Advertisement

The American Sociologist

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 58–79 | Cite as

Sociology, energy and interdisciplinary environmental science

  • Loren Lutzenhiser
Natural Resources And The Environment And Sociology

Abstract

The movement toward interdisciplinary studies of human-environment interactions holds considerable appeal for environmental sociologists. But a survey of the paradigms and institutions that govern interdisciplinary research onenergy—a key variable in socioecological theory and an important cause of environmental decline—suggests that the prospects for a significant sociological role in these sorts of studies could turn out to be fairly limited. Over the past twenty years, a variety of devices have been successfully used in interdisciplinary energy analysis to diminish the importance of the social, and to marginalize the contributions of the social sciences. This is unfortunate because insights from sociological studies of the energy system are of considerable value in both disciplinary theory-building and interdisciplinary environmental policy-making.

These external limits on sociological analysis are only part of the story. Sociology’s own theoretical unease with technology and the physical/natural world, and its insular tendencies in regard to other disciplines, have significantly contributed to a decline of sociological work on energy-environment topics over the past decade. Given growing interest by natural scientists in the human dimensions of global environmental change, the time now seems right for a renewal of energy research by sociologists—although the initiative must come from within the discipline. A number of suggestions are offered for anchoring the sociology of human-environment interactions more firmly in the discipline, as well as for expanding sociology’s role in interdisciplinary environment research.

