1

Transcending Human Exemptionalism:Freudenburg’s Sociology in Which Nature Matters

by

Raymond Murphy

University of Ottawa, Canada

And

Riley Dunlap

Oklahoma State University, USA

22

Human Exemptionalism

1978 Dunlap and Catton

33

Sociology as if Nature Did Not Matter

methodologically suspending nature in sociology

The social construction of everything (nature, danger, deafness, illness, etc.)

Nature has ended, is dead, or has been abolished by humans

= confusion between discourse about nature and the referents of these words, as well as between pristine nature and nature’s dynamics in a broader sense.

Humans are sensory, embodied beings embedded in dynamic ecosystems.

4

Transcending exemptionalism: Sociology in which nature matters

Environmental justice,

cross-national studies of environmental problems,

Anthony Giddens.

Freudenburg group usurps the deepest foundations of sociologies that restrict themselves to the sociocultural:

conjoint constitution of cultural orientations by the biophysical as well as the sociocultural.

4

5

Key publication examined for this presentation

Freudenburg, William R. and Gramling, Robert. 1993. “Socioenvironmental Factors and Development Policy: Understanding Opposition and Support for Offshore Oil”. Sociological Forum.

Freudenburg, William R. and Gramling, Robert. 1994. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics and the Battle Over Offshore Drilling.

Freudenburg, William R., Frickel, Scott, and Gramling, Robert. 1995. “Beyond the Nature/Society Divide: Learning to Think about a Mountain”. Sociological Forum.

Gramling, Robert, and Freudenburg, William R. 1996. “Crude, Coppertone, and the coast: Developmental channelization and the constraint of alternative development opportunities”. Society and Natural Resources.

Molotch, Harvey, William Freudenburg, and Krista E. Paulsen. 2000. “History Repeats Itself, But How? City Character, Urban Tradition, and the Accomplishment of Place”. American Sociological Review.

66

The Sociology of William FreudenburgTranscending the nature/society divide

Difficulties (Freudenburg and Gramling)

i) Humans have unique capacities to evade environmental constraints

ii) Humans incorporate the biophysical environment into their culture by an automatic process, hence it is taken for granted and ignored by the population and by sociologists.

iii) Very few models of how to do sociological research across the nature/society divide.

Freudenburg’s group provides a methodology to transcend the divide

= sociocultural and biophysical comparison in time and space

77

Conjoint Constitution by the Social and the Physical

“what we take to be” a mountain (Freudenburg, Frickel, and Gramling) changed.

Meaning of the mountain was also influenced by its physical features: high not flat, covered by trees not water, containing iron not just rock, and its phosphorous content

88

Conjoint constitution of natural resources and technology

Natural resources are not just natural. They become valuable assets by virtue of economic, technical, and demographic developments.

Technology is not just a social construction. It is also constituted by the biophysical properties of the elements that are recombined and redeployed to make it function.

8

99

Disconnect between culture and nature.

Erroneously exuberant social definition of inexhaustible resources results in perverse material consequences

Timber defined as inexhaustible led to high rate of harvesting “within a few years of having become the logging capital of the world, the region was effectively ‘logged out’” (Freudenburg, Frickel, and Gramling).

Need to distinguish plausibility of discourse from its accuracy, and let hindsight findings foster foresight.

1010

Nature’s constructions are not just constraints but also prompts for social constructions

1111

Freudenburg, Frickel and Gramling correct errors about nature

1) Affirming that nature ‘acts’ or ‘constructs’ does not imply that nature has intentions: “we do not impute any volition or will to the biophysical environment”

2) They refute those who assert that nature is constant and can be ignored: “nothing in nature is more constant than change”.

1212

Why is offshore oil extraction welcomed in Louisiana but rejected in California and Florida?

Freudenburg and Gramling use historical and comparative methodology to document their explanation based on

a) sociocultural factors

b) historical factors

1313

Biophysical factors

a) Coastal topography.b) Marine topography.

1414

“Developmental channelization”(Gramling and Freudenburg 1996)

California / Florida comparison

Santa Barbara / Ventura comparison

= “rolling inertia” (Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen)

“a given course of development can also be pursued so intensively as to bring about its demise”

15

BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig unleashed an underwater oil volcano

15

1616

1717

2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Two possibilities:

i) 2010 spill was the result of a rogue well drilled by a reckless company (BP) with high reliability theory applying to all other drillers, or

ii) normal accident theory applies to all drillers operating at such dangerous depths with more spills forthcoming.

Louisiana’s deep attachment to drilling, hence one complacency-disrupting disaster failed to disrupt complacency.

Confirms the conclusions of the Fruedenburg group

18

Generalization of “developmental channelization” and “rolling inertia”

Deepwater oil drilling accepted in Newfoundland, but rejected in British Columbia

Hydraulic fracturing of shale accepted in Pennsylvania but rejected in New York State and Quebec.

Pipelines accepted in Oklahoma but resisted in Nebraska.

18

1919

Disconnect across culture/nature divide is true more generally:

Inexhaustible timber on Iron Mountain

Inexhaustible cod on Grand Banks of Newfoundland

Inexhaustible oil in tar sands of Alberta

Earth = huge planet with inexhaustible resources and substitutes always available

Inexhaustibility discourse promotes practices that lead to exhaustion of resources.

20

Toward a Freudenburgian Analysis of Global Warming

“Why does continuity happen?”= why does change not happen when needed?

Difficulties in mitigating global warming in all societies.1) Automatic everyday incorporation of present benign

climate into cultural expectations through experience of sensory embodied humans.

2) Science has previously produced some means to avoid danger, which leads to a magical faith in science to adapt to any climate change.

Hence confirmation bias favoring wishful thinking.

Therefore IPCC warnings become back-of-the-mind worry, not incentive to change practices.

20

21

Societal differences in mitigating global warming

Northern Europe leads in renewable energy, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade mechanisms, and promoting international framework agreements to mitigate GHG emissions.

North America is in a rut of continuity of high GHG emissions and opposition to all the above.

Why?

The answer is to be found using the Freudenburg methodology (comparative and historic) and the concepts of the Freudenburg group (developmental channelization and rolling mobility).

21

22

Developmental channelization and rolling inertia I

North America: cities developed after deployment of fossil-fueled automobile, hence urban sprawl and rolling inertia into developing exurbia. Huge resistance against increasing the price of gas to mitigate GHG emissions.

Europe developed prior to automobile, hence urban densification occurred by transportation necessity. Little oil, hence carbon taxes implemented to achieve energy security. Accidental GHG mitigation.

22

23

Developmental channelization and rolling inertia II

Northern Europe: social democratic channel = high taxes and strong government. Extend this channel to government initiated market solutions to environmental problems, eg., feed-in tarifs, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, support international framework agreements.

USA: development channel based on market free of government regulation; rolling inertia along anti-government, fossil-fueled development channel begun long ago. Hence rejection of Kyoto Protocol, of carbon taxes, and of cap-and-trade. ‘Yes we can’ aspiration for change confronts ‘Hell no, you can’t’ rejoinder.

23

24

Source: Legatum Institute, 2010.

25

Conjoint constitution of carbon economy continuity

Historically engendered physical infrastructures and cultural habitus (predispositions) of different developmental channels and rolling inertia explain why Northern Europe leads and North America lags in mitigating global warming.

Mitigation of GHG emissions constitutes a deepening of Northern Europe’s developmental channel whereas for North America mitigation requires a change of developmental channel.

25

26

The comparative, historical methodology and concepts of the Freudenburg group are very promising for comprehending both similarities and differences in societal responses to major environmental problems like global warming.

26