anthropocentrism, in its original connotation in environmental ethics, is the belief that value is human-centred and that all other beings are means to human ends. Environmentally-concerned authors have argued that anthropocentrism is ethically wrong and at the root of ecological crises. Some environmental ethicists argue, however, that critics of anthropocentrism are misguided or even misanthropic. They contend: first that criticism of anthropocentrism can be counterproductive and misleading by failing to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate human interests. Second, that humans differ greatly in their environmental impacts, and consequently, addressing human inequalities should be a precondition for environmental protection. Third, since ecosystems constitute the ''life-support system’’ for humans, anthropocentrism can and should be a powerful motivation for
environmental protection. Fourth, human self-love is not only natural but helpful as a starting point for loving others, including nonhumans. Herein we analyze such arguments, agreeing with parts of them while advancing four counter-arguments. First, redefining the term anthropocentrism seems to be an attempt to ignore
behavior in which humans focus on themselves at the risk of the planet. Second, if addressing human inequalities is a precondition for environmental protection, biodiversity protection will remain out of the scope of ethical consideration for an indefinite period of time. Third, anthropocentric motivations can only make a positive contribution to the environment in situations where humans are conscious
of a direct benefit to themselves. Fourth, ‘self-love’ alone is an inadequate basis for environmental concern and action. We also explore the question of agency, shared responsibility, and a fair attribution of blame for our environmental predicaments.

Can ecological distribution conflicts turn into forces for sustainability? This overview paper addresses in a systematic conceptual manner the question of why, through whom, how, and when conflicts over the use of the environment may take an active role in shaping transitions toward sustainability. It presents a conceptual framework that schematically maps out the linkages between (a) patterns of (unsustainable) social metabolism, (b) the emergence of ecological distribution conflicts, (c) the rise of environmental justice movements, and (d) their potential contributions for sustainability transitions. The ways how these four processes can influence each other are multi-faceted and often not a foretold story. Yet, ecological distribution conflicts can have an important role for sustainability, because they relentlessly bring to light conflicting values over the environment as well as unsustainable resource uses affecting people and the planet. Environmental justice movements, born out of such conflicts, become key actors in politicizing such unsustainable resource uses, but moreover, they take sometimes also radical actions to stop them. By drawing on creative forms of mobilizations and diverse repertoires of action to effectively reduce unsustainabilities, they can turn from 'victims' of environmental injustices into 'warriors' for sustainability. But when will improvements in sustainability be lasting? By looking at the overall dynamics between the four processes, we aim to foster a more systematic understanding of the dynamics and roles of ecological distribution conflicts within sustainability processes.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0

Special Feature: The EJAtlas: Ecological Distribution Conflicts as Forces for Sustainability
https://link.springer.com/journal/11625/topicalCollection/AC_b4bf79ebe46fa50dcd80539725659023

Interview. We asked sociologist Jason W. Moore about the human impact on the world ecology. 'My hope is that this theoretical research may provide useful insights for the social movements around the world that are fighting not only the effects, but especially the root causes of climate change.' In the discussion of the global ecological crisis, there is more and more talk about the Anthropocene, a term resulting from the combination of Greek words " anthropos " (human) and " kainos " (new). This concept refers to the global scale of the impact of human activity on the composition and functioning of the " Earth system. " In its most common version, the idea of the Anthropocene is based mainly on ecological considerations. In particular, this points to the accelerated extinction of a large number of species, the progressive reduction in the availability of fossil fuels and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane. Although this is a very recent phenomenon on the geological scale, by now it has been very clearly established that anthropic (i.e. human-originated) activity is the direct cause of these phenomena, and has profoundly influenced the transformations of the environment on a global scale. The perspective of a " world-ecology, " developed by Jason W. Moore, does not dispute any part of this picture from a descriptive point of view; it does, however, manage to capture some further aspects which are also backed up by indisputable data. The American sociologist criticizes the " Anthropocenic " narrative in that it focuses only on the effects of ecological degradation. In this way, the analysis of the causes of that deterioration is actually being neglected, thus making it harder both to identify those responsible for the ecological crisis and to search for political solutions to the problem. Instead, we must get to the root of the matter, recognizing that capitalism, while it does not have any provisions for being an ecologically friendly system, is itself, inevitably, an ecological system. Viewed in this context, the impulse towards environmental unsustainability on the part of capitalism can be seen as already inherent in the organization of labor aimed at unlimited accumulation. Thanks to this timely update to this contemporary concept, the Marxist theoretical toolkit is showing its continued relevance, pointing out that the forcible coercion of labor (both human and non-human), subordinate to the imperative of profit at any cost—and thus of unlimited accumulation—is what is causing the breakdown of equilibria in the ecosystem. We are not talking about the Anthropocene then, but rather of the " Capitalocene. "

Besides items of interest and “citations received,” this issue of ENVIRONMENTAL & ARCHITECTURAL PHENOMENOLOGY includes the following entries:
• A “book note” on Jane Jacobs’ VITAL LITTLE PLANS, a recently published posthumous collection of her unpublished articles, lectures, and portions of uncompleted books.
• Museum curator Robert Barzan’s personal consideration of the relationship between ethics and place.
• Anthropologist Jenny Quillien’s account of her recent travel experiences in Bhutan and what they might mean for understanding “place-ness.”
• Environmental educator John Cameron’s twelfth and final “Letter from Far South.”
• Philosopher Isis Brook’s review of Cameron’s recently published BLACKSTONE CHRONICLES: PLACE-MAKING ON A TASMANIAN ISLAND, a compilation of his twelve letters in book form.
Since the last EAP, two major figures associated with phenomenological work have died—in January, philosopher Lester Embree (1938-2017); in July, geographer Anne Buttimer (1983-2017). Both thinkers were devoted advocates of phenomenological research, and they are remembered in this issue.

Back cover text: Real Social Science presents a new, hands-on approach to social inquiry. The theoretical and methodological ideas behind the book, inspired by Aristotelian phronesis, represent an original perspective within the social sciences, and this volume gives readers for the first time a set of studies exemplifying what applied phronesis looks like in practice. The reflexive analysis of values and power gives new meaning to the impact of research on policy and practice. Real Social Science is a major step forward in a novel and thriving field of research. This book will benefit scholars, researchers, and students who want to make a difference in practice, not just in the academy. Its message will make it essential reading for students and academics across the social sciences.