Keywords

Energy System Global Environmental Change Human Dimension Sociological Study Radioactive Waste 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, Richard. 1975.Energy and Structure: A Theory of Social Power. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, Dane, Mark Costanzo, B. Iritani, Thomas F. Pettigrew, I. Walker and L. T. White. 1984. “Energy conservation and public policy: The mediation of individual behavior.” InEnergy Efficiency: Perspective on Individual Behavior, edited by W. Kempton, M. Neiman, 69–92. Washington, DC: ACEEE Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ayers, Robert U. 1989. “Industrial Metabolism.” InTechnology and Environment, edited by J. H. Ausubel and H. E. Sladovich. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, Wiebe. 1993. “Do Not Despair: There is Life after Constructivism.”Science, Technology and Human Values, 18: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, S.J., Stern, P. C., Elworth, J. T. 1985. “Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre, 1984.Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buttel, Frederdick H. 1979. “Social Welfare and Energy Intensity: A Comparative Analysis of the Developed Market Economies,” InSociopolitical Efficient Energy Use Policy, edited by C. Unseld, D. Morrison, D. Sills and C. Wolf. Washington: National Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  8. ————— 1987. “New Directions in Environmental Sociology,”Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buttel, Frederick H. and Peter J. Taylor. 1992. “Environmental Sociology and Global Environmental Change: A Critical Assessment.”Society and Natural Resources, 5: 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catton, William R. Jr. 1980.Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  11. Catton, William R. Jr. and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology.”American Behavioral Scientist, 24: 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CEC. 1991.Residential Demand Forecasting Model: 1992 Electricity Report. Sacramento: California Energy Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Cherfas, J. 1991. “Skeptics and visionaries examine energy savings.”Science, 251: 154–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CNIE. 1993.National Institute for the Environment: A Proposal. Washington, DC: Committee for the National Institute for the Environment.Google Scholar
  15. Cottrell, Fred. 1955.Energy and Society: The Relation Between Energy, Social Change and Economic Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Cottrell, Fred. 1972.Technology, Man and Progress, edited by E. Lemert. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  17. Cramer, James C., Nancy Miller, Paul Craig, Bruce Hackett, Thomas M. Dietz, Edward Vine, Mark Levine and Dan Kowalczyk. 1985. “Social and engineering determinants and theire quity implications in residential electricity use.”Energy, 10/12: 1283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dietz, Thomas, 1993. George Mason University. Personal Communication.Google Scholar
  19. Dietz, Thomas and James Hawley. 1983. “The Impact of Market Structure and Economic Concentration on the Diffusion of Alternative Technologies: The Photovoltaics Case,” InThe Social Constraints on Energy Policy Implementation, edited by M. Nieman and B. Burt. Lexington, MA: D., Health.Google Scholar
  20. Dillman, Donald A., Rosa, Eugene A. and Joye J. Dilllman. 1983. “Lifestyle and home energy conservation in the U.S.”Journal of Economic Psychology, 3: 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DOE. 1990.Assumptions for the Annual Energy Outlook 1990. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0527(90).Google Scholar
  22. Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1964. “From Social System to Ecosystem.”Sociological Inquiry, 31: 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. —————. 1978. “Sociologists Should Reconsider Nuclear Energy.”Social Forces, 57: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunlap, Riley E. and William R. Catton Jr. 1979. “Environmental Sociology.”Annual Review of Sociology, 5: 243–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ————— 1993. “Struggling with Human Exemptionalism: The Rise, Decline and Revitalization of Environmental Sociology,”The American Sociologist, 25:1: 5–30.Google Scholar
  26. Dunlap, Riley E., Loren Lutzenhiser and Eugene A. Rosa. 1994. “Understanding Environmental Problems: An Environmental Sociology Perspective.” InEconomy, Technology and Environment: A Socioeconomic Approach, edited by B. Burgenmeier. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe (in press).Google Scholar
  27. Dunlap, Riley E., George H. Gallup and Alec M. Gallup. 1993.Health of the Planet. Princeton, NJ: Gallup International Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Dunlap, Riley E., Michael E. Kraft and Eugene A. Rosa, eds. 1993.Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ester, Peter. 1985.Consumer Behavior and Energy Conservation. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  30. Etzioni, Amitai. 1988.The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. ————— 1991.Socio-Economics: Toward a New Synthesis. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  32. Farhar, Barbara, C. T. Unseld, R. Vories and R. Crews, 1980. “Public Opinion about energy.”Annual Review of Energy, 5: 141–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Farhar, Barbara. 1991. “Toward a Sociology of Energy.”Sociological Practice Review, 2: 81–86.Google Scholar
  34. —————. 1993.Trends in Public Perceptions and Preferences on Energy and Environmental Policy. Report number NREL/TP-461-4857. Washington, DC: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Google Scholar
  35. Freudenburg, William R. and Eugene A. Rosa. 1984.Public Reactions to Nuclear Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: American Association for the Advancement of Science/Westview Press.Google Scholar
  36. Freudenburg, William R. 1984. “Boomtown’s Youth: The Differential Impacts of Rapid Community Growth Upon Adolescents and Adults.”American Sociological Review, 49: 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.”American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hackett, Bruce and Loren Lutzenhiser. 1991. “Social Structures and economic conduct: Interpreting variations in household energy consumption.”Sociological Forum, 6: 449–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hackett, Bruce and Seymour Schwartz. 1980. “Energy conservation and rural alternative lifestyles.”Social Problems, 28: 165–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hackett, Bruce. M., Paul Craig, James C. Cramer, Thomas M. Dietz, Dan Kowalczyk, Mark Levine and Edward Vine. 1984. “Comparing the methodologies of research on household consumption.” InWhat Works: Documenting Energy Conservation in Buildings, edited by J. Harris and C. Blumstein, 439–44. Washington, DC: ACEEE Press.Google Scholar
  41. Heberlein, Thomas A., and G. K. Warriner. 1982. “The influence of price and attitude on shifting residential electricity consumption from on to off-peak periods.”Journal of Economic Psychology, 4: 107–30.Google Scholar
  42. Heberlein, Thomas A., D. Linz and B. P. Ortiz. 1982. Satisfaction, commitment, and knowledge of customers on a mandatory participation time-of-day electricity pricing experiment.Journal of Consumer Research, 9: 106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hughes, Thomas P. 1983.Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Humphrey, Craig. R. and Frederick H. Buttel. 1982.Environment, Energy and Society, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  45. Jasper, James. M. 1990.Nuclear Politics: Energy and the State in the United States, Sweden, and France, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kempton, Willett M. and Laura Montgomery. 1982. “Folk quantification of energy.”Energy. 7: 817–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kempton, Willett. and L. Layne. 1988. “The Consumer’s Energy Information Environment.”Proceedings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 11.50–66. Washington, DC: ACEEE Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kerr, Richard. 1990. “Climatologists Debate How to Model the World.”Science, 250: 1082–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Keyfitz, Nathan, 1993. “Genuine Interdisciplinary Study is Possible as Well as Necessary.”IIASA Options, Nov.: 13–14.Google Scholar
  50. Kowalczyk, Dan, James C. Cramer, Bruce Hackett, Paul Craig, Thomas M. Dietz, Mark Levine and Edward Vine. 1983. “Evaluation of a community-based electricity load management program.”Energy, 8: 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Linz, D. and Thomas A. Heberlein. 1984. “Development of a personal obligation to shift electricity use: Initial determinants and maintenance over time.”Energy, 9: 255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lovins, Amory. 1992.Air Conditioning Comfort: Behavioral and Cultural Issues. Boulder, CO: E-Source.Google Scholar
  53. Luhmann, Niklas. 1989.Ecological Communication, translated by John Bednarz Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lutzenhiser, Loren and Bruce Hackett. 1993. “Social stratification and environmental degradation: Understanding household CO2 production.”Social Problems, 40: 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lutzenhiser, Loren. 1992a. “A cultural model of household energy consumption.”Energy—The International Journal, 17:47–60.Google Scholar
  56. ----- 1992b. “Modeling Energy Consumption: Social Contexts and Social Myths.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  57. ————— 1992c. “Review of Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions,” (edited by P. Stern, O. Young and D. Druckman,Contemporary Sociology, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 21: 487–489.Google Scholar
  58. ————— 1993. “Social and Behavioral Aspects of Energy Use.”Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 18: 247–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mazur, Allan and Eugene A. Rosa. 1974. Energy and lifestyle.Science, 607–10.Google Scholar
  60. Morrison, Bonnie Mass. 1992. “Ninety Years of U.S. Household Energy History: A Quantitative Update.”Proceedings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 10.125–109.134. Washington, DC: ACEEE Press.Google Scholar
  61. Morrison, Denton E. 1978. “Equity Impacts of Some Major Energy Alternatives.” InEnergy Policy in the United States: Social and Behavioral Dimensions, edited by S. Warkov. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  62. Nader, Laura and S. Beckerman. 1978. “Energy as it relates to the quality and style of life.”Annual Review of Energy, 3: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. NAE. 1989. Jesse H. Ausubel and Hedy E. Sladovich, eds.Technology and Environment. National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  64. NAS. 1984.Energy Use: The Human Dimension, edited by Paul C. Stern and Elliot Aronson. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  65. NAS. 1990. Cheryl Simon Silver and Ruth S. DeFries.One Earth, One Future: Our Changing Global Environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  66. ————— 1991.Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. Synthesis Panel: Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  67. ————— 1992.Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions, edited by Paul C. Stern, Oran R. Young and Daniel Druckman. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  68. Newman, Dorothy. K. and Dawn Day. 1975.The American Energy Consumer, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  69. Olsen, Marvin E. 1981. “Consumers attitudes toward energy conservation.”Journal of Social Issues, 37: 108–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Olsen, Marvin E. 1991. “The energy consumption turnaround and socioeconomic well-being in industrial societies in the 1980’s.” InAdvances in Human Ecology, Lee Freese, ed., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  71. Parti, Michael, A.V. Sebald and E. Y. Won. 1986. “Quantification of Residential Behavioral Patterns with Integrated Thermodynamic/Econometric Modeling.”Proceedings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 7.186–200. Washington, DC: ACEEE Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rosa, Eugene, A. and Gary Machlis, 1983. “Energetic theories of society: An evaluative review.”Sociological Inquiry, 53: 152–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosa, Eugene A., Gary Machlis and Kenneth Keating. 1988. “Energy.”Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 149–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schipper, Lee. 1991 (Quoted in) Cherfas, J. “Skeptics and visionaries examine energy savings.”Science, 251: 154–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980.The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. ————— 1982. “Did you ever meet a payroll? Contradictions in the structure of the appropriate technology movement.”Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 9: 38–62.Google Scholar
  77. ————— 1983. “Soft energy and hard labor? Structural restraints on the transition to appropriate technology.” InTechnology and Rural Social Change, edited by G. F. Summers, 217–234. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  78. ----- 1991. “The Political Economy of Consumption: Ecological Policy Limits.” Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  79. Short, James F. and Lee Clark eds. 1992.Organizations, Uncertainty and Risk. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  80. Socolow, Robert H. and R. C. Sonderegger. 1976.The Twin Rivers Program on Energy Conservation in Housing: Four Year Summary Report. Report No. 32. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ., Center for Energy and Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
  81. Starr, Chancy, M. F. Searl and S. Alpert. 1992. “Energy sources: A realistic outlook.”Science, 256: 981–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stern, Paul C., Elliot Aronson, J. M. Darley, D. H. Hill, E. Hirst, et al., 1986. “The effectiveness of incentives for residential energy-conservation.”Evaluation Review, 10: 147–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stern, Paul C. and S. Oskamp. 1987. “Managing scarce environmental resources.” InHandbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by D. Stokols and I. Altman. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  84. Stern, Paul C. 1986. “Blind spots in policy analysis: What economics doesn’t say about energy use.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5: 200–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. ————— 1992a. “What psychology knows about energy conservation.”American Psychologist, 47: 1224–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. ————— 1992b. “Psychological Dimensions of Global Environmental Change.”Annual Review of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
  87. ————— 1993. “A Second Environmental Science: Human-Environment Interactions.”Science, 260: 1897–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stigliani, W. and S. Anderberg. 1991. “Industrial Metabolism and the Rhine Basin.”IIASA Options, Sept: 4–11.Google Scholar
  89. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1990.Information and Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  90. Union of Concerned Scientists. 1993. World Scientists’ Warning Briefing Book. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.Google Scholar
  91. U.S. Department of Energy. 1993.Annual Energy Review 1992. Washington DC: Energy Information Administration.Google Scholar
  92. Vine, Edward L. 1994. “The Human Dimension of Program Evaluation.”Energy, 19: 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vine, Edward L., Paul Craig, James Cramer, Thomas M. Dietz, Bruce Hackett, Dan Kowalczyk and Mark Levine. 1982. “The applicability of energy models to occupied houses: Summer electric use in Davis.”Energy, 7: 909–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. White, Leslie. 1975.The Concept of Cultural Systems: A Key to Understanding Tribes and Nations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Winner, Langdon. 1986.The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  96. —————. 1992. “The End of Progress.” Public Address, Honors Program. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loren Lutzenhiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyWashington State UniversityPullman

Personalised recommendations