Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:17:35.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Microsociological Perspectives in Environmental Sociology

from Part I - Theory in Environmental Sociology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2020

By
Bradley H. Brewster  and
Antony J. Puddephatt
Edited by
Katharine Legun ,
Julie C. Keller ,
Michael Carolan  and
Michael M. Bell
Katharine Legun
Affiliation:
Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands
Julie C. Keller
Affiliation:
University of Rhode Island
Michael Carolan
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Michael M. Bell
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Summary

We begin with a brief historical overview of how leading environmental sociologists from the 1970s and 1980s largely criticized or rejected microsociological theorists for contributing to the wider problem of human exemptionalism. We then document how, since the 1990s, the microsociological theories of George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman were creatively brought to bear on environmental concerns, contrary to earlier accusations that they were irrelevant to the field. In the second half of the chapter, we consider other, more recent micro-theoretical developments in environmental sociology involving pragmatist action theory, actor-network theory, and human-nonhuman animal interaction. We argue that such developments constitute a gravitational shift in environmental microsociological theorizing in the importance they place on the social situation for environmental action, departing from the earlier focus on self and identity. In line with this, we propose small group dynamics be included in the focus on social situations.

Keywords

Actor network theoryGoffman (Erving)human-nonhuman animal interactionMead (George Herbert)pragmatist action theory
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 74 - 92
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addams, Jane. (2001[1902]). Democracy and Social Ethics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Alexandrescu, Filip, and Baldus, Bernd. (2017). Escaping the Iron Cage of Environmental Rationalizations: Microsocial Decision-Making in Environmental Conflict. Pages 206–223 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alger, Janet M., and Alger, Steven F.. (1997). Beyond Mead: Symbolic Interaction between Humans and Felines. Society and Animals 5(1): 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Michael Mayerfeld. (1994). Childerley: Nature and Morality in a Country Village. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Bell, Michael Mayerfeld. (1997). The Ghosts of Place. Theory and Society 26(6): 813–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Michael Mayerfeld. (1998). An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Michael M. (2017). Present Tense: Everyday Animism and the Politics of Possession. Pages 117–127 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bell, Michael Mayerfeld, and Ashwood, Loka L.. (2015). An Invitation to Environmental Sociology, 5th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bonham, Megan S. Albaugh. (2017). Marco-Interactions of Cosmic Proportions: Mediating Human-Cosmos Relationships in the Planetarium. Pages 17–31 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boykoff, Jules. (2011). The Leaf Blower, Capitalism, and the Atomization of Everyday Life. Capitalism Nature Socialism 22(3): 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewster, Bradley H. (2011). Environmental Reconstruction in Microsociological Theory for Microsociological Reconstruction in Environmental Sociology. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Brewster, Bradley H., and Bell, Michael Mayerfeld. (2010). The Environmental Goffman: Toward an Environmental Sociology of Everyday Life. Society and Natural Resources 23(1): 45–57.Google Scholar
Brewster, Bradley H., and Puddephatt, Antony J.. (2016). George Herbert Mead as a Socio-Environmental Thinker. Pages 144–164 in The Timeliness of George Herbert Mead, edited by Joas, H. and Huebner, D. R.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brewster, Bradley H., and Puddephatt, Antony J. (eds.). (2017). Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Broto, Vanesa Castan, Burningham, Kate, Carter, Claudia, and Elghali, Lucia. (2010). Stigma and Attachment: Performance of Identity in an Environmentally Degraded Place. Society and Natural Resources 23: 952–968.Google Scholar
Buttel, Frederick H. (2002). Environmental Sociology and the Sociology of Natural Resources: Institutional Histories and Intellectual Legacies. Society and Natural Resources 15: 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čapek, Stella M. (2012). Paving Paradise: Exploring an Urban “Partnership-with-Nature” Frame. Sociological Quarterly 53(4): 556–584.Google Scholar
Čapek, Stella M. (2017). Negotiating Identity, Valuing Place: Enacting “Earthcare” and Social Justice at Finca La Belle, Costa Rica. Pages 61–80 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carolan, Michael S. (2005). The Conspicuous Body: Capitalism, Consumerism, Class, and Consumption. Worldviews 9(1): 82–111.Google Scholar
Carolan, Michael S. (2007). Introducing the Concept of Tactile Space: Creating Lasting Social and Environmental Commitments. GeoForum 38: 1264–1275.Google Scholar
Carolan, Michael S. (2008). An Ecological Politics of Everyday Life: Placing Flesh on Whitehead’s Process Philosophy in Search of “Green” Possibilities. Worldviews 12: 51–73.Google Scholar
Carolan, Michael S. (2009). “I Do Therefore There Is”: Enlivening Socio-Environmental Theory. Environmental Politics 18(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Dorwin. (1979). Contemporary Social Psychology in Historical Perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly 42: 82–93.Google Scholar
Castro, Paula. (2006). Applying Social Psychology to the Study of Environmental Concern and Environmental Worldviews: Contributions from the Social Representations Approach. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 16: 247–266.Google Scholar
Catton, William, and Dunlap, Riley. (1980). A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology. American Behavioral Scientist 24(1): 15–47.Google Scholar
Cho, Charles H., and Roberts, Robin W.. (2010). Environmental Reporting on the Internet by America’s Toxic 100: Legitimacy and Self-Presentation. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 11: 1–16.Google Scholar
Cook, Gary A. (1993). George Herbert Mead: The Making of a Social Pragmatist. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Coughenour, Milton. (2003). Innovating Conservation Agriculture: The Case of No-Till Cropping. Rural Sociology 68(2): 278–304.Google Scholar
Cudworth, Erica. (2016). A Sociology for other Animals: Analysis, Advocacy, Intervention. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36(3/4): 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John. (1988[1922]). Human Nature and Conduct. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E. (2002a). Environmental Sociology: A Personal Perspective on its First Quarter Century. Organization and Environment 15: 10–29.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E. (2002b). Paradigms, Theories, and Environmental Sociology. Pages 329–350 in Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights, edited by Dunlap, R. E., Buttel, F. H., Dickens, P., and Gijswijt, A.. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E., and Catton, William R. Jr. (1983). What Environmental Sociologists Have in Common (Whether Concerned with “Built” or “Natural” Environments). Sociological Inquiry 53(2,3): 113–135.Google Scholar
Farr, Robert M. (1996). The Roots of Modern Social Psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Field, Donald R., Luloff, A. E., and Krannich, Richard S.. (2002). Revisiting the Origins of and Distinctions Between Natural Resource Sociology and Environmental Sociology. Society and Natural Resources 15(3): 213–227.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, William R. (2005). Privileged Access, Privileged Accounts: Toward a Socially Structured Theory of Resources and Discourses. Social Forces 84(1): 89–114.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, William R., and Gramling, Robert. (1989). The Emergence of Environmental Sociology: Contributions of Riley E. Dunlap and William R. Catton, Jr. Sociological Inquiry 59(4): 439–452.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, William R., Frickel, Scott, and Gramling, Robert. (1995). Beyond the Nature/Society Divide: Learning to Think about a Mountain. Sociological Forum 10(3): 361–392.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. (2011). The Politics of Climate Change, 2nd Edition. UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1953). Communication Conduct in an Island Community. PhD dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1961). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1963). Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organizations of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1964). The Neglected Situation. American Anthropologist, New Series, 66(6): 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1969). Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. (1983). The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review 48(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grahame, Peter R. (2017). “This is not Sea World”: Spectacle and Insight in Nature Tourism. Pages 32–47 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gross, Mathias. (2005). Classical Sociology and the Restoration of Nature. Organization and Environment 13(3): 277–291.Google Scholar
Gross, Matthias, and Horta, Ana. (2017). Dog Shit Happens: Human–Canine Interactions and the Immediacy of Excremental Presence. Pages 143–160 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, Tom. (2015). Interacting for the Environment: Engaging Goffman in Pro-Environmental Action. Society and Natural Resources 29(1): 53–67.Google Scholar
Horta, Ana, Wilhite, Harold, Schmidt, Luisa, and Bartiaux, Francois. (2014). Sociotechnical and Cultural Approaches to Energy Consumption. Nature and Culture 9(2): 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, Leslie. (2017). Wild Selves. Pages 128–142 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jensen, Mette, and Blok, Anders. (2008). Pesticides in the Risk Society: The View from Everyday Life. Current Sociology 56(5): 757–778.Google Scholar
Jerolmack, Colin. (2009). Humans, Animals, and Play: Theorizing Interaction when Intersubjectivity is Problematic. Sociological Theory 27(4): 371–389.Google Scholar
Jerolmack, Colin, and Tavory, Iddo. (2014). Molds and Totems: Nonhumans and the Constitution of the Social Self. Sociological Theory 32(1): 67–77.Google Scholar
Johnston, Hank. (1995). A Methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse to Cognitive Schemata. Pages 217–246 in Social Movements and Culture, Social Movements, Protests, and Contention, Vol. 4, edited by Johnston, H. and Klandermans, B.. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Kelly, Benjamin. (2017). The Social Psychology of Compromised Negotiations: Constructing Asymmetrical Boundary Objects Between Science. Pages 192–205 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. (1995). Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science. Pages 140–166 in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Jasanoff., S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kuklick, Henricka. (1984). The Ecology of Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 89(6): 1433–1440.Google Scholar
Larsen, Larissa, and Harlan, Sharon L.. (2005). Desert Dreamscapes: Residential Landscape Preference and Behavior. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 85–100.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. (1999). Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. Pages 258–275 in The Science Studies Reader, edited by Biagioli., M. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leap, Brandon. (2015). Redefining the Refuge: Symbolic Interactionism and the Emergent Meanings of Environmentally Variable Spaces. Symbolic Interaction 38(4): 521–538.Google Scholar
Leap, Brandon. (2018). Seasonal Masculinities: The Seasonal Contingencies of Doing Gender. Men and Masculinities. Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X18756710.Google Scholar
Leopold, Aldo. (1949). A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Lewin, Kurt. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34–46.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, Janet. (2012). Going Green: The Process of Lifestyle Change. Sociological Forum 27(1): 94–116.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, Janet. (2017). Green Lifestyles and Micropolitics: Pragmatist Action Theory and the Connection between Lifestyle Change and Collective Action. Pages 81–97 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Machum, Susan. (2017). Sorting the Trash: Competing Constructions and Instructions for Handling Household Waste. Pages 161–177 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, Phil. (2003). Embodying the Environment in Everyday Life Practices. The Sociological Review 51(1): 63–84.Google Scholar
Manfredo, Michael J. (2008). Who Cares About Wildlife? Social Science Concepts for Exploring Human-Wildlife Relationships and Conservation Issues. New York, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. (1932). Philosophy of the Present. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, ed. Morris, C. W.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. (1938). Philosophy of the Act. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murdoch, Jonathan. (2001). Ecologising Sociology: Actor-Network Theory, Co-Construction and the Problem of Human Exemptionalism. Sociology 35: 111–133.Google Scholar
Murphy, Raymond. (1995). Sociology as if Nature Does Not Matter: An Ecological Critique. British Journal of Sociology 46(4): 688–707.Google Scholar
Norgaard, Richard B. (1995). Beyond Materialism: A Coevolutionary Reinterpretation of the Environmental Crisis. Review of Social Economy 43(4): 475–492.Google Scholar
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Puddephatt, Antony. (2005). Mead has Never Been Modern: Using Meadian Theory to Extend the Constructionist Study of Technology. Social Epistemology 19(4): 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reser, Joseph P. (2003). Thinking Through “Conservation Psychology”: Prospects and Challenges. Human Ecology Review 10(2):167–174.Google Scholar
Sanders, Clinton R. (2007). Mind, Self, and Human–Animal Joint Action. Sociological Focus 40: 320–336.Google Scholar
Saunders, Carol D. (2003). The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology. Human Ecology Review 10(2): 137–149.Google Scholar
Shove, Elizabeth. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change. Environment and Planning A 42: 1273–1285.Google Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. (1996). Science without Myth: On Constructions, Reality, and Social Knowledge. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Sodero, Stephanie. (2015). Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Pine Beetles and Humans: The Ecologically Mediated Development of British Columbia’s Carbon Tax. Canadian Journal of Sociology 40(3): 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, Robert. (2003). Action Research and Big Fuzzy Concepts. Human Ecology Review 10(2):176–177.Google Scholar
Stern, Paul C. (2000). Psychology and the Science of Human-Environment Interactions. American Psychologist 55(5): 523–530.Google Scholar
Stets, Jan E., and Biga, Chris F.. (2003). Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology. Sociological Theory 21(4): 398–423.Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm. (1991). Mead’s Multiple Conceptions of Time and Evolution: Their Contexts and Their Consequences for Theory. International Sociology 6(4): 411–426.Google Scholar
Tyson, C. Ben. (2003). Applying Psychology to Conservation. Human Ecology Review 10(2):182–183.Google Scholar
Vannini, Phillip. (2017). How to Climb Mount Fuji (at Your Earliest Convenience): A Non-Representational Approach. Pages 48–60 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weigert, A. J. (1991a). Imagining the Environment in Transverse Interaction: Toward an Ecological Attitude. Journal of Mental Imagery 15: 163–166.Google Scholar
Weigert, A. J. (1991b). Transverse Interaction: A Pragmatic Perspective on Environment as Other. Symbolic Interaction 14: 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigert, A. J. (1994). Lawns of Weeds: Status in Opposition to Life. American Sociologist 25: 80–96.Google Scholar
Weigert, A. J. (1997a). Definitional and Responsive Environmental Meanings: A Meadian Look at Landscapes and Drought. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 27: 65–91.Google Scholar
Weigert, A. J. (1997b). Self, Interaction, and Natural Environment: Refocusing Our Eyesight. Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
White, Robert, and Hanson, Dallas. (2002). Corporate Self, Corporate Reputation, and Corporate Annual Reports: Re-Enrolling Goffman. Scandinavian Journal of Management 18(3): 285–301.Google Scholar
Williams, Jerry. (2017). The Utility of Phenomenology in Understanding and Addressing Human-Caused Environmental Problems. Pages 178–191 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zavestoski, Stephen. (2003). Constructing and Maintaining Ecological Identities: The Strategies of Deep Ecologists. Pages 297–315 in Identity and the Natural Environment, edited by Clayton, S. and Opotow, S.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zavestoski, Stephen and Weigert, Andrew. (2017). Mead, Interactionism, and the Improbability of Ecological Selves: Toward a Meta-Environmental Microsociological Theory. Pages 98–116 in Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, edited by Brewster, B. H. and Puddephatt, A. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×