Political ecology | A series of student essays on the politics of culture, place, and nature

Moderator’s
Note: As has become customary, I am posting a selection of student
research notes and essays prepared for a political ecology seminar I teach
during fall quarter at the University of Washington. Taught as an advanced reading
and discussion seminar, the course involves heavy reading loads and weekly
writing aimed at development of analytical and critical skills. All of the students
prepared a total of eight (8) critical reading summaries. They also produced
the essays presented here which are synthesized from quarter-long topical
research projects and presented in the form of a series of 2000-word posts.

Some of these posts are autobiographical in
nature and draw from personal life histories and experiences – but they are not
self-indulgent empty exercises in navel gazing. The students of the so-called Millennial
Generation are critical realists not
because it might be an intellectual fad but as a matter of historical and
structural circumstances. This is a group of serious-minded concerned young
people who insist that they are going to be more than the embodiment of an
increasingly generalized state of precariousness. They refuse to be mere dupes
in a tragedy involving the most extreme social inequality and concentrated
corporate abuse of wealth and power that we have seen since the Gilded Age.

I am often asked to explain the meaning of
political ecology in the context of graduate studies in anthropology. The
traditional view of political ecology defines it as the study of power
relations in the construction of environmental problems, policies, laws, and
regulations. This usually involves a sustained interest in the study of the
interrelations of state, market, and civil society as social forces making and
remaking the “environment” and the “body” as material conditions of existence. Postmodernism
introduced a new approach that emphasized studies of discourse politics and
environmental anthropologists began studying the role of environmental science
in the construction of ecological problems. This led, ironically, back to the
roots in the recovery or resurgence of an interest in ethnoecology – the collaborative sharing of place-based knowledge
of ecology developed by local indigenous cultures in autochthonous fashion over
multiple generations.

Examples of the abuse of scientific discourse to
serve political aims are plentiful and so a critical political ecology
challenges most environmentalist orthodoxies.  There is a lingering concern with the cases involving
attempted erasure of local ecological knowledge and the burying of a deeper
environmental history as part of the imposition of a global top-down
environmental expert management paradigm. In this manner, political ecology
relies on a wide variety of methods and interpretive frameworks for the study
of the intersections of culture, power, and difference in ecological politics.

But, as this is their blog series; with no further
adieu, I wish to introduce the first post, co-authored by John Dillon Easter
and Kristen Albrecht with the title, “Capitalist crises: the creation of an
economic ethic.”  Dillon is a
student in environmental science with a focus on conservation biology and
Kristen pursues studies at the Jackson School of International Studies. Their
essay is a critique of capitalism inspired by a reading of Karl Polanyi; but
don’t let that scare you off; this is a good short read.  At the heart of their philosophical statement
is this idea:

The most apparent ramification of capitalism as
an economic system is the ignorance of the responsibilities we have as people
and as community members (global or local) to maintain the health and viability
of the planet. This ignorance is caused and reinforced by the economic ethic
and leads to detachment from the other. 

If you wish to understand why capitalism encourages
this detachment from the other, please, then, read on. If you are comfortable with
the latest in ethics from Tea Party conservatives and agree, “No work. No eat,”
then, by all means, please, also proceed.

Artwork by Leon Kuhn. Courtesy of Occupy.com

Capitalist Crises: 

the creation of an economic ethic

THE ILLOGIC OF IRRATIONAL DETACHMENT

John Dillon Easter & Kristen
Albrecht | Seattle, WA | December 19, 2013

Introduction

The history of capitalism is one that is still
very poorly understood even today due to the multitude of social, political,
and economic factors leading towards its creation. At the period of its
adoption as the dominant economic system during the collapse of the market in
the thirties (at least in the United States), the idea of a self-regulating
market was believed to be essential after the failure of the gold standard in
connecting international markets.

As Karl Polanyi observed in his book The
Great Transformation, “Indeed, the essentiality of the gold standard to the
functioning of the international economic system of the time was the one and
only tenet common to men of all nations and all classes, religious
denominations, and social philosophies” (1944). In other countries, the social
change brought about by the economic collapse of the thirties led in very
different directions—Germany and Russia being the prime examples of fascism and
socialism—which set the stage for the conflicts brought about during World War
II.

Capitalism, however, was already spreading so quickly
that the war only served to shape the economic institutions present at the
time. Capitalism matured as an economic system in England in the 19^th
century, but by the time the conflicts of World War II died down it was firmly
in place as a nearly global system of self-regulating markets (Polyani, 1944).

The self-regulatory aspect of capitalism is
perhaps the most important characteristic of the system as a whole, mainly
because it brings into play a novel set of economic ethics. These ethics were
historically formed from the driving motive leading to the adoption of
capitalism at the time, which was power through economic gain. As Polyani
postulates:

Nineteenth-century
civilization alone was economic in a different and distinctive sense, for it
chose to base itself on a motive only rarely acknowledged as valid in the
history of human societies, and certainly never before raised to the level of
justification of action and behavior in everyday life, namely, gain. The
self-regulating market system was uniquely derived from this principle (1944).

With the principal motive of the market system
being the need to gain more, one can see how values with respect to the other
(people and/or the environment) might change quickly. Rather than developing
community bonds, maintaining your place, or even maintaining personal health,
more effort is put toward making more capital because, in this system, all the
problems caused by neglecting the aforementioned responsibilities can be
remedied for the right price. The most apparent ramification of capitalism as
an economic system is the ignorance of the responsibilities we have as people
and as community members (global or local) to maintain the health and viability
of the planet. This ignorance is caused and reinforced by the economic ethic
and leads to detachment from the other. Defining this economic ethic is very
complicated due to the many factors influencing its creation and implementation
in everyday society (i.e. religion, culture, location, history, etc.).

Economically Ethical Detachment

The repercussions of the capitalist focus on
economic gain instilled this “economic ethic” in much of Western society, which
defines and divides humans. The drive centered on financial means leads to the
emphasis of personal monetary growth and shifts the lens by which we view
surroundings. This mindset leads to constant separation and categorization of
oneself, and equally others, into ‘us’ and ‘them’ through an emphasis on trade
and exploitable resources. By separating from others, it may create the facade
of connection and community, but only exploits and further excludes humans not
only from each other, but from their surroundings. One could argue that the
economic ethic fundamentally creates the nature-culture divide between much of
‘modern’ society and the environment it’s built on. However, to say this would
ignore the contributions of ‘Western’ philosophers, such as Plato and
Aristotle, who created a framework for societies built on those ideas, to
further perpetuate them. While this detachment that capitalist societies are
facing (and arguably global societies as well) may have been facilitated
historically, it is still reproduced and facilitated through the economic ethic
that is just as difficult to define for the same reasons that detachment cannot
be attributed to a single source.

Risk

The new conceptualization of the risk industry
and therefore the dependence on insured protection further emphasizes the
uprising of this apparent economic ethic among Western cultures. Risk is
something that affects all humans alike, and instills a permanent fear of loss.
This fear leads to the desire for protection, which in today’s society is
compensated through purchasing insurance.

Through using the example of environmental
connection in Climate Change and the Risk Industry, author Leigh Johnson
describes how this industry has created a framework to view the environment in
terms of a financial and proprietarily defined entity. Johnson uses the example
of climate change to show how even something seemingly uninsurable, can be
turned into a profitable entity. By creating a fear of the implications of
climate change, such as tornados or other natural disasters, people buy
insurance to protect against this. This illustrates how humans are creating a
monetary based relationship with the environment.

Any fear can be made insurable if the risk it
poses is valuable. What is chosen to be insurable is based on capitalist
tendencies, specifically financial desires. Sometimes insurers are willing to
cover things that are not typically seen as being insurable if there is an
economic drive high enough. Consumers purchase insurance because they know
about the risk and want to quell their fear.  Because the ability to be
protected is based on a financial attribute (buying insurance), the cycle
becomes directly connected to the global economy. This places the insurance
industry in an elemental position in modern capitalism.  The example of
the risk industry outlines how the economic ethics have become central in the
lifestyle and choices of people illustrated by their ability to buy away their
fears leading to a reproduction of a nature-culture division (Johnson, 2010).

The future of logical detachment from violence. Mindless

Garbage

Another example of this ethic actively being
played out in today’s society can be seen directly in Sarah Moore’s piece, Global
Garbage, on the garbage industry. It is common knowledge that much of the
waste produced in America is sent to landfills or dumps that emit toxins into
the ecosystem through the ground and air. Despite this understanding, Americans
continue to produce an accelerating amount of waste. The rationality of these
decisions is ultimately an issue of weighing the consequences, and when viewed
through a capitalistic lens, it is focused on the financial and immediate
(visible) impacts.

The focus on financial growth leads to not only
the separation of humans, but equally to the disconnection from the
environment. Without the repercussions immediately evident, there is no drive
to make a change. Because producing waste is not a large financial
investment, there is less consideration on the amount of garbage being released
into the environment. Managing waste, however, can become very costly
and difficult, so the obvious economically ethical response is to make it someone
else’s problem.

Another aspect of the waste
production/management dilemma is the lack of physical connection or view of the
waste being produced. This physical disconnect creates a lack of understanding
of the true consequences of the actions of the producers and consumers leading
to further reproduction of the economic ethic. Therefore, despite having the
knowledge of the environmental impacts this industry is having, because the
consequences are not directly impacting the peoples involved (financially or
geographically), there is little concern or action taken.

Critique

This capitalistic derived economic ethic is
continuing to separate people from each other and the environment. The ultimate
goal of the modern, environmentally conscious individual is to fix the degraded
environmental and social connections caused by the economic ethic by
eradicating it. It is clear, however, that the economic ethic is not quickly
fading. The counter solution needs to be in manipulating the current system to
mend the damages it has caused and to implement preventative measures that lead
to change.

The garbage industry offers an example of the
possible use of reinforcing the powers of this evidently powerful economic
drive. This industry exemplifies the apparent financial ethic-based decision
making. Because of the few financial consequences, there is an equally low
consciousness of the amount of garbage produced.  Therefore, instead of
trying to change the entrenched ethic, we can alternatively use the mindset as
a platform to create change. If solved with the same capitalistic context,
people wouldn’t be forced to view the issue in a different context, but instead
apply the same reoccurring tendencies. For example, if there was a tax on the
amount of garbage produced per household, there would be a new financial
benefit to producing less and reusing more. Although systems like this may be
occasionally practiced, it is necessary to implement this on a larger scale. We
need to use the free-market system and its inherent ideals to solve these
problems so economic gains are still occurring, with an added incentive towards
environmentalism.

Conclusion

Through the understanding of the creation of
capitalism, and therefore the ethics it facilitates, it is evident how this mindset
ultimately defines humans and their relationships. Due to the pervasive and
entrenched nature of the economic ethic, is it appropriate to attempt to
redirect the progression of human development by adopting an environmental
ethic? Or is it simply more prudent to accept the economic ethic and exploit
our understanding of it in order to achieve the progressive changes to
environmental sustainability and social connectedness?

Although attaining a degree of change is
seemingly necessary, to what extent of sacrifice should we accept to reach this
goal. Furthermore, to what extent has spontaneous economic change led to
negative social and environmental consequences? As Polyani states about the
adoption of capitalism: “Fired by an emotional faith in spontaneity, the
common-sense attitude toward change was discarded in favor of a mystical
readiness to accept the social consequences of economic improvement, whatever
they might be” (Polyani, 1944). This illustrates how the acceptance and
utilization of the current ethic, as a framework to attain desired
changes, would be a cautious and temporary solution. Although the continued
utilization of the monetary framework can lead to the facilitation of change,
the ultimate goal in redirecting the progression of human development toward
sustainability would be in redefining current ethics towards more
environmentally driven ones, rather than economical. 

Commodity fetishism. Spoonful of Sugar.

Works Cited:

Moore, Sarah 2011. “Global Garbage: Waste, Trash Trading,
and Local Garbage Politics" in Global Political Ecology edited by
R. Peet, P. Robbins and M. Watts. Routledge. pp. 133-144.

Polyani, K. (1944). The Great Transformation.
New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

Johnson, Leigh 2010. “Climate change and the
risk industry: the multiplication of fear and value" in Global
Political Ecology edited by R. Peet, P. Robbins and M. Watts. Routledge.
pp. 185-202.