What do you think?
Rate this book
The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses
The Politics of the Earth provides an excellent and accessible introduction to thinking about the environment by looking at the way people use language on environmental issues. John Dryzek analyzes the various approaches which have dominated environmental issues over the last three decades,
and which are likely to be influential in the future. These perspectives range from faith in unlimited economic growth to radical green politics. The history, interplay, and impact of these perspectives are analyzed and assessed, concluding with a plea for ecological democracy.
and which are likely to be influential in the future. These perspectives range from faith in unlimited economic growth to radical green politics. The history, interplay, and impact of these perspectives are analyzed and assessed, concluding with a plea for ecological democracy.
280 pages, Paperback
First published November 6, 1997
18 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 17, 2013
This well-organized book, in cataloguing the different ways in which people think about the environment, shows why so many environmentalists talk at cross-purposes.
I was drawn to this book because I was hoping to find something akin to the dialectical analysis of ideas performed by Mortimer J. Adler's Institute for Philosophical Research in the 1950s and 60s, which resulted in such books as The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Conceptions of Freedom and The Idea of Justice. The aim of these books was to elucidate, using a rigorous, impartial methodology, the discussion of the ideas in the history of Western thought. In order to expunge bias, these works were team efforts, and all the terminology adopted in them was carefully chosen so as not to favor any one strand of thought over any other. I was excited by the notion of finding something comparable which treated the idea of environmentalism as its subject.
While The Politics of the Earth is not a dialectical analysis in that sense, it does organize the discussion of environmentalism by showing the various ways that the environment and environmentalism have been talked and written about. It turns out that the subject can be resolved into 9 separate "discourses."
The author defines discourse as "a shared way of apprehending the world" that
The discourses are mostly very different from each other. Some address other discourses and some do not. Dryzek groups them into 4 categories:
Global limits and their denial
Solving environmental problems
The quest for sustainability
Green radicalism
In the first category are two discourses. The first of these he calls Survivalism, which contends that global resources are finite and that human consumption of them will necessarily run into an absolute limit when they are exhausted. The result will be global disaster.
The second discourse here he calls Prometheanism, and it consists of denying the Survivalist premise, holding instead that human ingenuity has always and will always surmount the problems it faces, including those problems caused by itself. The history of human development has been not one of increasing scarcity but of increasing abundance; this has been due to technology, which will press on.
One of Dryzek's ways of showing evenhandedness toward the the discourses is to break them all down in the same way, analyzing them briefly and examining their features under a series of 4 headings. He even provides a little box of bullet-points for each discourse, summarizing its main tenets and allowing the reader to clearly grasp the differences between discourses. I loved this feature, really appreciated the author's clear organization of the subject matter.
But a couple of things troubled me while reading the book. One was my own lack of clarity about what exactly a discourse is, at least as Dryzek uses the term. To me the word suggests above all a way of talking about a subject, in this case the environment. But it's clear that these discourses are not just ways of talking; they also imply or urge particular actions and policies. To the extent that they do this, I wondered whether the discourses might be the same as what I think of as ideologies.
Robert Higgs, in his book Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, spends a chapter discussing ideology, and contends that every ideology has 4 aspects:
cognitive
affective
programmatic
solidary
He goes on to say:
This is not a bad fit with Dryzek's environmental discourses. And in case you may think that Higgs has a negative view of ideology, here is his next paragraph:
Perhaps here there is a parting of ways between Higgs's ideologies and Dryzek's discourses--but I'm not sure. This point is surely important because if the discourses are fundamentally about values rather than facts, then it seems to me that the prospect of resolving environmental problems through any agreed program of action is dim. At the bottom of, say, the Promethean discourse, is there the "fact" of the limitlessness of human ingenuity, or is there the "value" that the human freedom to think and act must be held supreme above all else? Is it a question of knowledge, or a question of what we like?
Another thing that bothered me sometimes was the author's level of objectivity. In his introduction the author admits that he has views of his own concerning the environment, but postpones telling the reader what these are until the end of the book when he sums up. I would have preferred full disclosure at the beginning; this would have allowed me, as a reader, to adjust for his possible bias as he treated each of the discourses. As it was, I sensed the author's relative approval and disapproval through such things as ironic remarks made in the course of the analyses.
In a thoroughgoing "dialectical" analysis of the kind done by the Institute for Philosophical Research, the terminology and the exposition are chosen carefully so that, ideally, each of the viewpoints is depicted in such a way that none of its own adherents would not object to the presentation. In such an approach, each of the discourses would be described almost as an advocate would do it, presenting its logical argument as forcefully as possible while leaving aside any emotional appeals. As I was taught while attending a Buddhist monastic college: "when presenting your opponent's case, try to make it sound stronger than your own."
That's hard to do, and it's not what Dryzek was attempting in this book; but it's what I would have liked best.
However, this book is still good, and the author has done a valuable service to environmentalism and to thought about public policy generally. I had found the various arguments and programs around the environment to be confusing and contradictory, and this book has gone a long way toward showing me exactly why. Now, when I hear or read anything about environmental problems and their solutions, I find myself classifying the arguments in terms of these discourses. My thinking about the subject is better organized, and I like that.
I was drawn to this book because I was hoping to find something akin to the dialectical analysis of ideas performed by Mortimer J. Adler's Institute for Philosophical Research in the 1950s and 60s, which resulted in such books as The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Conceptions of Freedom and The Idea of Justice. The aim of these books was to elucidate, using a rigorous, impartial methodology, the discussion of the ideas in the history of Western thought. In order to expunge bias, these works were team efforts, and all the terminology adopted in them was carefully chosen so as not to favor any one strand of thought over any other. I was excited by the notion of finding something comparable which treated the idea of environmentalism as its subject.
While The Politics of the Earth is not a dialectical analysis in that sense, it does organize the discussion of environmentalism by showing the various ways that the environment and environmentalism have been talked and written about. It turns out that the subject can be resolved into 9 separate "discourses."
The author defines discourse as "a shared way of apprehending the world" that
enables those who subscribe to it to interpret bits of information and put them together into coherent stories or accounts. Each discourse rests on assumptions, judgments, and contentions that provide the basic terms for analysis, debates, agreements, and disagreements. . . . The way a discourse views the world is not always easily comprehended by those who subscribe to other discourses.
The discourses are mostly very different from each other. Some address other discourses and some do not. Dryzek groups them into 4 categories:
Global limits and their denial
Solving environmental problems
The quest for sustainability
Green radicalism
In the first category are two discourses. The first of these he calls Survivalism, which contends that global resources are finite and that human consumption of them will necessarily run into an absolute limit when they are exhausted. The result will be global disaster.
The second discourse here he calls Prometheanism, and it consists of denying the Survivalist premise, holding instead that human ingenuity has always and will always surmount the problems it faces, including those problems caused by itself. The history of human development has been not one of increasing scarcity but of increasing abundance; this has been due to technology, which will press on.
One of Dryzek's ways of showing evenhandedness toward the the discourses is to break them all down in the same way, analyzing them briefly and examining their features under a series of 4 headings. He even provides a little box of bullet-points for each discourse, summarizing its main tenets and allowing the reader to clearly grasp the differences between discourses. I loved this feature, really appreciated the author's clear organization of the subject matter.
But a couple of things troubled me while reading the book. One was my own lack of clarity about what exactly a discourse is, at least as Dryzek uses the term. To me the word suggests above all a way of talking about a subject, in this case the environment. But it's clear that these discourses are not just ways of talking; they also imply or urge particular actions and policies. To the extent that they do this, I wondered whether the discourses might be the same as what I think of as ideologies.
Robert Higgs, in his book Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, spends a chapter discussing ideology, and contends that every ideology has 4 aspects:
cognitive
affective
programmatic
solidary
He goes on to say:
It structures a person's perceptions and predetermines his understandings of the social world, expressing these cognitions in characteristic symbols; it tells him whether what he "sees" is good or bad or morally neutral; and it propels him to act in accordance with his cognitions and evaluations as a committed member of a political group in pursuit of definite social objectives. Ideology simplifies a reality too huge and complicated to be comprehended, evaluated, and dealt with in any purely factual, scientific, or other disinterested way.
