At the Edge of Environmental Thinking

  • Chiara Certomà


From the 1980s onward, environmental concerns became part of the international political agenda with sustainable development turning into one of the pillars of contemporary sociocultural, political, and economic programs. This chapter analyses the two main approaches that made it possible, i.e., the realist and the constructivist one. The former (adopted by UN agencies, large NGOs, government, and business companies) prescribes the acquisition of as much as possible accurate and reliable data, which can provide tangible evidence of the pervasiveness of the problems. The latter is advanced by critical scholars to unveil the social construction of nature. Despite their differences, both of them grant the experts with the authority and legitimacy to combine nature, politics, and science in frameworks for action. This brings about, together with the search for a wise and efficient management of natural resources, also a number of normalized environmental discourses operating on people’s opinions and behaviors.


Realism constructivism reflexive modernization post-environmentalism post-ecologism 


  1. Adger, W., Benjaminsen, T., Brown, K., and Svarstad, H. 2001. “Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses.” Development and Change 32: 681–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, U. 1995. Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity press.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, B., and Wainwright, J. 2001. “Nature, Poststructuralism, and Politics.” In Social Nature, Blackwell edited by N. Castree and B. Braun. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Brosius, P. 1997. “Prior Transcripts, Divergent Paths: Resistance and Acquiescence to Logging in Sarawak, East Malaysia.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 39.Google Scholar
  5. Castree N., and MacMillan T. 2001. “Dissolving Dualisms: Actor-Network and the Reimagination of Nature.” In Social Nature edited by N. Castree and B. Braun. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Castree, N. 2006. “The Future of Environmentalism.” Soundings n. 34, Nov.Google Scholar
  7. Collectif Argos. 2010. Climate Refugees. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Colombo, L. 2004a. “Consiglio dei diritti genetici.” In Il grano transgenico:un evento inatteso.
  9. Colombo, L. 2004b. Grano o grane La sfida OGM in Italia. Lecce: B Manni S. Cesario.Google Scholar
  10. Daly, H., and Farley, J. 2004. Ecological Economics. Principles and Applications. Washington (DC): Island press.Google Scholar
  11. David, G., and Victor. 2001. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Devinney, T. June 22nd, 2012, 5.24am BST. “Why the Global Environmental Movement is Failing.” In The Conversation.
  13. Dobson, A. 2003b. Citizenship and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eder, K. 1996b. The Social Construction of Nature. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison, Penguin, London. Originally published in. Naissance de la prison. 1975.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault M. 2003. “Society Must Be Defended.” Lectures at the College de France 1975–76. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  17. Gillis J. 2003. “Farmers Divided Over Introduction of GE Wheat.” Washington Post, April 22.Google Scholar
  18. Gleason, H. 1939. “The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association.” American Midland Naturalist n 21.Google Scholar
  19. Grenier, M. 2002. “Agronomic Assessment of Roundup Ready Wheat.” CWB discussion
  20. Hay, P. 2002. Main Currents in Western Environmental Though. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Heal, G. 2000. Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  22. Henson, R. 2011. The Rough Guide to Climate Change. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Hinchcliffe, S. 2003. Inhabiting — Landscapes and Natures. In Handbook of Cultural Geography edited by K. Anderson, M. Domosh, S. Pile and N. Thrift. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Hinchliffe, S. 2007. Geography of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Katz, C. 1998. “Whose Nature, Whose Culture? Private Productions of Space and the ‘Preservation’ of Nature’.” In Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium edited by B. Brawn and N. Castree. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Leopold, A. 1968. A Sand Country Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Luke, T.W. 1999. “Environmentality as Green Governmentality” In Discourses of the Environment edited by E. Darier. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Manser, B. 1996. “Voices from the Rainforest: Testimonies of a Threatened People.”
  29. Massey, D. 2006. Landscape as a Provocation. Reflection on Moving Mountains. Journal of Material Culture 11: 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayr, E. 1997. This is Biology -The Science of the Living World. Cambridge (MA): The Belknappress of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Monsanto. 2003. Bringing New Technologies to Wheat – Information on the Development of Roundup Ready Wheat.
  32. Monsanto. 2004. “Monsanto to Realign Research Portfolio, Development of Roundup Ready Wheat Deferred.” Monsanto, May 10.
  33. 2007. MLA Style: “The Nobel Peace Prize 2007.” Assessed 11 Jan 2015.
  34. Pengra, B. 2012. “One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity.” A Discussion Paper for the Year of RIO+20. June.
  35. Roberts, J. 2010. Environmental Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sachs, W. 1993. “Global Ecology and the Shadow of ‘Development’.” In Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict edited by W. Sachs. Halifax (Nova Scotia): Fernwood Books.Google Scholar
  38. Schubert, R. 2001. “Farmers, Foreign Markets Send Negative Signals About Roundup Ready Wheat.” Cropchoice news.
  39. Tansley, A. 1935. “The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms.” Ecology n 16.Google Scholar
  40. Trudgill, S. 2001. “Psychobiogeography: A Meanings of Nature and Motivations for a Democratized Conservation Ethic.” Journal of Biogeography n 28.Google Scholar
  41. U.N. 2002. “Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.” Johannesburg, South Africa, August 26- September 4.Google Scholar
  42. Van Acker, R.C, Brûlé-Babel, A.L., and Friesen, L.F. 2003. “An Environmental Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready®‚ Wheat: Risks for Direct Seeding Systems.” In Western Canada report prepared for the Canadian Wheat Board for submission to Plant Biosafety Office of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Certomà
    • 1
  1. 1.Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations