Advertisement

Does Deliberation Promote Ecological Citizenship? The Convergence Hypothesis and the Reality of Polarization

  • Jozef KeulartzEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics book series (LEAF, volume 26)

Abstract

This chapter will subject Bryan Norton’s well-known ‘convergence hypothesis’ to a critical assessment with a view to improve our understanding of the possibilities and difficulties of environmental citizenship. I will argue that Norton holds overly optimistic expectations regarding the transformative force of democratic deliberation. Firstly, Norton consciously ignores the role of power relationships and strategic negotiations in political will-formation. Secondly, Norton also has a too narrow view on ethical discourse itself: he only focuses on conceptions of the good life within single communities and neglects the plurality of often incompatible conceptions between different communities. To illustrate the inevitability of bargaining on the one hand and the importance of inter-communal ethical tensions on the other, I will discuss the wolf debate in Finland that started after the country’s accession to the EU in 1995.

Keywords

Bryan Norton Convergence hypothesis Environmental citizenship Democratic deliberation The Finnish wolf debate 

References

  1. Arias-Maldonado, M. 2012. Real Green. Sustainability after the End of nature. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bohman, J. 1996. Public deliberation. Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boitani, L., and J.D.C. Linnell. 2015. Bringing large mammals back: Large carnivores in Europe. In Rewilding European Landscapes, ed. H.M. Pereira and L.M. Navarro, 67–84. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Borgström, S. 2012. Legitimacy Issues in Finnish Wolf Conservation. Journal of Environmental Law 24 (3): 451–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callicott, J.B. 2013. Thinking like a planet: The land ethic and the earth ethic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Caspary, W.R. 2000. Dewey on democracy. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chapron, G., and A. Treves. 2016. Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 283: 20152939.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. 1960. Context and thought. In On experience, nature and freedom, edited, with an introduction, ed. Richard J. Bernstein. New York: The Bobbs Merrill Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Dobson, A. 2003. Citizenship and the environment. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Funtowicz, S., and J.R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25: 735–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. 1994. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics, trans. C. Cronin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, J. 1998. The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Haidt, J. 2012. The righteous mind. Why good people are dived by politics and religion. Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  15. Hiedanpää, J., M. Matti Salo, and J. Kotilainen. 2015. Teleodynamics and institutional change: The hardship of protecting the Amur tiger, big-leaf mahogany, and gray wolf. Journal for Nature Conservation 26: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiedanpää, J., J. Pellikka, and S. Ojalammi. 2016a. Meet the parents: Normative emotions in Finnish wolf politics. Finnish Journal for Human-animal Studies 2: 4–27.Google Scholar
  17. Hiedanpää, J., H. Kalliolevo, M. Salo, J. Jani Pellikka, and M. Luoma. 2016b. Payments for improved ecostructure (PIE): Funding for the coexistence of humans and wolves in Finland. Environmental Management 58: 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and R. Lalasz. 2012. Conservation in the Anthropocene. Beyond Solitude and Fragility. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene.
  19. Keulartz, J. 2004. Concepts of nature as communicative devices: The case of Dutch nature policy. Environmental Values 13 (1): 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keulartz, J., and G. Leistra (eds.). 2008. Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy—Case studies in multilevel governance. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Krange, O., and K. Skogen. 2011. When the lads go hunting: The “Hammertown mechanism” and the conflict over wolves in Norway. Ethnography 12 (4): 466–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county Almanac. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Light, A., and E. Katz (eds.). 1996. Environmental pragmatism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, T., B. Minteer, and L.-C. Malan. 2011. The new conservation debate: The view from practical ethics. Biological Conservation 144: 948–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minteer, B., and R. Manning. 2000. Convergence in environmental values: an empirical and conceptual defense. Ethics, Place and Environment 3 (1): 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell, R.C. 1989. From Conservation to Environmental Movement: The Development of the Modern Environmental Lobbies. In Government and Environmental Politics: Essays on Historical Developments since World War Two, ed. M.J. Lacey. Washington, DC: Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
  27. Muir, J. 1997. The Yosemite (1912); reprinted in John Muir: Nature Writings. New York: Library of America.Google Scholar
  28. Naess, A. 1973. The shallow and the deep, long range ecology movement. lnquiry 16 (1–4): 95–100.Google Scholar
  29. Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. New haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Norton, B. 1987. Why Preserve natural Variety?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Norton, B. 1991. Toward unity among environmentalists. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Norton, B. 1997. Convergence and contextualism: Some clarifications and a reply to Steverson. Environmental Ethics 19: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norton, B. 2005. Sustainability. A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norton, B. 2007. The re-birth of environmentalism as pragmatic, adaptive management, Invited Lecture. State University of NY at Buffalo. 8 March 2007.Google Scholar
  35. Norton, B. 2015. Sustainable values, sustainable change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paavola, J. 2004. Protected areas governance and justice: Theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Environmental Sciences 1: 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pohja-Mykrä, M., and S. Kurki. 2014. Strong community support for illegal killing challenges wolf management. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60: 759–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolston, Holmes I.I.I. 2015. Rediscovering and rethinking leopold’s green fire. Environmental Ethics 37: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shweder, R.A. 1991. Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Canbridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Thaler, R., and C. Sunstein. 2009. Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  41. Von Essen, E., H.P. Hansen, H. Nordström Källström, N. Peterson, and T.R. Peterson. 2015. The radicalisation of rural resistance: How hunting counterpublics in the Nordic countries contribute to illegal hunting. Journal of Rural Studies 39: 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Science in Society, Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations