Advertisement

Conclusions: A Proposal for a Brave New World of Conceptual Reflexivity

  • Magnus Boström
  • Debra J. Davidson
  • Stewart Lockie
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Environmental Sociology and Policy book series (PASTESP)

Abstract

This concluding chapter begins by elaborating on the importance of conceptual pluralization and reflexivity to confront contemporary tendencies of denialism and anti-reflexivity. It then offers critical reflections on the concepts explored in this volume, by returning to the three questions raised in the introductory chapter: What is the explanatory value of these concepts? What biases and blinders are embedded within them? What sort of action-orientation can they inspire? The chapter then discusses how a more robust and sociologically-informed understanding of society-environment relations, and its many spheres of structure and agency, can enrich our understanding of environmental degradation, complexity, social inertia and conditions for social transformation. The closing section addresses the critical role of sociological imagination and reflexivity to explore what future(s) may lie ahead.

References

  1. Boström, M., Jönsson, A. M., Lockie, S., Mol, A., & Oosterveer, P. (2015). Sustainable and Responsible Supply Chain Governance: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.050.CrossRefGoogle 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. Edvardsson Björnberg, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and Environmental Science Denial: A Review of the Scientific Literature Published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy. New York: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. International Council for Science. (2017). A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation. Paris: International Council for Science. https://doi.org/10.24948/2017.01.
  6. Lidskog, M., & Oosterveer. (2015). Towards a Global Environmental Sociology? Legacies, Trends, and Future Directions. Current Sociology, 63(3), 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lidskog, R., & Waterton, C. (2016). Conceptual Innovation in Environmental Sociology. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lockie, S. (2017a). Post-truth Politics and the Social Sciences. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lockie, S. (2017b). A Better Anthropocene? Environmental Sociology, 3(3), 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lockie, S., & Wong, C. (2017). Risk, Sustainability and Time: Sociological Perspectives. In H. Schandl & I. Walker (Eds.), Social Sciences and Sustainability. Canberra: CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? AMBIO, 36(8), 614–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. (2012). The Discursive Democratization of Global Climate Governance. Environmental Politics, 21(2), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wong, C., & Lockie, S. (2018). Sociology, Risk and the Environment: A Material-Semiotic Approach. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1422783.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magnus Boström
    • 1
  • Debra J. Davidson
    • 2
  • Stewart Lockie
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Humanities Education and Social SciencesÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.James Cook UniversityDouglasAustralia

Personalised recommendations