Introduction: Conceptualizing Environment-Society Relations

  • Magnus BoströmEmail author
  • Debra J. Davidson
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Environmental Sociology and Policy book series (PASTESP)


This introductory chapter presents the purpose of the book: to scrutinize existing core conceptualizations of environment-society relations, because such a critical gaze will allow for deeper reflection, help to confront denialism, engage sociological imagination, and lead to more fruitful communication and action within the environmental sciences and transdisciplinary. The chapter discusses the role of concepts and the opportunities and challenges related to when science, policy and practice share the same concepts. The chapter introduces three overall questions for the book concerning the explanatory power; social, cultural, or geo-political ‘biases’ and ‘blinders’; and the action-potential implicated by the concepts. It introduces a set of conceptual traps that scholars ought to avoid when theorizing on environment-society relations. Finally it introduces the concepts scrutinized in the book.


  1. Beck, U. (2009). World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Boström, M., Lidskog, R., & Uggla, Y. (2017). A Reflexive Look at Reflexivity in Environmental Sociology. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brulle, R. J., & Dunlap, R. E. (2015). Sociology and Global Climate Change. In R. E. Dunlap & R. J. Brulle (Eds.), Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dryzek, J. 2012. The Politics of the Earth. Environmental Discourses. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dunlap, R. E. (2015). Environmental Sociology. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 7, 2nd ed., pp. 796–803). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hjorland, B. (2009). Concept Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1519–1536.Google Scholar
  9. Kasper, D. (2016). Re-conceptualizing (Environmental) Sociology. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 322–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lidskog, R., Mol, A. P. J., & Oosterveer, P. (2015). Towards a Global Environmental Sociology? Legacies, Trends and Future Directions. Current Sociology, 63(3), 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lidskog, R., & Waterton, C. (2016a). Conceptual Innovation in Environmental Sociology. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lidskog, R., & Waterton, C. (2016b). Anthropocene—A Cautious Welcome From Environmental Sociology? Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy. Theory Culture Society, 27, 100–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merton, R. (1967[1949]). On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range. InOn Theoretical Sociology (pp. 39–73). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mills, C. W. (1959/2000). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mol, A. P. J. (2000). Ecological Modernization Theory in Debate: A Review. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 17–49.Google Scholar
  17. Murphy, R. (2016). Conceptual Lenses to Bring into Focus the Blurred and Unpack the Entangled. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prinz, J., & Clark, A. (2004). Putting Concepts to Work: Some Thoughts for the Twenty first Century. Mind & Language, 19(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rau, H., & Fahy, F. (2013). Introduction: Sustainability Research in the Social Sciences—Concepts, Methodologies and the Challenge of Interdisciplinarity. In F. Fahy & H. Rau (Eds.), Methods of Sustainability Research in the Social Sciences (pp. 3–24). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schnaiberg, A., Pellow, D. N., & Weinberg, A. (2002). The Treadmill of Production and the Environmental State. In A. P. J. Mol & F. H. Buttel (Ed.), The Environmental State Under Pressure. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy (Vol. 10, pp. 15–32).Google Scholar
  21. Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures. London: Jai Press.Google Scholar
  22. White, D. F., Rudy, A. P., & Gareau, B. J. (2016). Environments, Natures and Social Theory. London and New York, NY: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Humanities Education and Social SciencesÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations