Ecological Principles, Emerging Organisational Forms and Postmodernism

  • Jean Mercier
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)


An immediate outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit) held in Rio in 1992 was Agenda 21, an ambitious design to implement the Rio Declaration and create environmentally sound and responsible sustainable development. Enlightened leaders in all corners of the globe are seeking new ideas on the delivery of services that go beyond the usual design for strengthening government capacities and ‘debureaucratizing’. Along with the Third Sector, feminist, spiritual and other new models are those whose starting point is ‘ecology’. Replacing unsustainable development patterns with environmentally sound and sustainable development may require considerable rethinking, including a basic reorientation of organisational approaches and a new vocabulary emphasising ecological principles. This chapter seeks a starting point in ‘ecology’ and the ideas of ecologists. It postulates an approach based on ecologists’ own small-scale, non-hierarchic organisations and the concept of a protoplasmic living organism. Compatible with feminist, non-governmental and spiritual approaches, this concept attempts to extend the thinking of organisational ecologists and certain postmodern management scholars in a way that is applicable to both developing and developed areas.


Social Movement Organisational Form Environmentalist Organisation Ecological Principle Missionary Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Harlan Cleveland, ‘The Twilight of Hierarchy: Speculations on the Global Information Society’, Public Administration Review, vol. 45 (1985), pp. 186–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Pfeffer, Organizations and Organizational Theory (Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman, 1982).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.P. Hinchman and S.K. Hinchman, ‘Deep Ecology and the Revival of Natural Right’, Western Political Quarterly, vol. 42 (1989), pp. 201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Sainteny, Les verts (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1991).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luther Gulick, ‘Time and Public Administration’, Public Administration Review, vol. 47 (1987), p. 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    David Caley, interviewer and writer of The Age of Ecology, Part I: Ideas (Ottawa: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1990), p. 9 (transcripts).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vandana Shiva in David Caley, op. cit., p. 24.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serres quoted in Jean-Marc Drouin, Réinventer la nature — L’écologie et son histoire (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1991), p. 16.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.P. Hinchman and S.K. Hinchman, op. cit., p. 215.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., p. 216.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    John Kenneth Galbraith, The New Industrial State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barry Commoner, L’encerclement: problèmes de survie en milieu terrestre (Paris: Seuil, 1972) (translation of The Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology, New York: Knopf, 1971).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murray Bookchin, Toward an Ecological Society (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1980), p. 92.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    John Keane and Paul Mier in the Preface of Alberto Melucci, Nomads of the Present — Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), p. 5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claus Offe, ‘Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics: Social Movements Since the 1960s’, in Charles S. Maier (ed.), Changing Boundaries of the Political — Essays on the Evolving Balance Between the State and Society, Public and Private in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibid., p. 68.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Melucci, op. cit., p. 203.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ibid., p. 12.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Offe, op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Melucci, op. cit., p. 60.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., p. 205.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., p. 60.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid., p. 1.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid., p. 60.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Offe, op. cit., p. 94.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ronald Inglehart, The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andrew Jamison, Ron Eyerman and Jacqueline Cramer, New Environmental Consciousness: Environmental Movements in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), p. 8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Riley E. Dunlap and Angela G. Mertig, American Environmentalism — the U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970–1990 (Philadelphia, Washington and London: Taylor & Francis, 1992), p. 23.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., p. 21.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ibid., p. 22.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Jamison, R. Eyerman and J. Cramer, op. cit., p. 8.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    C. Offe, op. cit., p. 70.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid., p. 71Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. Jamison, R. Eyerman and J. Cramer, op. cit., p. 171.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Manussos Marangudakis, ‘Emerging Ideologies in the Environmental Movement’, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, 1991, p. 89.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Christa Daryl Slaton, The Politics of Symbolic Consistency: Being Green While Organizing Greens, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, 1989, p. 30.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid., pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Daniel Le Conte des Floris and Thierry Grillet, ‘Les natures du vert’, in Environnement: une grande cause, mais moi d’abord (Paris: Édition Autrement, 1986), p. 198.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C.D. Slaton, op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid., p. 10.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    F.B. Feher and R. Heller, Social Movements (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), p. 43.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    C.D. Slaton, op. cit., p. 30.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), p. 137.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ibid., p. 136.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid., p. 133.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ibid., p. 137.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Henry Mintzberg, Power in and Around Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1983), p. 378.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
  50. 50.
    Pierre-Éric Tixier, ‘Démocratic directe et organisation: Pour une théorie du fonctionnement collectif, I’année sociologique, vol. 33 (1983), p. 21.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ibid., p. 32.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
    Ibid., p. 27.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ibid., p. 22.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ibid., p. 25.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., p. 34.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ibid., p. 35.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ibid., p. 22.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ibid., p. 34.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
  62. 62.
    Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock Publications, 1961).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    J.D. Thompson, Organizations in Action: Social Science Base of Administrative Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    C. Offe, op. cit. pp. 70–1.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    A. Jamison, R. Eyerman and J. Cramer, op. cit.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jean Mercier, Downstream and Upstream Ecologists (Westport: Praeger 1977).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    David Farmer, The language of Public Administration, Bureaucracy, Modernity, and Post-modernity (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1995);Google Scholar
  69. Charles Fox and Hugh Miller, Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage, 1994).Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    Postmodernism should be distinguished from post-modernity. The latter term is more of a description, the former is a movement. Modernity is a historical fact, just as postmodernity can be seen as a description of an historical period; but with postmodernism we are referring to a movement, to a set of ideas.Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    David Carroll, Paraesthetics. Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida (New York and London: Methuen, 1987), p. xv.Google Scholar
  72. 71.
    Ibid., p. xiv.Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    Richard Kearny, The Wake of Imagination: Toward a Postmodern Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), p. 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 73.
    Alain Touraine, Anti-Nuclear Protest: The Opposition to Nuclear Energy in France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  75. 74.
    Michel Maffesoli, ‘Socialité et naturalité ou l’écologisation du social’, Cahiers de l’imaginaire, vol. 3 (1989), p. 10.Google Scholar
  76. 75.
    O.P. Dwivedi, ‘Institutional Issues in Environmental Protection: A Third World Perspective’, in Paul Painchaud (ed.), Le partage des responsabilités publiques en environnement (Sainte-Foy (QC): Les Éditions la Liberié, 1997), p. 151.Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    A.R. Haynes, ‘What about the Future?’, Business Quarterly, vol. 53 (1989), p. 56.Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    H. Cleveland, op. cit., p. 188.Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    Laurent Dobuzinskis, The Deep Structure of ‘Deep Ecology’ and its Political Implications, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Mercier

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations