Advertisement

EcoTypes: exploring environmental ideas, discovering deep difference

  • James D. ProctorEmail author
Symposium: Embracing Disagreement in Environmental Thought
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

The EcoTypes initiative, launched in early 2017, is a joint research and educational effort focusing primarily on students enrolled in undergraduate environmental courses in US institutions of higher education. EcoTypes was designed for participants to explore the fundamental ideas that shape how they approach environmental issues. They do so via a survey consisting of 15 key scales or axes (e.g., Aesthetics, Change, or Diversity); in the last 2 years, the EcoTypes survey has been completed approximately 3000 times by students in roughly 50 institutions. These 15 axes can be gathered via statistical analysis into three themes, including Place (human/nonhuman), Knowledge (old/new), and Action (small/big). The tensions and contradictions inherent in each theme suggest deep difference, an unsettled environmental contradiction with plural truths that cannot readily be harmonized. EcoTypes themes offer participants an opportunity to discover and engage across deep difference in a manner resonant with the coproduction of knowledge, though never toward some static consensus. EcoTypes suggests that the disagreement and difference we commonly experience today are inherent in environmental issues, not simply a matter of differing opinion, challenging us to take seriously the necessity of engagement across difference.

Keywords

Ideas Attitudes Values Survey Difference Paradox Engagement Education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I appreciate the support of Lewis & Clark College for this multiyear initiative, via Institutional Review Board approval (HSRC #2019-40). My colleagues and students at Lewis & Clark have provided insights and provocations as EcoTypes took form over the last several years. My colleagues in related 2017, 2018, and 2019 AESS conference sessions and workshops have also provided support, recommendations, and applications of EcoTypes; some but not all of them are featured in this Symposium series. Symposium colleagues provided important feedback on an earlier draft of this essay, and one (Jennifer Bernstein) provided important support during initial steps of the EcoTypes initiative. More recently, Lewis & Clark student Nico Farrell offered input into an earlier draft. I am grateful to all who have participated in the EcoTypes initiative to date. Finally, I appreciate the input of reviewers on an earlier draft.

References

  1. Asafu-Adjaye J, Blomqvist L, Brand S, et al (2015) An ecomodernist manifestoGoogle Scholar
  2. Behe C (2018) Understanding the arctic through a co-production of knowledge. Presentation, Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, April 11, Fairbanks AlaskaGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger PL (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein J (2020) (Dis)agreement over what? the challenge of quantifying environmental worldviews. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 10Google Scholar
  5. Bohr N (1937) Causality and complementarity. Philos Sci 4:289–298.  https://doi.org/10.1086/286465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brush E (2020) Inconvenient truths: Pluralism, pragmatism, and the need for civil disagreement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 10Google Scholar
  7. Campbell LK, Svendsen ES, Roman LA (2016) Knowledge co-production at the research–practice interface: embedded case studies from urban forestry. Environ Manag 57:1262–1280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0680-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caplow S (2020) The role of EcoTypes in engagement across difference. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 10Google Scholar
  9. Cosgrove DE (1998) Social formation and symbolic landscape. Univ of Wisconsin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Cotgrove SF (1982) Catastrophe or cornucopia: the environment, politics, and the future. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeFries RS et al (2012) Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience 62:603–606.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Djenontin INS, Meadow AM (2018) The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ Manag 61:885–903.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dukes EF (2004) What we know about environmental conflict resolution: an analysis based on research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22:191–220.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagleton T (2014) Ideology. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehrlich PR (1968) The population bomb. Ballantine Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis RJ, Thompson F (1997) Culture and the environment in the Pacific northwest. Am Polit Sci Rev 91:885–897.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2952171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher DR, Stanley K, Berman D, Neff G (2005) How do organizations matter? Mobilization and support for participants at five globalization protests. Soc Probl 52:102–121.  https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.1.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glacken CJ (1967) Traces on the Rhodian shore; nature and culture in Western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  20. Hacking I (1999) The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayles NK (1995) Searching for common ground. In: Soulé ME, Lease G (eds) Reinventing nature?: responses to postmodern deconstruction. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 47–63Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger M (1977) The question concerning technology, and other essays, 1st edn. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein N (2014) This changes everything: capitalism vs. the climate, First Simon & Schuster hardcover edn. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Chang 77:45–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mamadouh V (1999) Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction. GeoJournal 47:395–409.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007024008646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maniates MF (2001) Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Glob Environ Politics 1:31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maniates M, Princen T (2015) Fifteen claims: social change and power in environmental studies. J Environ Stud Sci 5:213–217.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0247-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z et al (2015) Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim Soc 7:179–191.  https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00050.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW (1974) The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller CA, Wyborn C (2018) Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environ Sci Pol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016
  32. Neff M and Albertson Z (2020) Does higher education prepare students to bridge divides in today’s democracy? Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 10Google Scholar
  33. O’Connor M (ed) (1994) Is capitalism sustainable?: political economy and the politics of ecology. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Leary R, Bingham LB (eds) (2003) The promise and performance of environmental conflict resolution. Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Olzak S, Soule SA (2009) Cross-cutting influences of environmental protest and legislation. Soc Forces 88:201–225.  https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plotnitsky A (1994) Complementarity: anti-epistemology after Bohr and Derrida. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plotnitsky A (2014) What is complementarity?: Niels Bohr and the architecture of quantum theory. Phys Scr T163:014002.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/2014/T163/014002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Proctor JD (1998) The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 88:352–376.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Proctor JD (2009) Introduction: visions of nature, science, and religion. In: Proctor JD (ed) Envisioning nature, science, and religion. Templeton Press, West Conshohocken, pp 3–35Google Scholar
  40. Proctor JD, Clark SG, Smith KK, Wallace RL (2013) A manifesto for theory in environmental studies and sciences. J Environ Stud Sci 3:331–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0122-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Proctor JD (2016a) Replacing nature in environmental studies and sciences. J Environ Stud Sci 6:748–752.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0259-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Proctor JD (2016) Situating ecomodernism via ecotypes. Sausalito, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. Proctor JD, Bernstein J, Brick P, Brush E, Caplow S, Foster K (2018) Environmental engagement in troubled times: a manifesto. J Environ Stud Sci 8:362–367.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-018-0484-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Puente-Rodríguez D, van Slobbe E, Al IAC, Lindenbergh DE(D) (2016) Knowledge co-production in practice: enabling environmental management systems for ports through participatory research in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Environ Sci Pol 55:456–466.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rootes C (2007) Acting locally: the character, contexts and significance of local environmental mobilisations. Environ Politics 16:722–741.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701640460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenzweig ML (2003) Win-win ecology: how the earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steinberg PF (2015) Who rules the earth?: how social rules shape our planet and our lives. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Verweij M, Douglas M, Ellis R et al (2006) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of climate change. Public Adm 84:817–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vincent S, Focht W (2011) Interdisciplinary environmental education: elements of field identity and curriculum design. J Environ Stud Sci 1:14–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-011-0007-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weber M (1963) The sociology of religion. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  52. White L (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155:1203–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zizek S (ed) (2012) Mapping ideology. Verso Books, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Studies ProgramLewis & Clark CollegePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations