Environmental Management

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 581–589 | Cite as

Environmentalism and elitism: a conceptual and empirical analysis

  • Denton E. Morrison
  • Riley E. Dunlap
Forum

Abstract

The frequent charge that environmentalism is “elitist” is examined conceptually and empirically. First, the concept of elitism is analyzed by distinguishing between three types of accusations made against the environmental movement: (a)compositional elitism suggests that environmentalists are drawn from privileged socioeconomic strata, (b)ideological elitism suggests that environmental reforms are a subterfuge for distributing benefits to environmentalists and/or costs to others, and (c)impact elitism suggests that environmental reforms, whether intentionally or not, do in fact have regressive social impacts.

The evidence bearing on each of the three types of elitism is examined in some detail, and the following conclusions are drawn: Compositional elitism is an exaggeration, for although environmentalists are typically above average in socioeconomic status (as are most sociopolitical activists), few belong to the upper class. Ideological elitism may hold in some instances, but environmentalists have shown increasing sensitivity to equity concerns and there is little evidence of consistent pursuit of self-interest. Impact elitism is the most important issue, and also the most difficult to assess. It appears that there has been a general tendency for environmental reforms to have regressive impacts. However, it is increasingly recognized that problems such as workplace pollution and toxic waste contamination disproportionately affect the lower socioeconomic strata, and thus reforms aimed at such problems will likely have more progressive impacts.

Key words

Elitism Environmentalism Environmental movement Environmental policy Equity Public attitudes Social movements 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Andrews, P. 1975. State trade group felt to be stepping on environmental toes.Seattle Times, 4 May:B1.Google Scholar
  2. Barkely, K., and S. Weissman. 1970. The eco-establishment. Pages 15–24in Editors of Ramparts (eds.), Eco-catastrophe. Canfield Press, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, L. D. 1971. Zero Population Growth, Inc.Bioscience 21:759–765.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, L. D. 1974. Zero Population Growth, Inc.: a second study.Journal of Bio-Social Science 6:1–22.Google Scholar
  5. Bartell, T., and A. St. George. 1974. A trend analysis of environmentalists' organizational commitment, tactic advocacy, and perceptions of government.Journal of Voluntary Action Research 3:41–46.Google Scholar
  6. Binder, G. 1976. Clean air, water versus jobs: a muddy issue.Conservation Foundation Letter July:1–8.Google Scholar
  7. Bullard, R. D. 1983. Solid waste sites and the black Houston community.Sociological Inquiry 53:273–288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burch, W. R., Jr. 1976. The Peregrine Falcon and the urban poor: some sociological interrelations. Pages 308–316in P. J. Richerson and J. McEvoy III (eds.), Human ecology: an environmental approach. Duxbury, North Scituate, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  9. Commoner, B. 1975. How poverty breeds population (and not the other way around).Ramparts 13:22–25 and 58–59.Google Scholar
  10. Conservation Foundation. 1982. State of the environment, 1982. Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Coombs, D. 1972. The Club looks at itself.Sierra Club Bulletin 57:35–39.Google Scholar
  12. Cotgrove, S. 1982. Catastrophe or cornucopia: the environmentalists, politics and the future. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Devall, W. B. 1970. Conservation: an upper-middle class social movement: a replication.Journal of Leisure Research 2:123–126.Google Scholar
  14. Dillman, D. A., and J. A. Christenson. 1972. The public value for pollution control. Pages 237–256in W. R. Burch and others (eds.), Social behavior, natural resources and the environment. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Dorfman, R. 1977. Benefits and costs of environmental programs.Society 14:63–66.Google Scholar
  16. Dunlap, R. E., and M. P. Allen. 1976. Partisan differences on environmental issues: a congressional roll-call analysis.Western Political Quarterly 29:384–397.Google Scholar
  17. Eckholm, E. P. 1977. The picture of health: environmental sources of disease. W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Faich, R. G., and R. P. Gale. 1971. The environmental movement: from recreation to politics.Pacific Sociological Review 14:270–287.Google Scholar
  19. Fertig, R. D. 1977. The environment, the economy, and the excluded.Sierra Club Bulletin 62:47–48.Google Scholar
  20. Frieden, B. J. 1979. The environmental protection hustle. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Futrell, W. 1978. The inner-city frontier.Sierra Club Bulletin 63:5.Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, R. and G. Daneker. 1979. Energy, jobs and the economy. Alyson, Boston.Google Scholar
  23. Hardin, G. 1974. Lifeboat ethics: the case against helping the poor.Psychology Today 8:38ff.Google Scholar
  24. Harry, J., R. Gale, and J. Hendee. 1969. Conservation: an upper-middle class social movement.Journal of Leisure Research 1:246–254.Google Scholar
  25. Heffernan, P. 1975. Jobs and the environment.Sierra Club Bulletin 60:25–29.Google Scholar
  26. Hornback, K. E., and D. E. Morrison. 1975. The role of public opinion in social movement evolution. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, J. C. 1983. Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements.Annual Review of Sociology 9:527–553.Google Scholar
  28. Kazis, R., and R. L. Grossman. 1982. Fear at work: job blackmail, labor and the environment. Pilgrim Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Kohl, D. H. 1975. The environmental movement: what might it be?Natural Resources Journal 15:327–351.Google Scholar
  30. Krieger, M. 1970. Six propositions on the poor and pollution.Policy Sciences 1:311–324.Google Scholar
  31. Kruvant, W. J. 1975. People, energy, and pollution. Pages 125–167in D. K. Newman and D. Day (eds.), The American energy consumer. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  32. Levine, A. G. 1982. Love Canal: science, politics, and people. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Mauss, A. L. 1975. Social problems as social movements. Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  34. Milbrath, L. W., and M. L. Goel. 1977. Political participation, 2nd edn. Rand McNally, Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, A. S. 1980. Toward an environmental/labor coalition.Environment 22:32–39.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, R. C. 1979. Silent spring/solid majorities.Public Opinion 2:16–20, 55.Google Scholar
  37. Mobil Corporation. 1979. Who's the public in “public interest” politics?New York Times, 1 November:A23.Google Scholar
  38. Morrison, D. E. 1980. The soft, cutting edge of environmentalism: why and how the appropriate technology notion is changing the movement.Natural Resources Journal 20:275–298.Google Scholar
  39. Morrison, D. E. 1984. How and why environmental consciousness has trickled down. Paper presented at a conference on Distributional Conflicts in Environmental-Resource Policy, Science Center, West Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Morrison, D. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1986. Is environmentalism elitist?In F. H. Buttel and C. R. Humphrey (eds.), Environment and society. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania (in press).Google Scholar
  41. Morrison, D. E., and D. G. Lockwick. 1981. The social impacts of soft and hard energy systems: the Lovins' claims as a social science challenge.Annual Review of Energy 6:357–378.Google Scholar
  42. Nelkin, D., and M. S. Brown. 1984. Workers at risk: voices from the workplace. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  43. Neuhaus, R. 1971. In defense of people: ecology and the seduction of radicalism. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Peskin, H. M. 1978. Environmental policy and the distribution of costs and benefits. Pages 144–163in P. Portney (ed.), US environmental policy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  45. Pinard, M. 1967. Poverty and political movements.Social Problems 15:250–263.Google Scholar
  46. Pollack, S., and J. Grozuczak. 1984. Reagen, toxics and minorities. Urban Environment Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  47. Project on Industrial Policy and Environment. 1984. America's economic future: environmentalists broaden the industrial policy debate. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. Schnaiberg, A. 1975. Social syntheses of the societal-environmental dialectic: the role of distributional impacts.Social Science Quarterly 56:5–20.Google Scholar
  49. Sills, D. L. 1975. The environmental movement and its critics.Human Ecology 3:1–41.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, C., and A. Freedman. 1972. Voluntary associations: perspectives on the literature. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, J. N. 1974. Environmental quality and social justice in America. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. Taylor, R. A. 1984. Do environmentalists care about poor people?US News and World Report 96:51–52.Google Scholar
  53. Tucker, W. 1977. Environmentalism and the leisure class.Harper's Magazine 255:49–56 and 73–80.Google Scholar
  54. Tucker, W. 1982. Progress and privilege: America in the age of environmentalism. Anchor/Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  55. Van Liere, K. D., and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations, and enpirical evidence.Public Opinion Quarterly 44:181–197.Google Scholar
  56. Zinger, C. L., R. Dalsemer, and H. Magargle. 1972. Environmental volunteers in America. National Center for Voluntary Action, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denton E. Morrison
    • 1
  • Riley E. Dunlap
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Sociology and Rural SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations