Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Abstract: This paper is an attempt to read the history of the anthropocentric/ecocentric debate in the field of green political theory, and the efforts to get beyond it, in connection with recent social critiques of conservation regimes in a global context. In so doing it seeks to understand the theoretical contours of a problem that vexes conservation politics, notably the labor to integrate biodiversity protection with social justice. Perplexing questions of where, what, how, and for whom biodiversity should be protected complicate conservation politics on global, national, and sub-national levels. I argue that the move toward democratic pragmatism in green political theory and conservation politics is strongly influenced by social critiques of the global proliferation of conservation regimes. These critiques are largely a welcome development for biodiversity conservation, and for green political theory, because it focuses on the political legitimacy of conservation regimes. But I question whether democratic pragmatism really transcends the anthropocentrism/ecocentrism debate, as is sometimes claimed. The answer depends on what is meant by both democracy and pragmatism. If democratic pragmatism simply amounts to the victory of anthropocentric argument and the vanquishing of ecocentric approaches to conservation, then getting beyond the old debate doesn�t represent anything new and will not arrest biodiversity loss over the long-term. Conservation discourse that only permits anthropocentric values is susceptible to being trumped by a version of democracy controlled by short-term economic interests. But alternate versions of democracy and pragmatism, drawing from both anthropocentric and ecocentric arguments, are much more promising for biodiversity protection, focusing as they do on economic restraint and ecologically responsible versions of public goods. So instead of seeing anthropocentrism and ecocentrism divided by an abstract and insurmountable dualism forever separating humans from nature, I view them as conceptual poles around which different, but not fatally different, sources of social and ecological justice can be brought together in the promising meadows of democratic pragmatism.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: One of the theoretical landmarks of environmental sociology is Dunlap and Catton�s distinction between the �Human Exceptionalist Paradigm� and the �New Environmental Paradigm.� The HEP describes cultural values that emphasize the separation of society from nature. This perspective has dominated classical and contemporary sociology, leading sociologists to study human social action as though environmental factors were irrelevant. Instead, the NEP emphasizes that social action occurs within ecosystem processes and limits. The implication is that environmental variables become significant for sociological analysis. Dunlap and Catton claim that environmental sociology is defined by its willingness to embrace the NEP. Furthermore, the attempt to incorporate nature as a significant presence has been taken up by many sociologists. However, the claim that the HEP has limited consideration of the environment within the sociological tradition is problematic. Furthermore, their assertion that environmental sociologists should adopt an NEP standpoint has not materialized. �Exceptionalist� environmental sociologies abound within the subdiscipline. In this context, the HEP-NEP distinction may be read as a discursive device that works to �police the boundaries� of the subdiscipline. It may limit our appreciation of the richness of work that adopts a more �social� conception of the environment. Through an examination of the �Exceptionalist� work of the classical tradition and environmental constructionism, I will argue that a broader conception of �environmental sociology� is more useful, especially as a model for how nature may achieve a greater presence within the sociological �mainstream.�

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The politics in “international environmental politics” is widely assumed to be a human activity. Although it is very much a politics “about” the environment or “about” particular nonhuman entities, politics is not understood to be something that humans ev