Abstract
This concluding chapter begins by elaborating on the importance of conceptual pluralization and reflexivity to confront contemporary tendencies of denialism and anti-reflexivity. It then offers critical reflections on the concepts explored in this volume, by returning to the three questions raised in the introductory chapter: What is the explanatory value of these concepts? What biases and blinders are embedded within them? What sort of action-orientation can they inspire? The chapter then discusses how a more robust and sociologically-informed understanding of society-environment relations, and its many spheres of structure and agency, can enrich our understanding of environmental degradation, complexity, social inertia and conditions for social transformation. The closing section addresses the critical role of sociological imagination and reflexivity to explore what future(s) may lie ahead.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Boström, M., Jönsson, A. M., Lockie, S., Mol, A., & Oosterveer, P. (2015). Sustainable and Responsible Supply Chain Governance: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.050.
Boström, M., Lidskog, R., & Uggla, Y. (2017). A Reflexive Look at Reflexivity in Environmental Sociology. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 6–16.
Edvardsson Björnberg, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and Environmental Science Denial: A Review of the Scientific Literature Published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 229–241.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy. New York: Oxford UP.
International Council for Science. (2017). A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation. Paris: International Council for Science. https://doi.org/10.24948/2017.01.
Lidskog, M., & Oosterveer. (2015). Towards a Global Environmental Sociology? Legacies, Trends, and Future Directions. Current Sociology, 63(3), 339–368.
Lidskog, R., & Waterton, C. (2016). Conceptual Innovation in Environmental Sociology. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 307–311.
Lockie, S. (2017a). Post-truth Politics and the Social Sciences. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 1–5.
Lockie, S. (2017b). A Better Anthropocene? Environmental Sociology, 3(3), 167–172.
Lockie, S., & Wong, C. (2017). Risk, Sustainability and Time: Sociological Perspectives. In H. Schandl & I. Walker (Eds.), Social Sciences and Sustainability. Canberra: CSIRO Publishing.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy. Theory Culture Society, 27, 100–133.
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? AMBIO, 36(8), 614–621.
Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. (2012). The Discursive Democratization of Global Climate Governance. Environmental Politics, 21(2), 189–210.
Wong, C., & Lockie, S. (2018). Sociology, Risk and the Environment: A Material-Semiotic Approach. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1422783.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boström, M., Davidson, D.J., Lockie, S. (2018). Conclusions: A Proposal for a Brave New World of Conceptual Reflexivity. In: Boström, M., Davidson, D. (eds) Environment and Society. Palgrave Studies in Environmental Sociology and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76415-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76415-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76414-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76415-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)