See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330753394

The evolution of the concept of environmental discourses: is environmental

ideologies a useful concept?

Conference Paper · March 2016

CITATIONS READS

11 2,485

1 author:

Aliaksandr Novikau
International University of Sarajevo
29 PUBLICATIONS 147 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aliaksandr Novikau on 31 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The evolution of the concept of environmental discourses:
is environmental ideologies a useful concept?

Aliaksandr Novikau*

Department of Politics and International Affairs, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, USA.

Abstract

The concept of environmental discourses currently has two distinct meanings in environmental

politics. The first approach emphasizes its traditional meaning, as textual and spoken

interactions about the environment. The second, more recent approach utilizes the notion of

environmental discourses as group worldviews towards the environment. This paper discusses

the evolution of the term environmental discourses and the appropriateness of each approach for

environmental politics scholarship. This study develops the concept of environmental ideologies

as a belief system towards the environment, using the analogy of political ideologies that

describes systems of beliefs towards political, social, and economic structures of a society. A

formula: environmental discourse = environmental issue + environmental ideology allows

combining three core concepts of environmental politics: environmental issues come into

environmental discourse, and, therefore, into existence as environmental policy problems,

through the lens of environmental ideologies.

Introduction
The coherent systems of beliefs about the political, social, and economic structures of a society

are usually known as political ideologies (Gross 1985; Næss 1980; Sargent 1990; Vincent 1995).

Although there is, of course, a wide spectrum of opinions about what constitutes political

*
Email: [email protected]

1
ideologies and their typology, there are also some well-established and widely used concepts that

can be used as a common ground for discussion. In addition to the clear concept itself, there are

well-developed typologies of political ideologies. Many authors identify such political ideologies

as Liberalism, Conservatism, Communism, Nationalism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism,

Anarchism, etc. Political Ideologies has become a legitimate academic discipline that is studied

in many universities around the world. Although any typology of political ideologies provides a

grossly simplified version of political worldviews, this concept contributes a lot to the

understanding of major belief systems about human nature and human interactions, about the

role of the government and civil society, and how political power and wealth is distributed (and

should be distributed) and why. On the contrary, we rarely find the concept of ideologies in the

study of environmental policy and politics. Most often, this term is used to describe an

‘environmentalism’ (Paehlke 1989), ‘ecologism’ or ‘green thought’ (Dobson 2000; Vincent

1995), ‘green ideology’ (Doherty 2002) as a type of political ideology that belongs to the same

list as the other, more traditional ideologies mentioned above.

In this paper, I develop a quite different notion of environmental ideologies using the

‘neutral’ or ‘inclusive’ concept of ideology (van Dijk 1998; Næss 1980; Næss, Christophersen,

and Kvalø 1956; Seliger 1976). In many respects, the concept of ‘environmental ideologies’ is

similar to the notion of ‘environmental discourses’ developed by Litfin (1994), Hajer (1995), and

Dryzek (1997). However, all these authors use the term ‘discourse’ in a broader sense, as ‘an

ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations’ (Hajer 1995, 44) rather than in the traditional

understanding of discourse as simply being forms of textual and spoken interactions (Potter and

Wetherell 1987). In this study, I utilize the van Dijk’s (1998) multidisciplinary approach to

ideologies and thus make a conceptual difference between the terms ‘environmental discourses’
2
and ‘environmental ideologies.’ I do not exclude the notion of environmental discourses from the

use. However, similar to van Dijk’s (1998) I use it only in its traditional meaning, as texts and

speeches—in this case, as texts and speeches towards the environment. Thus, environmental

discourses are these textual and spoken interactions about the environment. What stands behind

these acts—‘assumptions, judgments, and contentions’ in Dryzek’s (1997) words, or discursive

formations, are environmental ideologies. Essentially, environmental ideologies are group belief

systems about relationships between humans and the environment. Similar to political ideologies,

which are the belief systems towards politics and social conditions, environmental ideologies

regulate our attitude and behavior—in this particular case, our rights and wrongs about human

relationships with nature. Julia Corbett in Communicating Nature (2006) uses this term in a

similar sense, using a definition from the Oxford Dictionary. However, the use of the concept has

not been justified.

The concept of environmental ideologies allows the combining of the three core concepts

of environmental politics—environmental issues, environmental ideologies and environmental

discourses. Rephrasing Edelman (1988), I argue that environmental issues come into

environmental discourse and therefore, into existence as environmental problems, through the

lens of environmental ideologies. I summarize this assumption with the following formula:

Environmental discourse = environmental issue + environmental ideology

Finally, I conclude that a concept of environmental ideologies is often more appropriate

to describe the variety of belief systems towards the environment than environmental discourses.

From Issues to Problems

The past decades have witnessed an increased awareness of pollution, environmental degradation,

climate change, biodiversity loss, and overexploitation of natural resources in all countries
3
around the world. These devastating effects of human activity have started to occupy the

attention of national governments and the international community. This has resulted in certain

public policies intended to mitigate and prevent environmental problems and to regulate the use

of natural resources. Although all governments in the world face a great number of social issues,

there is no government that pays an equal amount of attention to every existing issue. As

Baumgartner and Jones put it: ‘Political science is the study of how political preferences are

formed and aggregated into policy outputs by governments’ (1993, 12).

Environmental issues, as well as many other social problems, usually do not represent

themselves as distinct, well-defined issues. For instance, even though air pollution, global

climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss can be discussed as separate issues, in their

ecological consequences, they are extremely interconnected. This makes their analysis very

complicated. Consequently, in a political discussion, these problems are usually simplified in

order to make it possible to develop a certain public policy. This simplification leads to

sometimes ineffective public policies that target only certain symptoms, not the problem as a

whole. An additional challenge exists if several environmental issues express themselves

simultaneously, and, therefore, the policy-maker should decide which one is more urgent (H. A.

Simon 1997).

Many issues are viewed as not appropriate for a government to step in (Anderson 2006).

For instance, although water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and the major player in

global climate change, it is hard to imagine a public policy that would aim at decreasing its level.

On the contrary, an atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic

greenhouses gasses is manageable, and, therefore, a subject of public policies. Additionally, the

4
consequences of global climate change are obviously a subject of public policy because the

government can definitely do something to mitigate them.

A focus of public attention and governmental policy regarding the environment is also

constantly shifting from some certain issues to others. The history of environmental protection is

characterized by periods of increasing interest in environmental issues and, as a consequence, an

increasing number of environmental legal acts and regulations, and by periods of relative low

public interest and, similarly, low activity of the legislative and executive branches of

government (Downs 1972; Klyza and Sousa 2008). At different periods in the United States, the

focus of environmental protection has shifted between wilderness, forests, natural resources,

water and air pollution, energy use, and global climate change (Kraft 2001). Similarly, the

approaches to solving environmental problems have also been a subject of change.

Administrative mechanisms, such as bans and fines, are more often replaced by market-based

solutions, such as emission trading.

The major question is how certain issues, which always exist in society, turn into policy

problems that require governmental redress or relief. Before the government steps in, issues need

to be officially defined as policy problems (Anderson 2006). Environmental issues such as air

pollution, global climate change, and biodiversity loss can only become public environmental

problems when they are recognized as unacceptable and, therefore, needing to be addressed. In

other words, environmental issues are only acknowledged when they are defined, articulated and

brought to the public attention as such. Thus, environmental issues that hurt people do not

necessarily become public environmental problems (Evernden 1992). If nobody persuades the

public that a certain environmental issue is harmful, then the government will not seek to act

because the problem is not perceived as such (Anderson 2006).

5
 An additional difficulty is that different people disagree over whether or not certain

environmental issues should be viewed as policy problems. This question is crucial because the

way in which people interpret environmental issues finally determines governmental

environmental policies. In contrast to the actual existence of issues (or, at least, of most of them),

policy problems are almost never objective but are socially constructed and so can vary in

different times and places, and in different social groups. This subjectivity is due to the fact that

any debate about environmental issues involves a debate not only on ‘hard’ evidence such as

physical concentration or temperature, but also on its consequences, especially social, political,

and economic. Therefore, environmental debates are not usually the conflicts over the content of

environmental issues but struggles over the definition of these issues as environmental problems

(or otherwise). The interpretation of an environmental issue is always just that of a certain group

in a given time and place (Evernden 1992; Hajer 1995). Thus, the perception of an

environmental issue, that is, the way in which actors define it, depends on the actors’ subjective

belief systems towards the environment (Anderson 2006).

This subjectivity of belief systems does not contradict the rational choice model that

Lasswell (1951) identified as being central to the study of the decision-making process, however.

This model is based on the neoclassical economics assumption that decision-makers arrive at

their decisions by following a specific set of rules: by noting the pros and cons of any decision;

assigning weights to the pros and cons; striking out equalities, and then using the information to

make the decision. According to the rational choice theory, people respond to a certain event

using a means-ends calculation to identify the most efficient solution to a specific problem. In

this process, a policy-maker identifies the ends and then looks for the means to achieve them. It

is important to note that the word rational is applied to the means, but not to the ends. That is,
6
the intended goal is never judged and, therefore, rationality makes sense only within a consistent

system of beliefs (H. A. Simon 1997).

Beliefs are, in van Dijk’s definition is ‘anything than can be thought’ (1998, 18).

Following van Dijk’s (1998) ideas, I prefer to use the term environmental beliefs over

environmental ideas or worldviews which have a similar meaning. The terms ideas and

worldviews are more general than beliefs. The term ideas is often has a meaning of a ‘new

thought.’ Most importantly, the word belief explicitly emphasizes the imaginary component, as

opposed to knowledge. Thus, beliefs are usually imaginary and represent an interpretation of

reality, an ideal view, express a will (conservative, conformist, reformist or revolutionary), a

hope or nostalgia, rather than a precise description of a reality (Ricœur 1981). Since a traditional

epistemological definition of knowledge is justified belief (Steup 2014), the relationships

between knowledge and beliefs depend on the method of justification (Vincent 1995; van Dijk

1998).

From Beliefs to Ideologies

Socially shared beliefs have been always associated with the term ideology (van Dijk 1998).

However, historically, beginning from the ideologues in post-revolutionary France, the concept

of ideology often has negative connotations, meaning systems of ideas of the ruling class and,

correspondingly, a distorted or even inverted image of their social existence for the working

class (Thompson 1984; Vincent 1995; van Dijk 1998). This view has been preserved and then

extremely popularized by Marxism:

Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of
men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear
upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their

7
 historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical
life-process. (Marx 1972, 118)

Engels defines ideology in an even more comprehensive sense:

‘Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but

with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to
him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence, he imagines false or
seeming motive forces’ (1972, 648).

This understanding of ideology as false consciousness produces what Thompson calls ‘a

critical conception of ideology’ (1984, 4). Næss (1980) divides this critical notion of ideology

into two categories. In the first case, ideologies present idiosyncratic beliefs, preconceptions,

mistakes, and narrowness. Nevertheless, this type does not imply insincerity. Thus, in Ricœur’s

words, this type of ideology is ‘the cousin of error and falsehood, the brother of illusion’ (1981,

223). The second type of ideology presents not just the distorted image of reality, but also refers

to insincerity. Thus, the distorted image of reality is actively promoted to others as indoctrination

or propaganda. The primary function of this type of ideology is domination and, therefore, it is

inevitably linked with power relations. This is why this notion of ideology, as an essentially

negative phenomenon was generally accepted by numerous, both Marxist and non-Marxist

approaches which emphasize the asymmetric power relations. For instance, in orthodox Marxism,

ideology traditionally has been viewed as merely a function of a false representation of the

interests of the ruling class and propagated by that class:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the
ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class
which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time
over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of
those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. (Marx 1972, 136)

Thus, in a Marxist tradition, when someone characterizes a certain view as ‘ideological’,

he is automatically criticizing it: therefore, ideology is not a neutral term. It is always laden with
8
conflict and controversial. These negative connotations conveyed by the term ideology were later

revised even by some neo-Marxist scholars. For instance, Seliger (1976) proposes to divide

ideologies into two categories. The restrictive conception comprises the original Marxian notion

of ideology, even though the author opposes the understanding of the Marxian notion of ideology

as a false consciousness. He argues that Marx and Engels were interpreted wrongly, and they

actually did not conclude that ‘because men’s ideas merely reflect socio-economic reality,

without any free creation of it, their ideas must, therefore, be false’ (1977, 31). Anyway, the

inclusive conception of ideology ‘covers sets of ideas by which men posit, explain and justify

ends and means of organized social action, and specifically political action’ and, therefore, is

applicable to all political belief systems (Seliger 1976, 14).

In non-Marxist literature, the term ideology has become equal to the conception of

political ideology beginning from the 1940s (Seliger 1976). In this sense, political ideologies are

merely systems of beliefs towards the political, social, and economic structures of the society

(Gross 1985; Vincent 1995). These belief systems are relatively stable and clear and, therefore,

can be described in certain terms. In other words, this is a system of thoughts transformed into a

coherent system of political beliefs. Political ideologies’ objectives and programs derive from

deep, core beliefs towards the social life, the analysis of a current situation, and the plan for

change (Næss 1980). Ideologies attempt to explain major relations within society both from

empirical and normative standpoints. They not only describe the nature of human interactions

about these structures but also prescribe human actions aimed to change them.

Basically, every political ideology answers three types of questions: “What should our

society look like? ‘What is the current state of our society?’ and ‘What should we do in order to

change the existing order of things?’ More specifically, political ideologies usually discuss the
9
following questions: ‘What is human nature?’, ‘What is the origin of society?’, ‘Should people

obey the government?’, ‘What is the function of law?’, ‘Are people equal?’, “How should

resources be distributed?’, and many others. By using these questions, it is possible to define and

compare political ideologies (Sargent 1990). Because the primary function of ideology is

concerned with social relations, the meaning of each ideology depends on social structures which

sustain the ideology and its relation to other ideologies, rather than to a real (Althusser 1969).

Every ideology is a complex structure, which is unified by a certain issue and must be

analyzed only as a whole. Deep beliefs, descriptions of reality, goals, and therefore, a program

for actions are always complex and, most importantly, are in constant conflict with one other.

The notion of ideology as a coherent and organized set of beliefs does not imply that ideologies

are consistent systems. In fact, they may include elements that contradict each other because

ideologies are socio-psychological systems rather than logical ones (van Dijk 2006).

The term ideology is usually not applied to the personal beliefs of individuals. Although

it is possible to talk about individual belief systems, ideologies are rarely personal but usually

represent the group, institutional, social and political structures (van Dijk 1998, 2006). We can

identify fundamental concepts in every individual belief system and, therefore, formulate a

limited number of environmental ideologies typical for a certain social group. Because

ideologies are usually directed at a large popular audience, people rarely express them in person-

to-person communications. In order to achieve the maximum persuasive and convicting power,

an ideology should be able to represent their ideas in a form comprehensible to a broader

audience (Næss 1980). As a result, all ideologies are schematic and simplifying—they express in

slogans, lapidary formulas, and maxims. As a rule, an ideological communication between social

groups occurs through the media. In the process of this communication, one group can change
10
the actions of the other group. As a result, social groups can affect social issues indirectly

through other groups. For instance, a non-governmental organization can interpret an issue of

climate change based on its environmental ideology. The result of its interpretation can be

translated through the media to the government, which can produce certain public policies to

mitigate global warming. ‘In most (but not all) cases, ideologies are self-serving and a function

of the material and symbolic interests of the group’ (van Dijk 1998, 8).

Thus, any social actors, in order to realize and represent themselves, have to give an

image of themselves to other groups. Ideology plays the most important role in this process—it

justifies that the group has a right to be what it is (Ricœur 1981). Ideologies, therefore, shape and

organize group attitudes and interests and target other groups or popular audience (Sargent 1990).

As a result, any social group has to have an ideology, which is a coherent system of interrelated

group beliefs. Ideologies are always action-oriented. Their purpose is more just a reflection—

they always promote the reform, preservation or destruction of a certain order (Seliger 1977;

Ricœur 1981; Gross 1985). Although all belief systems are similar and function alike (Seliger

1977), they also differ in their values or elements which can be formally distinguished (Sargent

1990). At the same time, ideologies share certain assumptions and, in fact, are less divided than

they pretend to be, and this makes an ideological pluralism within a given society possible

(Seliger 1977).

From Ideologies to Discourses (and back)

In recent decades, in many instances, the term ideology has been gradually replaced by the term

discourse. This transformation is usually associated with the works of Michel Foucault, although,

according to Sawyer (2002), Michel Pêcheux (1982) contributed the most to the contemporary

11
widespread meaning of the term discourse. Pêcheux developed the idea of the relationships

between discursive and ideological formations, arguing that the meaning of words, expressions,

and statements are determined by the ideological positions of those who use them. Consequently,

a discursive formation determines what should be said and how.

Anyway, the distinction between discourse and ideology, which were quite clear prior to

the 1980s, has become more and more blurred (Sawyer 2002). The term discourse has started to

be used in a broader way than its standard usage, which is a unit of language larger than a

sentence, groups of statements, all forms of texts and spoken interaction, both formal and

informal (Potter and Wetherell 1987; Sawyer 2002). The broad usage of the term discourse has

started refer to beliefs, the concepts, objects or strategies, and practices that are part of the

discursive formations (Hajer 1995). This gradual shift has been caused by dissatisfaction in

existing theories of ideology, caused, mainly, by their Marxist heritage. Firstly, Marxism often

prioritizes ideology over science. Secondly, the term implied a clear opposition between material

reality and ideas (a concept of base-superstructure). Thirdly, ideology was related to a Marxist

idea of class struggle (Sawyer 2002). The new notion of discourse (in its broader sense) was

seemingly able to overcome these limitations.

‘Discourse’ has captured the totalizing and semiotic connotations of ‘culture’, combined
it with the Gramscian and Althusserian notions of ‘hegemony’ and ‘ideology’, blended it
with Lacanian psychoanalytic concepts, tapped into the linguistic turn in literary theory,
and then introduced Foucault’s historical perspective on power/knowledge relations.
‘Discourse’ thus retains many connotations of 1970s Marxist and Lacanian theory, but in
a way that allows the incorporation of history, culture and both structuralist and post-
structuralist insights. It is not surprising that such an all-encompassing term is now
associated with a wide range of conflicting and confusing meanings. (Sawyer 2002, 450)

12
 As a result, in environmental policy literature, the group beliefs towards the environment

are often referred to as environmental discourses. Karen Litfin (1994), Maarten Hajer (1995),

and John Dryzek (1997) have contributed the most to the popularization of that term.

Hajer defines discourse in the following way:

Discourse is here defined as a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations

that are produced, reproduced and transformed into a particular set of practices and
through which meaning is given to physical and social realities. (1995, 44)

Quite similarly, for Dryzek, discourse is:

A shared way of apprehending the world. Embedded in language, it 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, in the
environmental area no less than elsewhere. (1997, 8)

Consequently, environmental discourses are ‘the way we construct, interpret, discuss, and

analyze environmental problems’ (Dryzek 1997, 9). At any rate, all these authors attribute their

notions of discourse to Foucault, albeit with certain limitations. For instance, Dryzek denies the

Foucauldian way of viewing discourses in hegemonic terms, and, consequently, viewing

individuals as helpless subjects of a dominant discourse who are unable to make choices across

discourses. Most importantly, none of these authors uses a common-sense understanding of

discourse as just speech acts, or as a mode of talking, but rather they understand it in a broader

way, connecting discourse to the social practices in which it is produced.

Litfin’s, Hajer’s, and Dryzek’s notions of environmental discourses are very much in a

post-positivist tradition, and by no means is the purpose of this paper to doubt the rightfulness of

this term. Nevertheless, there are several concerns about using the term discourse in

environmental policy scholarship.

13
 Firstly, as mentioned above, the introduction of the notion of discourse was in many

respects caused by the inability of older notions such as ideology, language, and culture to

describe social reality adequately. As a result, a notion of discourse has absorbed a number of

meanings from different disciplines, mostly from philosophy and linguistics. Sawyer defines the

problem in the following way:

This broad usage of the term ‘discourse’ is quite widespread and typically appears
without attribution, indicating that the usage is established and unproblematic. The few
writers that attribute the broad usage refer to Foucault. That these attributions are
typically quite casual—lacking page numbers, quoted passages, and sometimes even
lacking references to any specific work—indicates that the Foucault attribution is as
established and unproblematic as the usage itself. (2002, 434)

However, the problem is not in a wrong association with Foucault, albeit this problematic

association opens the road for misinterpretation. According to Sawyer (2002), such attribution of

this broad usage to Foucault is problematic and, most importantly, the variety of definitions and

meanings associated with the term discourse can be grossly misleading.

Secondly, a shift from ideology to discourse in many respects was caused by the Marxist

heritage of this term. Meanwhile, a contemporary neutral notion of ideology has little, if

anything, in common with its Marxist predecessor. A neutral concept of ideology, first developed

by some neo-Marxist scholars, and then broadly adopted in non-Marxist scholarship as the

systems of beliefs, can be a good substitute for discourses, at least about the description of our

worldviews towards the environment.

Regardless of obvious similarities, ideologies cannot be reduced to discourse even though

they are interconnected—discourses play the important role in the reproduction of environmental

ideologies. In political science (and often in everyday life), we naturally differentiate between

conservative ideology and conservative discourse. While the former is understood in terms of

14
certain ideas and beliefs, the latter is related to exact speech acts, phrases, and statements. They

are mutually connected, of course. We can expect a certain discourse from a bearer of a certain

ideology, for instance, a member of a party. Similarly, by analyzing a discourse of an unknown

individual, we can draw conclusions about their beliefs, or, in other words, their ideological

positions. Therefore, through analyzing discourse (for instance, a certain textual or spoken act),

we can identify not only the issues it discusses but also the ideology of the author. Analogously,

I differentiate between environmental discourses and environmental ideologies.

Environmental Ideologies

In this paper, I propose the concept of environmental ideologies, which are essentially a

particular example of ideology. As political ideologies explain what our society is, what society

should be, and what we should do about it, environmental ideologies answer the questions of

what the relationships between humans and society are and what these relationships should be.

Environmental ideologies mostly comply with almost all of Hamilton’s (1987) 27 elements of

the concept of ideology. Several of Hamilton’s characteristics of ideology, such as being ‘a

weapon in a class struggle,’ are challenged in non-Marxist scholarship. However, the majority of

Hamilton’s elements of the concept of ideology fit the concept of environmental ideologies well.

Indeed, they consist of ideas concerning, beliefs about, understandings of, and attitudes towards

the environment. They contain statements of fact, a normative character, and seek to explain

human relationships with nature. Environmental ideologies take a form of a coherent system of

patterns. Finally, they advocate for actions and change.

Analogously to the political ideologies, environmental ideology does not bear the false

consciousness but only major belief systems towards the environment. Analogously to political

15
ideologies which answer questions regarding political power, such as: ‘Who rules, why and

how?’, environmental ideologies answer the questions, ‘What should we do about the

environment and environmental issues, and why?’ Similar to those of all political ideologies, the

objectives and programs of environmental ideologies derive from deep, core beliefs towards the

environment, the analysis of a current environmental situation, and consequently, an agenda for

action (Næss 1980). Thus, a structure of any environmental ideology includes the following

interconnected parts:

1) Core environmental beliefs. A concept of human nature is central to any political

ideology. Similarly, relationships between human nature and nature and are the

cornerstone of environmental ideology.

2) Analysis of a current environmental situation. This involves the identifying the main

environmental problems and prioritizing them.

3) Plan for a change to achieve the desired situation, identifying limitations and possibilities.

For instance, who must take a lead in this change—the state or civil society? What kinds

of actions are allowed?

This lack of agreement among social actors over the reality and priority of environmental

issues has clearly contributed to environmental policies that do not appear to be tackling the

scope of the problems that environmental policy is supposed to address. Although it is more

important to know what people do rather than what they think or say about the environment, an

analysis of environmental ideologies can reveal a lot about what people do or will do about

environmental problems.

Environmental ideologies and environmental discourses are both interconnected with

environmental issues. The core of the environmental discourse is an environmental issue—what

16
is discussed. It can be the issue of air pollution, nuclear waste, or global climate change.

However, how exactly this issue is interpreted depends on the environmental ideology of the

interpreter. Thus, when people think, speak, and write about the environment, they interpret it

through their lens of their belief system or ideology that results in a certain environmental

discourse—whether or not this issue is defined as an environmental (policy) problem and how it

should be solved. Therefore, the differences in interpretation of a given environmental issue by

interpreters can be explained by differences in environmental ideologies of the interpreters. For

instance, an issue of global climate change has a broad range of meaning that stretches from

‘myth and therefore not a problem’ to ‘an urgent and growing threat’ because of the differences

in environmental ideologies among people who discuss that issue. In each case, in addition to

these polar views, there is an infinite number of intermediate opinions. Similarly, proposed

policy solutions range from ‘do nothing’ to ‘use all available resources.’ This makes any

environmental issue a contested term that invariably produces a range of conflicting meanings

and, therefore, policy outcomes.

By analyzing the discourse, we can reveal both the discussed environmental issue and the

environmental ideology of the actor. Because of the complexity and interrelation of

environmental issues, and because of the different environmental problems and their severity in

different societies, to create a universal classification of environmental issues is not always an

easy task. Moreover, every discourse is issue specific. For instance, a discourse about different

environmental issues will be different, even if it is based on the same environmental ideology.

17
From Political to Environmental Ideologies

The main conceptual problem lies in the relationship between political and environmental

ideologies. It is hard to dispute the opinion that any conception of human-nature relations implies

a conception of the political, social and economic structures of society. If the interpretation of an

environmental issue depends on its social, political, and economic consequences, the

interpretation of the issue, and more generally, the perception of the environment itself, depend

mainly on the interpreter’s belief systems regarding the social, political, and economic structures

of the society, which are political ideologies. However, reducing belief systems towards the

environment to fit into existing political ideologies is problematic.

Historically, no particular political ideology has monopolized ecological thinking

(Paehlke 1989). On the contrary, every classical political ideology has (at least recently) had a

certain environmental agenda. Thus, the question of how Liberalism (or Conservatism, Marxism,

Anarchism, etc.) would deal with a particular environmental issue or would view the

environment, in general, is a reasonable one. However, the traditional political ideologies do not

cover the entire spectrum of possible relationships between humans and the natural world. The

problem is that most of the traditional political ideologies, regardless of their differences, are

explicitly anthropocentric and committed to unlimited industrial growth and conquering nature,

or to industrialism, which is something of a super-ideology of the traditional political ideologies

(Dryzek 1997). As a result, these ideologies almost entirely ignore the ecocentric approaches. An

extensive body of literature supports the claim for the autonomy of environmental politics

(Paehlke 1989; Eckersley 1992; Dryzek 1997; Dobson 2000; Doherty 2002). Although the

primary focus of political ideologies is to describe the political, social, and economic structures

of the society, ecologism fits that category because, as Paehlke (1989) points out, the current
18
environmental problems have an essentially political character and cannot be solved with

existing political paradigms and institutions. Therefore, environmental ideologies must depart

from the terms of traditional political ideologies. In Paehlke’s words: ‘environmental ideas and

ideas and policies cannot be subsumed easily under one or another of the traditional ideological

headings’ (1989, 190).

Some authors develop the idea of building new, ecologically-oriented political ideologies

based on existing political ideologies, adding the prefix Eco- to the name. For instance,

Eckersley (1992) identifies Orthodox Marxism, Orthodox Eco-Marxism, and Humanist Eco-

Marxism as variants of Marxism. However, these ideologies differ from each other so widely

that we have to refer to marxisms rather than to Marxism (Dobson 2000). Moreover, by paying

attention to differences within ideologies, we blur the differences between them. For instance, a

difference between eco-Marxism and eco-Socialism becomes less significant than between the

parental ideologies.

Recently, green ideology (environmentalism, ecocentrism, ecologism) has been viewed

as a type of political ideology, alongside the more traditional ones. For instance, Vincent in

Modern Political Ideologies (1995) places ecologism among the other political ideologies.

Dobson explicitly defines ecologism as an ideology, ‘in the same sense as … liberalism,

socialism, conservatism or fascism’ (2000, 1). One of the problems relates to the location of

ecologism within the political spectrum (Doherty 2002). Indeed, historically, nature conservation

was associated with Conservatism. Recent approaches to ecology emphasize more equality rights

and emancipation and, therefore, gravitate towards the Left (Dobson 2000). Most importantly,

being defined as a political ideology, ecologism has to deal with every social and economic issue.

As a result, the view of any issue exclusively through the lens of ecologism is often constrained.
19
It follows that ecologism ought to borrow already developed concepts from other ideologies (or

share with them). This, again, causes a blurring of differences between ideologies (Dobson 2000).

Paehlke (1989) attempts to solve these problems by adding an additional dimension to

existing political ideologies. He argues that, in contrast to other political ideologies, ecologism

cannot be located on the right-left spectrum. Thus, a left-right dimension is still valid but is no

longer sufficient. Consequently, Paehlke adds a new axis (environmentalism/anti-

environmentalism) to the existing political axis (left/right) of ideologies, thereby constituting a

two-dimensional field. In other words, any political ideology can be viewed through the

environmentalism/anti-environmentalism lens.

In fact, convincing arguments now place ecologism within the typology of political

ideologies. Indeed, the green thought is one of the major philosophical and political

breakthroughs of the twentieth century and shares many of the characteristics of a classical

political ideology. Similar to other political ideologies, ecologism has objectives and programs

that derive from deep, core intrinsic beliefs towards social life and the environment (Goodin

2003; Hayward 1998), and that stem from an analysis of the current environmental situation, as

well as specifying the strategies for green change that are necessary to achieve the desired state

(Dobson 2000). Many authors apply the term ideology only to deep ecology (Næss 1973), which

demands radical changes in relationships between humans and nature, in contrast to shallow

ecology, a managerial approach for solving environmental issues that does not challenge the

existing order and, therefore, ‘is not an ideology at all’ (Dobson 2000, 2–3). The difference

between the two terms is fairly clear—the managerial style being the ultimately anthropocentric

approaches to the environment that do not stress the existing relationships between humans and

nature, and can be easily incorporated into any traditional ideology. To be considered as a
20
distinct ideology, green thought must be based on deep ecological values, must reject the current

approach to the environment, give projected future outcomes, and, therefore, demand changes

not only in public policy but also radical changes in human behavior, and involve a reassessment

of the human place in the natural order.

The point is that Dobson is correct in arguing that ecologism is a political ideology

because it views acid rains as ‘symptomatic of a misreading of the possibilities (or more properly

here, constraints) inherent in membership of an interrelated biotic and abiotic community,’

whereas environmentalism is not a political ideology because it views it as ‘simply a result of not

fixing enough carbon dioxide scrubbers to coal-fired power-station chimneys’ (2000, 3).

However, environmentalism (as Dobson defines it) is an environmental ideology (and so is

ecologism) because its approach in viewing and solving this particular environmental problem is

based on certain intrinsic beliefs towards the environment. When discussing the entire spectrum

of all possible belief systems towards nature, these managerial approaches, or environmentalism

in Dobson’s definition, have their own place. This place is especially justified because there are

belief systems that deny the existence of many environmental issues in terms that should be

somehow solved. One might argue that those anti-environmentalist ideologies should be

excluded from the spectrum of ideologies towards the environment. Moreover, some

environmental ideologies that give absolute priority to ecologism at the expense of democracy

and equality are excluded from the ecological spectrum by other greens (Doherty 2002). Næss

warned about viewing other ideologies as either irrational or functioning irrationally: ‘Doctrines

which state that political ideologies are irrational to promote irrationality in politics’ (1980, 141).

Thus, I tend to agree with Dryzek, for whom the notion of environmental discourse (or

environmental ideology in my definition) is broader than just environmentalism/ecologism

21
because it also should include the worldviews of those who do not consider themselves as

environmentalists and even those who are hostile towards environmentalists. Following this logic,

Dryzek and Schlosberg have included certain environmental skeptics, such as Simon and Kahn

(2005), and Lomborg (2005) in their Environmental Politics Reader (2005). Without these

opinions, the entire spectrum of environmental beliefs would hardly be complete.

Typology of Environmental Ideologies

Being a new concept, environmental ideologies do not have a developed classification. However,

the approaches to environmental politics discussed above do provide several classifications that

could serve as a ground for the classification of environmental ideologies.

The most convenient, but also most limited classification of the environmental ideologies

is based on the typology of existing political ideologies. Eckersley (1992) identifies currents of

Green political thought such as eco-Marxism (including orthodox eco-Marxism and humanist

eco-Marxism), Frankfurt School, eco-socialism, and eco-anarchism. Although orthodox

Marxism, Liberalism, and Conservatism are not defined as green ideologies, they can be

considered as environmental ideologies.

One-dimensional typologies, similar to the ‘right-left’ classification of political

ideologies, propose ranking from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism, or, from shallow to deep

ecology in Næss’ (1973) definition. For instance, Eckersley (1992) provides the ranking from

Anthropocentrism to Ecocentrism, identifying such streams as Resource Conservation, Human

Welfare Ecology, and Preservationism in Environmentalism, and three varieties of Ecocentrism

such as Anthropoeic Intrinsic Value Theory, Transpersonal Ecology, and Ecofeminism.

22
 Dryzek and Lester (1995) use the same dimension of values—from anthropocentric to

biocentric. Additionally, they divide the anthropocentric values between the individual and the

community. Moreover, since the authors use a policy-oriented approach, they include an

additional dimension—locus of solutions, dividing it into centralized and decentralized. The

combination of these two dimensions produces a six-celled typology of environmental

worldviews or ideologies.

Locus of values
Individuals Community
Anthropocentric Biocentric
Centralized Hobbesian and Guardians Reform Ecologists
Locus of Structural Reformers
solutions Decentralized Free-Market Social Deep Ecologists
Conservatives Ecologists
Table 1 A taxonomy of environmental worldviews (adapted from Dryzek and Lester, 1995)

A similar approach to the classification of environmental ideologies was used by Dryzek

(1997) (though referred to as environmental discourses). A first dimension is based on a view of

nature—from prosaic to imaginative. A second dimension is based on a type of solution—from

reformist to radical. The combination of these two dimensions produces a four-celled typology of

environmental ideologies (or discourses in Dryzek’s definition).

Reformist Radical

Prosaic Problem Solving Survivalism

Imaginative Sustainability Green Radicalism

Table 2 A taxonomy of environmental discourses (adapted from Dryzek, 1997)

Dryzek and Schlosberg organize their Environmental Politics Reader (2005) in a similar

manner, identifying five key axes of environmental debate, each broken down further into the

sections: Limit to Growth and Survivalism; Prometheans; Administrative Rationalism; Liberal

23
Democracy; Market Liberalism; Sustainable Development; Ecological Modernization; Deep

Ecology, Bioregionalism, and Ecocentrism; Social and Socialist Ecology; Environmental

Justice; and Southern and Indigenous Perspectives.

Conclusion

A proposed conception of environmental ideologies is a logical development of the notion of

environmental discourses which, despite its progressive impact, has limitations caused by the

ambiguity of the term discourse, at least in the social sciences. This ambiguity inevitably results

in a vague concept, which hinders a common agreement about its use. Although the term

ideology is not free from the ambiguity either, mainly due to its Marxist heritage, the term

environmental ideology appears to be more appropriate for describing and classifying coherent

systems of beliefs towards the environment. Regardless of the theoretical debate on the

appropriateness of the terms discourse and ideology as a definition for group beliefs, the priority

of the term environmental ideology over environmental discourse is also in a vein of

contemporary political science and environmental politics. The neutral conception of ideology

has produced a notion of political ideologies, which is a well-developed and broadly accepted

concept in social sciences. Obviously, any answer to the three questions about human-nature

relationships that an environmental ideology should answer would necessarily reveal a political

ideology or, at least, some components of it. In this sense, the environmental ideologies

nonetheless have clear links with the political ideologies. But to be effective as a concept, they

must also stand apart.

24
REFERENCES

Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx: New York: Pantheon Books.

Anderson, James E. 2006. Public Policymaking: An Introduction. 6th ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Corbett, Julia B. 2006. Communicating Nature: How We Create and Understand Environmental
Messages. Washington, DC: Island Press.

van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London ; Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage Publications.

———. 2006. “Ideology and Discourse Analysis.” Journal of Political Ideologies 11(2): 115–40.

Dobson, Andrew. 2000. Green Political Thought. 3rd ed. London ; New York: Routledge.

Doherty, Brian. 2002. Ideas and Actions in the Green Movement. London: Routledge.

Downs, Anthony. 1972. “Up and down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public
Interest 32: 38–50.

Dryzek, John S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford ; New York:
Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, John S., and James P. Lester. 1995. “Alternative Views of the Environmental
Problematic.” In Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, ed. James P.
Lester. Durham: Duke University Press, 328–46.

Dryzek, John S., and David Schlosberg, eds. 2005. Debating the Earth: The Environmental
Politics Reader. 2nd ed. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Eckersley, Robyn. 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric

Approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Edelman, Murray J. 1988. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Engels, Friedrich. 1972. “To Franz Mehring.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker.
New York: Norton, 648–50.

Evernden, Lorne Leslie Neil. 1992. The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

25
Goodin, Robert E. 2003. “A Green Theory of Value.” In Explorations in Environmental Political
Theory Thinking about What We Value, ed. Joel Jay Kassiola. Armonk, NY [u.a.]: Sharpe,
128–48.

Gross, Feliks. 1985. Ideologies, Goals, and Values. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization

and the Policy Process. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, Malcolm B. 1987. “The Elements of the Concept of Ideology.” Political Studies
35(1): 18–38.

Hayward, Tim. 1998. Political Theory and Ecological Values. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Klyza, Christopher McGrory, and David J. Sousa. 2008. American Environmental Policy, 1990-
2006: Beyond Gridlock. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Kraft, Michael E. 2001. Environmental Policy and Politics. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.

Lasswell, Harold, D. 1951. “The Policy Orientation.” In The Policy Sciences, eds. Harold
Lasswell D. and Daniel Lerner. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Litfin, Karen. 1994. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental
Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lomborg, Bjorn. 2005. “The Truth about the Environment.” In Debating the Earth: The
Environmental Politics Reader, eds. David Schlosberg and John S. Dryzek. Oxford ; New
York: Oxford University Press, 74–79.

Marx, Karl. 1972. “The German Ideology.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker.
New York: Norton.

Næss, Arne. 1973. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary.”
Inquiry 16(1-4): 95–100.

———. 1980. “Ideology and Rationality.” In Ideology and Politics =: Idéologie et Politique,
Publications of the European University Institute = Publications de l’Institut universitaire
européen, eds. Maurice William Cranston and Peter Mair. Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff,
133–42.

Næss, Arne, Jens A. Christophersen, and Kjell Kvalø. 1956. Democracy, Ideology, and
Objectivity; Studies in the Semantics and Cognitive Analysis of Ideological Controversy.
Oslo: Published for the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities [by]
University Press.

Paehlke, Robert C. 1989. Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics. New Haven
[u.a.]: Yale Univ. Pr.
26
 Pêcheux, Michel. 1982. Language, Semantics, and Ideology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Potter, Jonathan, and Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond
Attitudes and Behaviour. London ; Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Ricœur, Paul. 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and
Interpretation. Cambridge [Eng.] ; New York : Paris: Cambridge University Press ;
Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Sargent, Lyman Tower. 1990. Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis. 8th
ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub.

Sawyer, R. Keith. 2002. “A Discourse on Discourse: An Archeological History of an Intellectual

Concept.” Cultural Studies 16(3): 433–56.

Seliger, Martin. 1976. Ideology and Politics. New York: Free Press.

———. 1977. The Marxist Conception of Ideology: A Critical Essay. Cambridge ; New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in

Administrative Organizations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.

Simon, Julian L., and Herman Kahn. 2005. “Introduction to the Resourceful Earth.” In Debating
the Earth: The Environmental Politics Reader, eds. David Schlosberg and John S.
Dryzek. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 51–73.

Steup, Matthias. 2014. “The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” In The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/epistemology.

Thompson, John B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Polity
Press.

Vincent, Andrew. 1995. Modern Political Ideologies. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass.,
USA: Blackwell.

27

View publication stats