This is not a bad fit with Dryzek's environmental discourses. And in case you may think that Higgs has a negative view of ideology, here is his next paragraph:
Every sane adult has an ideology. Every ideology must deal in part with factual, scientific, and other "hard" knowledge. To the extent that it makes assumptions or claims inconsistent with such well-confirmed, socially tested knowledge one may properly accuse it of "distortion." Some ideologies commit this sin more than others. But all contain unverified and unverifiable elements, including their fundamental commitments to certain values. These elements are neither true nor false.
Perhaps here there is a parting of ways between Higgs's ideologies and Dryzek's discourses--but I'm not sure. This point is surely important because if the discourses are fundamentally about values rather than facts, then it seems to me that the prospect of resolving environmental problems through any agreed program of action is dim. At the bottom of, say, the Promethean discourse, is there the "fact" of the limitlessness of human ingenuity, or is there the "value" that the human freedom to think and act must be held supreme above all else? Is it a question of knowledge, or a question of what we like?
Another thing that bothered me sometimes was the author's level of objectivity. In his introduction the author admits that he has views of his own concerning the environment, but postpones telling the reader what these are until the end of the book when he sums up. I would have preferred full disclosure at the beginning; this would have allowed me, as a reader, to adjust for his possible bias as he treated each of the discourses. As it was, I sensed the author's relative approval and disapproval through such things as ironic remarks made in the course of the analyses.
In a thoroughgoing "dialectical" analysis of the kind done by the Institute for Philosophical Research, the terminology and the exposition are chosen carefully so that, ideally, each of the viewpoints is depicted in such a way that none of its own adherents would not object to the presentation. In such an approach, each of the discourses would be described almost as an advocate would do it, presenting its logical argument as forcefully as possible while leaving aside any emotional appeals. As I was taught while attending a Buddhist monastic college: "when presenting your opponent's case, try to make it sound stronger than your own."
That's hard to do, and it's not what Dryzek was attempting in this book; but it's what I would have liked best.
However, this book is still good, and the author has done a valuable service to environmentalism and to thought about public policy generally. I had found the various arguments and programs around the environment to be confusing and contradictory, and this book has gone a long way toward showing me exactly why. Now, when I hear or read anything about environmental problems and their solutions, I find myself classifying the arguments in terms of these discourses. My thinking about the subject is better organized, and I like that.
December 1, 2020
järgmine õppejõud, kes sunnib mind lugema raamatut, kus kõik näited on usast ja rikkatest euroopa riikidest, saab kolakat
February 10, 2025
The book discusses a few discourses around environmentalism, from Prometheans (who believe technology will solve climate crisis) to radical greens (who believe a change in how we think about nature will solve the crisis). It's a very enlightening look at many movements as a reply to climate crisis. It even has a section on "gray environmentalism" (climate crisis denial).
CITATIONS:
HOW CAPITALIST MARKET CANNOT SELF-REGULATE TO FIX CLIMATE CHANGE: Conversely, if the price of a good falls, then demand relative to supply is falling. This logic can be applied to the goods we call natural resources. Barnett and Morse gathered long-term trend data for the prices of a number of "extractive goods": agricultural products, minerals, fisheries products, and timber. In every case except forest products the story was the same. Barnett and Morse showed that since at east the beginning of the twentieth century, the real price (i.e., after adjusting for inflation) of natural resources had been falling. If price measures scarcity, this means natural resources are becoming more abundant with time. (pg 53-54)
--> of course, natural resources are not becoming more abundant with time, ergo, the market logic is only destroying the earth even more
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS AND "SCEPTICS": The term "skeptic" is sometimes used to describe those who think anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change does not exist, but that is a misnomer. A true skeptic is someone who takes nothing on trust, requiring evidence and argument to be convinced. In this sense, Bjorn Lomborg is a true skeptic; but organized deniers are not. In subordinating science to politics, truth for the organized deniers becomes a subcategory of power. The organized denial movement therefore embodies extreme postmodernism, destabilizing the idea that there can be any such thing as scientific truth that is not driven by a political agenda. The whole Enlightenment ideal of a society guided by reason is lost. There is no reason, no truth-only a fight between political positions, which the organized denial movement is determined to win. (pg 68-69)
--> conclusion: no point in arguing with climate change deniers
PROMETHEANS BELIEVE TECHNOLOGY WILL SOVLE THE CRISIS, THE BOUNDARIES PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT NATURE HAS LIMITS AND IF THOSE LIMITS ARE CROSSED, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, SO ASK YOURSELF: One way to resolve this issue might be to compare the answers to two questions. First, if we believe the Prometheans and they are wrong, what are the consequences? Second, if we believe there are limits or boundaries and that proves wrong, what are the consequences? (pg 72)
--> what is the price to pay if we change our political and economic system so we live as if the Earth has boundaries? what if we make a better world for ourselves and then it turns out we didn't have to? this is the real question to those who want to maintain the status quo on the basis that everything is fine and technology solves all.
PARTICIPATION PROMOTES CARING ABOUT THE ISSUES: Gundersen believes the very act of discussion or deliberation about issues activates commitment to environmental values, or, more precisely, "collective, holistic, and long term thinking:' Gundersen's evidence is a series of forty-six "deliberative interviews" he conducted with a variety of people who did not in the beginning identify as environmentalists. By the end of these discussions, all espoused environmental values more strongly. On this account, everyone has latent positive dispositions which only need to be activated into specific policy commitments. Discussion in democratic settings forces people to scrutinize their own dispositions in a way that promotes such activation. (pg 113)
--> we should promote participative democracy!
CAPITALISM IS THE PROBLEM: Still, so long as the structural status quo of the capitalist market economy is taken as given, business has a "privileged" position in policy making, for government relies greatly upon business to carry out basic functions such as employing people and organizing the economy (Lindblom, 1977: 171-5). Any measures for environmental protection, conservation, or pollution control which threaten to undermine business confidence will be automatically punished by disinvestment. This possibility casts along shadow over policy deliberations, however democratic they may be (see Press, 1994). And once business publicists realize this, they can make good strategic use of the disinvestment threat, even when there is no real intention to disinvest. (pg 120)
GREEN PROJECTS: In this light, the fact that greens do not have any well-defined blueprint for a new society twinned with a coordinated strategy for achieving it is actually a point in their favor. What greens do have in abundance are ideas that can be pressed into a decentered approach to the achievement of a greener society, where there is room for a variety of experiments whose general orientation is given by green discourse, but whose specifics can vary quite substantially. Such variety is the essence of the green public sphere (Torgerson, 1999). Bioregional projects, networks of community activists, oppositional political forums, experiments in local grassroots democracy, social ecology's radical municipalism, transition towns, and attempts to radicalize democratic pragmatist initiatives of the sort discussed in Chapter 5 can all fit in here. (pg 229)
--> we simply cannot afford not to think of alternatives to this neoliberal system we are a part of right now. what do we have to lose? making a better home for ourselves on this planet for nothing?
CITATIONS:
HOW CAPITALIST MARKET CANNOT SELF-REGULATE TO FIX CLIMATE CHANGE: Conversely, if the price of a good falls, then demand relative to supply is falling. This logic can be applied to the goods we call natural resources. Barnett and Morse gathered long-term trend data for the prices of a number of "extractive goods": agricultural products, minerals, fisheries products, and timber. In every case except forest products the story was the same. Barnett and Morse showed that since at east the beginning of the twentieth century, the real price (i.e., after adjusting for inflation) of natural resources had been falling. If price measures scarcity, this means natural resources are becoming more abundant with time. (pg 53-54)
--> of course, natural resources are not becoming more abundant with time, ergo, the market logic is only destroying the earth even more
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS AND "SCEPTICS": The term "skeptic" is sometimes used to describe those who think anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change does not exist, but that is a misnomer. A true skeptic is someone who takes nothing on trust, requiring evidence and argument to be convinced. In this sense, Bjorn Lomborg is a true skeptic; but organized deniers are not. In subordinating science to politics, truth for the organized deniers becomes a subcategory of power. The organized denial movement therefore embodies extreme postmodernism, destabilizing the idea that there can be any such thing as scientific truth that is not driven by a political agenda. The whole Enlightenment ideal of a society guided by reason is lost. There is no reason, no truth-only a fight between political positions, which the organized denial movement is determined to win. (pg 68-69)
--> conclusion: no point in arguing with climate change deniers
PROMETHEANS BELIEVE TECHNOLOGY WILL SOVLE THE CRISIS, THE BOUNDARIES PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT NATURE HAS LIMITS AND IF THOSE LIMITS ARE CROSSED, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, SO ASK YOURSELF: One way to resolve this issue might be to compare the answers to two questions. First, if we believe the Prometheans and they are wrong, what are the consequences? Second, if we believe there are limits or boundaries and that proves wrong, what are the consequences? (pg 72)
--> what is the price to pay if we change our political and economic system so we live as if the Earth has boundaries? what if we make a better world for ourselves and then it turns out we didn't have to? this is the real question to those who want to maintain the status quo on the basis that everything is fine and technology solves all.
PARTICIPATION PROMOTES CARING ABOUT THE ISSUES: Gundersen believes the very act of discussion or deliberation about issues activates commitment to environmental values, or, more precisely, "collective, holistic, and long term thinking:' Gundersen's evidence is a series of forty-six "deliberative interviews" he conducted with a variety of people who did not in the beginning identify as environmentalists. By the end of these discussions, all espoused environmental values more strongly. On this account, everyone has latent positive dispositions which only need to be activated into specific policy commitments. Discussion in democratic settings forces people to scrutinize their own dispositions in a way that promotes such activation. (pg 113)
--> we should promote participative democracy!
CAPITALISM IS THE PROBLEM: Still, so long as the structural status quo of the capitalist market economy is taken as given, business has a "privileged" position in policy making, for government relies greatly upon business to carry out basic functions such as employing people and organizing the economy (Lindblom, 1977: 171-5). Any measures for environmental protection, conservation, or pollution control which threaten to undermine business confidence will be automatically punished by disinvestment. This possibility casts along shadow over policy deliberations, however democratic they may be (see Press, 1994). And once business publicists realize this, they can make good strategic use of the disinvestment threat, even when there is no real intention to disinvest. (pg 120)
GREEN PROJECTS: In this light, the fact that greens do not have any well-defined blueprint for a new society twinned with a coordinated strategy for achieving it is actually a point in their favor. What greens do have in abundance are ideas that can be pressed into a decentered approach to the achievement of a greener society, where there is room for a variety of experiments whose general orientation is given by green discourse, but whose specifics can vary quite substantially. Such variety is the essence of the green public sphere (Torgerson, 1999). Bioregional projects, networks of community activists, oppositional political forums, experiments in local grassroots democracy, social ecology's radical municipalism, transition towns, and attempts to radicalize democratic pragmatist initiatives of the sort discussed in Chapter 5 can all fit in here. (pg 229)
--> we simply cannot afford not to think of alternatives to this neoliberal system we are a part of right now. what do we have to lose? making a better home for ourselves on this planet for nothing?
September 4, 2016
An excellent textbook outlining the history and 'actors' in administrative policy-making and public discourse. Objectively presented with a keen interest in transforming corporate/administrative society to an ecological society with an active practice of democratic pragmatism.
October 29, 2013
In depth and dense material. A look at the many discourses (conversations) revolving around the environment, governmental policies, and the many players involved, such as everyday citizens, businesses, and NGOs. If you dedicate enough time to understand and chew on each perspective, it gives great insight for understanding other authors of environmental reads!
June 5, 2011
I'm reading this for school and have so far found it very interesting. This isn't my normal way of thinking, so I'm enjoying being taken out of my comfort zone in my thought process.
November 20, 2021
Es estupendo poder tratar con un libro que te hace las cosas más fáciles de lo que el autor las encontró. Como investigador, esto no es tan fácil (o común como podría parecer) en una materia como la de recabar información para el bien del estudio cooperativo de la comunidad investigadora.
Después de haber comentado lo feliz que me ha hecho que el libro sea claro, comentaré que el objetivo es mapear, analizar y evaluar diferentes "discursos" ambientalistas, de los que el autor distingue cuatro grandes bloques (dos de ellos transformistas y los otros dos reformistas del sistema post-industrial actual). Respectivamente:
- Límites y supervivencia
- Radicalismo verde
- Desarrollo sostenible
- Resolución de problemas medioambientales
Las subdivisiones de estos cuatro bloques no lo hacen ni mucho menos un análisis disperso sino increíblemente detallado y amplio, internacional, multifocal y estupendamente dirigido y claro a través de una metodología que, por dios bendito, ¡se entiende! Me gusta especialmente después de haber leído algo de literatura sobre sostenibilidad, ya que se puede realmente ver cómo los autores mezclan discursos, incluyen perspectivas distintas; al mismo tiempo las grandes distinciones hacen que, como observadores de la realidad actual, política, noticias, en medios culturales, etc. podamos identificar discursos bastante claramente en nuestro día a día, no sólo en el ámbito académico.
En cuanto a su metodología, el autor usa un análisis discursivo específico para los discursos medioambientales y, posteriormente, aplica evaluaciones de puestas en práctica, impacto cultural, impacto institucional, políticas asociadas al discurso y reúne críticas. Los cuatro pasos son:
- Entidades básicas reconocidas o construidas
- Asunciones sobre las relaciones naturales
- Agentes y motivaciones de acción
- Metáforas clave y otros mecanismos retóricos
Su gran articulación para el libro hace que el discurso entre los distintos capítulos sea claro e interrelacionado constantemente (aunque sólo hace referencia a lo previamente leído, tiene sentido pero hace falta una buena organización de los contenidos). El autor, además, es un buen conocedor de los discursos, no es un simple reportero político con ansias de entrar en el mercado de los libros. Por ello, para culminar, evalúa y desarrolla su principal propuesta de implementación, la "Democracia deliberativa" que ya ha desarrollado en otro libro. A veces los ensayos se hacen bien, y realmente creo que esta vez es una de esas.
January 2, 2025
Read for a class and just finished last 2 chapters over break. Honestly really good I liked it!! Frames all the different schools of thought around environment and history of how discourses evolved in relation to each other, and even their effect on real life policy and action. It is really useful to be able to assess arguments knowing the general school of thought they come from, how that came to existence, and what its flaws are as an argument/discourse. I’ve been seeing the patterns everywhere now. Very similar to the book I am reading called The Language of Climate Politics. Gave this one 4 stars because I think the other book is on track to 5 stars and does the analysis better, specifically tying to all the common arguments made in politics/media currently. However, this is an extremely good foundational text and was my first time learning formal discourse analysis techniques.
May 30, 2021
Superb overview of the different ways of thinking and politics of the environment. Presents all the different viewpoints, categorising them into four areas and making it easy to see the contrasts and common themes between them.
July 31, 2022
Interesting how every environmental thinking can be structured through discourses, which are perspectives or visions on the topics... It is much easier to understand politicians, experts in the media, and your relatives and friends point of view on ecology with the reading grid given by the book
August 11, 2023
(Review from 2023)
Read back in college, one of the first environmental policy books I read and it did have some good essays and ideas that did serve my purpose in undergrad of trying to merge my interest/passion for environmental work and my Political Science major.
Read back in college, one of the first environmental policy books I read and it did have some good essays and ideas that did serve my purpose in undergrad of trying to merge my interest/passion for environmental work and my Political Science major.
November 6, 2020
Clear, assessable, and well-organized introduction to environmental/ecological political discourse analysis.
February 20, 2013
Dryzek uses the idea of discourses to introduce the main ideologies and methods of the main schools of thought regarding environmental politics. Though at times he may get too caught up in the act of categorization, for an introductory text it definitely does its job.
December 18, 2011
This book gave a surprisingly coherent and insightful look at environmental discourses that influence the way we (especially Americans, British, and Europeans) think about the world around us.
February 19, 2016
A good introductory book.
June 30, 2018
An excellent and comprehensive analysis of the different discourses that encompass the modern environmental movement.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews