ending the stalemate: toward a theory of anthro-shift · anthro-shift explains how the...

https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275119888247

Sociological Theory2019, Vol. 37(4) 342 –362

© American Sociological Association 2019 DOI: 10.1177/0735275119888247

st.sagepub.com

Original Article

Ending the Stalemate: Toward a Theory of Anthro-Shift

Dana R. Fisher1 and Andrew K. Jorgenson2

AbstractFor years, sociologists who study society and the environment have focused on resolving the debate regarding the relationship between economic development and environmental degradation. Studies from a family of critical perspectives tend to find that economic development is antithetical to environmental protection, whereas a suite of more optimistic perspectives has uncovered more hopeful findings. We attempt to resolve these differences by situating this debate within the larger framework of the anthro-shift. The anthro-shift explains how the society-environment relationship changes over time. The theory assumes this relationship is the product of interrelations among the state, market, and civil society sectors. We focus on two distinctive qualities of the anthro-shift: the role risk plays as a pivot for reorienting how society interacts with the natural environment and the multidirectionality of the theory, highlighting how it combines elements of many of the dominant critical and optimistic perspectives into a broader framework.

Keywordsenvironmental sociology, environment

Donald Trump is positioned to be the most anti-environmental president of the United States since at least the National Environmental Policy Act was signed into law in 1970. As a candidate, he campaigned with the promise of rolling back numerous environmental poli-cies. Since the election, the president has followed through on his promises1: He appointed a climate denier to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),2 a leading voice for fossil fuel development on public lands to head the Department of the Interior,3 and the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, which is under investigation for burying information it had about the science of climate change, to run the State Department.4 In June 2017, the presi-dent formally announced that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement,5 making the United States the only country to withdraw from the international environmental agreement. Later that year, his EPA administrator formally announced that

1University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA2Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:Dana R. Fisher, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, 2112 Art-Sociology, College Park, MD 20742, USA. Email: [email protected]

888247 STXXXX10.1177/0735275119888247Sociological TheoryFisher and Jorgensonresearch-article2019

https://st.sagepub.commailto:[email protected]://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0735275119888247&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-12-17

Fisher and Jorgenson 343

the administration would repeal the Clean Power Plan, thereby canceling one of the Obama administration’s central policies to regulate fossil fuel consumption and address the issue of climate change (Fisher et al. 2018).6 More recently, the administration has loosened regulations on toxics, pesticides, and water pollution (Dillon et al. 2018).

The Trump administration’s policies are in sharp contrast to the eight years of the Obama administration. In addition to implementing environmental regulation through administra-tion-driven efforts, including executive orders, the Obama administration supported the expansion of the “green economy” through numerous tax incentives and investments.7 For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 invested, in part, in more environmentally sound technologies (Galli and Fisher 2016). Although the Obama adminis-tration did not solve the environmental challenges facing society, its policies led to nontrivial reductions of numerous environmental bads, including decreased levels of carbon emissions in the United States.8 Moreover, these policies expanded safeguards for environmental goods in the form of protections to natural areas and national parks.9

In recent years, sociologists have noted how the policies of the Obama administration were consistent with sociological theories that argue that environmental protection is com-patible with economic growth (e.g., Galli and Fisher 2016; Grant and Vasi 2017; Obach 2015; Yang 2016; but see Adua, York, and Schuelke-Leech 2016; Bonds and Downey 2012). The policies of the Trump administration, however, stand in stark contrast to those of the Obama administration and are more consistent with sociological perspectives that find eco-nomic development to be associated with environmental degradation (e.g., Clark and York 2005; Foster, Clark, and York 2010; Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2008; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994). To date, no theory of the society-environment relationship adequately explains this shift from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. Although more extreme in its environmentally destructive agenda, this shift is not unprecedented. In fact, we can see similar trends with previous administrations based on the political party in power and the priorities of the specific administration (for a discussion of the George W. Bush administration, e.g., see Cohen 2004).

In this article, we integrate some of the most central theories in environmental sociology into a broader framework that we call the anthro-shift. The anthro-shift explains the pendu-lum of the society-environment relationship that takes place in response to social and envi-ronmental context, as seen in the shift from the Obama to the Trump administrations (for historical examples, see Dunlap and Catton 1994).

For decades, theoretical and empirical work in environmental sociology has been domi-nated by a debate over the relationship between society and the natural environment. On the one hand, a number of relatively critical perspectives find that economic development is antithetical to environmental protection given the growth imperative of modern economic systems, their need for continual resource inputs, and the increased environmental harm as economies continue to grow. On the other hand, scholars focusing on modernization pro-cesses and governance tend to be more optimistic, concluding that environmental protection measures themselves are often associated with economic growth.

To date, limited work has focused on explaining the entire range of empirically docu-mented variation through theory building and subsequent research. We attempt to help tran-scend this debate with two related contributions. First, we summarize a range of perspectives on the society-environment relationship and note their limitations in explaining the empiri-cal reality in which we find ourselves today. Second, we outline the anthro-shift, which aims to explain how the society-environment relationship produces different outcomes at differ-ent times and in different settings. The anthro-shift incorporates components of extant per-spectives in one broader framework that documents how the society-environment relationship

344 Sociological Theory 37(4)

is often the product of interrelations among three main social actors—the state, the market, and civil society. As we will discuss, the anthro-shift is driven by risk and is multidirectional in nature.

We begin by summarizing the drivers of the society-environment relationship. Next, we provide a brief overview of the major differences among the current literatures, focusing specifically on those that motivate the ongoing debate. Then, we provide our definition of the anthro-shift and outline its distinctive components that provide an integrated approach to understanding the society-environment relationship. Here, we focus on the ways that notions of risk drive the anthro-shift and the multidirectionality of its orientation. We conclude by discussing how the anthro-shift could help resolve some of the existing limitations in the sociological literature on the society-environment relationship.

WHAT DETERMInES THE SOCIETy-EnVIROnMEnT RElATIOnSHIP?

Drawing from the work of Jürgen Habermas, we contend that much of the variation in expectations of the society-environment relationship can be traced to differing expectations about the nature of the association between state regulation and the economy (see also Block and Somers 2014; Chase-Dunn 1998; Cohn 2016; Polanyi 2001). Habermas (1970, 1975) argued that the transition to an advanced capitalist state leads to a change in the relationship between two of the main actors within society: the state and the market. In McCarthy’s (1978:363) summary, Habermas believed that the economy “no longer has the degree of autonomy” that it previously had. In Habermas’s (1975:40) own words, “The continuing tendency toward disturbance of capitalist growth can be administratively processed and transferred, by stages, through the political and into the socio-cultural system.”

This interpretation is consistent with many of the more dominant views of the autonomy of the state (see Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol 1985; Tilly 2007). States are classified as strong or weak depending on their independence and effectiveness in implementing offi-cial actions (Fukuyama 2014, 2016). Characteristics of the nation-state are important to keep in mind because the strength of the state determines its level of autonomy compared to other social actors (Evans 1995; Evans et al. 1985). A strong state has more capacity to implement regressive policies, and a weaker state is more likely to be collaborative and engage in arrangements with other social actors (Clemens and Guthrie 2011; Edwards 2009; Eliasoph 2009; Lichterman and Eliasoph 2014; McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001).

Within the modern capitalist system, Habermas identified different social actors as play-ing central roles in maintaining legitimacy and control over society—the state, the market, but also civil society. In his scholarship on the public sphere (Habermas 1989, 1992; see also Calhoun 1992) and in his later work (Habermas 1998), Habermas (1970:118) stressed the importance of an active civil society to bring about “public, unrestricted discussion, free from domination,” or what he might view as true democracy.

This interpretation is echoed within much research that focuses on civil society—a notion that has roots in some of the mainstream theories of contemporary sociology (e.g., Calhoun 1992; Dewey 1927; Gramsci 1971). Generally, civil society is defined as involving a “self-organized citizenry” (Emirbayer and Sheller 1999:146; see also Cohen and Arato 1994; Hann and Dunn 1996; Wuthnow 1991). Much of this literature conceptualizes civil society itself as an institution, “distinguishing it from both state and economy” (Cohen and Arato 1994:ix). Social movement organizations and voluntary associations made up of organized citizens are considered a part of civil society (Schofer and Longhofer 2011), as are individ-ual citizens who may participate in society in less organized ways. Emirbayer and Sheller (1999:151) argued that the state, the economy, and civil society are realms of social life


whose relative independence from one another constitutes “one of the principal hallmarks of modernity. . . . Many of the dynamics of contemporary society are captured in the relations among these empirically interpenetrating and yet analytically distinct institutional domains. . . . [Civil society is] the institutional sector that, metaphorically speaking, lies ‘in between’ the state and economy.” In their more recent work, Lichterman and Eliasoph (2014) showed how what they called “civic action” spans institutional sectors. Consistent with Fisher (2002), who noted that the underlying differences between perspectives on the society-envi-ronment relationship can be better understood through a Habermasian lens, it is our conten-tion that many outcomes, including the society-environment relationship, are the product of interrelations among these social actors.

PERSPECTIVES On THE SOCIETy-EnVIROnMEnT RElATIOnSHIP

Environmental sociology scholarship has focused ad infinitum on the debate over the rela-tionship between development and environmental degradation (e.g., Buttel 2000a, 2000b; Clark and York 2005; Fisher and Freudenburg 2004; Frank, Hironaka, and Schofer 2000; Freudenburg 2005; Grant, Jorgenson, and Longhofer 2018; Jorgenson and Clark 2012; Pellow and Brehm 2013; Rosa and Dietz 2012; Rudel, Roberts, and Carmin 2011; Schor and Jorgenson 2019; Shwom 2011; White, Rudy, and Gareau 2016; York, Rosa, and Dietz 2003a). In the following sections, we briefly review these differing perspectives. We begin by reviewing theories and related empirical work that find economic development to be positively associated with environmental degradation (often increasingly so), with a focus on treadmill of production theory and the theory of metabolic rift. Then, we review perspec-tives that come to substantially different conclusions, often finding that economic growth can take place in tandem with improved environmental protection: ecological modernization theory, world society theory, and reflexive modernization theory.

Critical Perspectives

As Humphrey and Buttel (1982) noted, the explosion of interest in environmental sociology in the 1970s and 1980s was, in part, a response to societal debates about the limits to growth. Since then, much environmental sociology has explored the degree to which society’s growth appears to have come at the expense of the natural environment (e.g., Catton 1982; Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, 1984; Foster 1992; O’Connor 1991; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994). These perspectives are all unique, but there are notable commonalities among them. For example, each focuses much attention on explaining environmental degradation with a gen-eral expectation that environmental regulation will be ineffectual. Although they use differ-ent terminology, these perspectives are in general agreement about the role that different social actors play, with the overall expectation that a strong state often supports a neoliberal market sector that does not prioritize environmental protection. This work generally antici-pates that social movements will mobilize, in some cases focusing on coalitions between labor and environmental groups (what Gould, Lewis, and Roberts [2004] called “blue-green coalitions”), but it anticipates such efforts will have little effect overall (see also Rudel et al. 2011). The following sections provide an overview of these critical perspectives.

Treadmill of Production Theory. Treadmill of production theory posits that environmental deg-radation is an inherent part of economic development (Gould et al. 2008; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994). Given that the economy is predicated on the constant pursuit of profit and expansion, its operations have “direct implications for natural resource extraction,” the gen-eration of pollution, and the overall state of environmental conditions (Gould, Pellow, and


Schnaiberg 2004:297). The economy generates ecological problems because it must con-tinually withdraw resources from the environment to produce products and power machin-ery, and such activities also generate waste (or what proponents of this perspective call “additions”). Technological development leads to the expansion and intensification of pro-duction, so the amount of energy and materials used typically increases. The state, although often caught in contradictory positions, is seen as an important social institution that sup-ports economic expansion through negotiating trade agreements, bailing out industry and banking, promoting military spending, and protecting private property (Gould et al. 2008; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994; see also Gareau 2017).

Allan Schnaiberg (1980), the founder of treadmill of production theory, posited that any society driven by economic expansion is mired in a conflict with nature. Such a society expends energy and resources at an accelerating pace. The production process itself is a constant draw on the natural environment, which in turn produces harmful additions to the environment in the form of pollution (Schnaiberg and Gould 1994). The treadmill of produc-tion perspective recognizes that technological innovation often involves improving the effi-ciency of operations: Fewer inputs are used to produce a specified amount of output, often leading to increased profits. But whether efficiency leads to an overall reduction in resource demands—a decoupling of the economy and environment or the dematerialization of soci-ety—is strongly questioned (Jorgenson and Clark 2012). According to the Jevons paradox (Jevons 2001), it is possible for an economy to become more efficient in its resource use while at the same time expanding its consumption of resources (Clark and Foster 2001; York and McGee 2016). The treadmill of production perspective suggests this situation occurs because gains made in improving efficiency are often outstripped by increases in the scale and intensification of production.

More generally, the treadmill of production perspective suggests the strong relationship between environmental harms and economic development has remained fairly constant or possibly increased over time. The drive to expand production necessitates a constant with-drawal of natural resources from ecosystems at rates that generally exceed these systems’ regenerative capacity. Additionally, modern industries pursue economic efficiencies to enhance the production process and increase profit margins. Energy-intensive materials are incorporated into manufacturing, generating a broad range of waste (Pellow 2007; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994). Producers attempt to externalize environmental costs as much as possible because it has the potential to enhance profits.

Metabolic Rift Theory. The metabolic rift perspective within environmental sociology exam-ines the interchange of matter and energy between human societies and the larger environ-ment (Foster 1999). Like treadmill of production theory, this perspective argues that modern capitalism drives a growth imperative. It is a social metabolic system that operates in accord with its own logic, reducing nature and labor to serve capital accumulation. The shaping of material exchanges with the environment increases demands on ecosystems and natural cycles. Metabolic rift theorists argue that the social metabolism of capitalism exceeds natu-ral limits, which undermines ecosystem regeneration and produces “metabolic rifts” in vari-ous cycles and processes (Clark and Foster 2009; Clausen and Clark 2005; Foster 1999; Foster et al. 2010; Longo and Clark 2016).

For example, soil requires specific nutrients—phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium—to maintain its ability to produce crops. The enclosure movement and the concentration of land created a division between town and country, and it facilitated growth in the urban popula-tion. Agricultural goods were shipped to distant markets, which led to a transfer of soil nutrients from the country to the city. In the city, the nutrients ultimately accumulated as waste rather than being returned to the soil (Foster et al. 2010). Marx ([1867] 1976:637)


argued that this type of production “disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth,” causing a rift in the nutrient cycle that undermines “the operation of the eternal natu-ral condition for the lasting fertility of the soil.”

Contemporary metabolic analysis highlights how the transfer of nutrients is increasingly taking place internationally, creating global metabolic rifts (Clark and Foster 2009; see also Bunker 1990). Metabolic theorists also contend that the growth imperative of capitalism has generated a global carbon rift through the burning of massive quantities of coal, natural gas, and oil (Clark and York 2005; Foster and Clark 2012). This process is further exacerbated by growth-driven ecological degradation, such as deforestation, which reduces carbon sinks. More broadly, metabolic theorists generally agree with treadmill of production theorists that the relationship between development and environmental degradation is strong and will con-tinue to be so as long as societies are tied to the growth imperative logic of capitalism (Givens, Clark, and Jorgenson 2016).

In addition to the rich historical work and in-depth case studies conducted by the founders of the metabolic rift and treadmill of production theories, a large body of quantitative cross-national research supports the general propositions of both perspectives concerning the envi-ronmental impacts of economic development. Much of this research uses the STIRPAT model from structural human ecology (or similar approaches), including cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of fossil fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and other greenhouse gases (e.g., Burns, Davis, and Kick 1997; Clark, Jorgenson, and Auerbach 2012; Dietz 2015; Dietz and Jorgenson 2013; Dietz and Rosa 1997; Jorgenson 2006; Jorgenson and Clark 2012; Jorgenson et al. 2019; Knight and Schor 2014; Rosa and Dietz 2012; Rosa, York, and Dietz 2004; Thombs 2018; York 2008; York et al. 2003b), ground-level air pollutants (e.g., Jorgenson, Dick, and Mahutga 2007; York and Rosa 2012), the ecological footprints of nations (e.g., Dietz, Rosa, and York 2007; Jorgenson and Clark 2009, 2011; York et al. 2003a), and the ecological and carbon intensity of human well-being (e.g., Dietz et al. 2012; Givens 2016; Jorgenson 2014).

Optimistic Perspectives

Like the more critical theories, there are similarities among the different perspectives that postulate economic growth can be associated with environmental protection. In general, these theories expect the emergence of an “environmental state” (e.g., Buttel 2000b; Frank et al. 2000; see also Davidson and Frickel 2004; Giddens 1998; Goldman 2001), that is, advanced or industrialized nation-states will include environmental protection “as a basic state responsibility” (Frank et al. 2000:96). Also like the critical perspectives, the more opti-mistic theories are in some agreement about the role different social actors play. Generally, the market sector is seen as occupying a hybrid role, collaborating with actors in the state and civil society sectors. The perspectives outlined in this section are also more optimistic about the role civil society plays, although they differ in their characterizations of the orga-nizational forms of civil society actors. And while there are similarities in the outcomes predicted by ecological modernization theory, world society theory, and reflexive modern-ization theory, the specific mechanisms hypothesized to lead toward those outcomes are relatively different. We discuss each perspective in turn.

Ecological Modernization Theory. Ecological modernization theory focuses on “how various institutions and social actors attempt to integrate environmental concerns into their everyday functioning, development, and relationships with others, including their relation with the natural world” (Mol, Spaargaren, and Sonnenfeld 2009:4). Ecological modernization theory


argues that continued economic growth increases both technological advancement and envi-ronmental governance, which in turn mediates the environmental effects of development over time (Mol 2001; see also Fisher and Freudenburg 2001). Alternatives to capitalism are viewed as less feasible than reforming the current world economic system. Proponents of this per-spective argue that the dynamic nature of capitalism allows for economic growth and related technologies to be directed toward environmental reforms. Technological innovation through-out productive (and distributive) systems allows facilities to prevent environmental problems from occurring in the first place, thus lessening the reliance on end-of-pipe technologies and practices that reduce pollution toward the end of the production chain (Huber 2010).

Scholars working within the ecological modernization perspective tend to expect actors within the state, science, and economic sectors to work together in a top-down fashion to bring about policy outcomes (Buttel 2000a; Mol et al. 2014; Spaargaren and Mol 1992; Spaargaren, Mol, and Buttel 2006). In addition, proponents of the theory highlight the role that civil society actors, such as social movement organizations and nongovernmental orga-nizations (NGOs), play in facilitating environmental improvements and policy reforms (Fisher, Fritsch, and Andersen 2009; Mol 2000; Mol and Jänicke 2010). As ecological con-cerns grow and are broadly diffused, multiple social actors work for social change: Civil society mobilizes and pushes for more sustainable practices, the state creates more environ-mental regulations and institutions, and technological innovation lessens the environmental effects of production (Fisher and Freudenburg 2001; Mol and Buttel 2002; Sonnenfeld 2002). Development will still affect the environment, but these changes should allow eco-nomic development to decouple from material inputs and broader environmental impacts (Mol et al. 2014).

As the ecological modernization perspective has evolved, a noticeable division has arisen, largely due to differences in what is emphasized (Christoff 2010). On one hand, “weak eco-logical modernization” tends to emphasize market-based solutions and technological inno-vations as the primary means to enhanced sustainability. On the other hand, “strong ecological modernization” places greater emphasis on political processes and state reform, pointing to broader institutional changes as necessary for the effective diffusion of environmental con-cerns and sustainability efforts throughout society. Strong ecological modernization pro-motes the incorporation of natural capital into the accounting of production processes and systems, broadening democratic participation within the political system and integrating notions of equity into environmental governance (Mol et al. 2014).

World Society Theory. In contrast to ecological modernization’s focus on further industrializa-tion, world society theory focuses on the role of global institutional structures in shaping social change and environmental conditions (Frank et al. 2000; Hironaka 2014; Meyer et al. 1997; Schofer and Hironaka 2005). At the center of world society are international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs). INGOs are theorized to reflect and carry forth the content of world society to nation-states and the subnational actors within them (Boli and Thomas 1999).

The natural environment is a notable concern of world society, as evidenced by the plu-rality of international organizations, multilateral treaties, and other related configurations devoted to protecting it (Hironaka 2014). Frank and colleagues (2000) found that nation-states with dense ties to world society are more likely to create national parks, adopt national environmental legislation, and establish environmental ministries. Longhofer and Schofer (2010) described how world society provides “global cultural models,” that is, resources and legitimation to support the formation of domestic environmental organizations (cf. Gareau and Lucier 2018). Scholars working within this perspective found that ties to the pro-environmental world society, usually in the form of a strong presence of environmental


INGOs, are associated with improved environmental conditions (Schofer and Hironaka 2005; Shandra 2007a, 2007b; Shandra et al. 2004; Shorette 2012; Shorette et al. 2017).

Environmental INGOs can intervene in political processes by helping shape the language of treaties and organizations dealing with the environment. In the absence of formal enforce-ment mechanisms, they monitor nation-states’ compliance with environmental treaties. Environmental INGOs also help mobilize support for problem-solving initiatives when national-level avenues are inadequate, and they aid conservation and environmental protec-tion efforts at the subnational level (Shandra 2007b; Shandra et al. 2009; see also Grant and Vasi 2017). Such civil society organizations use frames and discourses that encourage social movement activity; in turn, governments and private sector firms are “squeezed” from above and below to attend to environmental problems (Schofer and Hironaka 2005). Research also showed that individual-level environmental concern is more likely in nations with stronger ties to the pro-environmental world society (Givens and Jorgenson 2013). Moreover, in nations that are found to be most central in the environmental INGO network, the magnitude of the effect of economic development on carbon emissions has moderately decreased over time (Longhofer and Jorgenson 2017).

Reflexive Modernization Theory. Like the other relatively optimistic theories that emphasize the emergence and role of the environmental state, reflexive modernization focuses on develop-ment as a process through which environmental protection becomes more common (Beck 1995, 1999, 2009; Beck, Bonss, and Lau 2003; Beck, Giddens, and Lash 1994). In contrast to the other theories, however, reflexive modernization is a two-step process. The first step—the risk society phase—involves a universalization of risk that leads to a breakdown in society’s general working. The second step is reflexive modernization, which is driven by a new type of solidarity motivated by risk. This solidarity is facilitated by new coalitions, or what some scholars called “subpolitics” (Beck 1997; see also Elliott and Frickel 2013, 2015).

The risk society stage of this theory has some commonalities with the expectations of the critical perspectives in environmental sociology (Cable, Shriver, and Mix 2008; Ekberg 2007; Elliott and Frickel 2013; Rosa, Renn, and McCright 2014). Like scholars coming from a treadmill of production perspective, proponents of this approach also see the unintended side effects of industrial society contributing to social conflict, leading to a breakdown of society due to the expansion of environmental bads. These environmental bads become so dispersed that they are expected to lead to a universalization of risk. Beck (1994:8) high-lighted what he called the metamorphosis of unseen side effects of industrial production, which leads society to recognize that environmental problems are due to a crisis of advanced industrial society itself. Elliott and Frickel (2013:524) expanded on these ideas: “manufac-tured risks have become central features of modernity; as such, the dualism of society and nature should be recast to ask how society ought to handle the unintended consequences of its intended transformation of nature.” In short, environmental bads dominate society in the form of risk. In their study of nuclear weapons workers, Cable and colleagues (2008) focused on the implications of the risk society for less powerful social actors, noting that their future is particularly hopeless.

Recently, Boström, Lidskog, and Uggla (2017:7) described what comes next: “As these side effects multiply and are increasingly seen as unresolved by traditional instrumental approaches, a reflexive turn emerges” (see also Beck 1987, 1995, 1997; Beck et al. 1994). As other proponents explained, such forms of manufactured risk could lead, in time, to a subpolitics of risk society that crosses scale and spans various subnational spaces (Elliott and Frickel 2013, 2015; see also Beck 1997). Instead of substantial conflict as the end-point, like the more critical perspectives might expect, this universalization of risk leads to


a breakdown of industrial society and a reorientation into the second step in the process: reflective modernization.

Due to the social change that is the product of the risk society, modernization is further advanced by risk. Perceptions and experiences of risk should mobilize individuals to act, with some scholars expecting risk to replace differences traditionally associated with race, class, and gender (Beck 1999, 2013; but see Curran 2013). Reflexive modernization is “a radicalization of modernity, which breaks up the premises and contours of industrial soci-ety, and opens paths to another modernity” (Beck 1994:3; see also Beck 1999; Beck et al. 2003). In many ways, this reoriented view of society and the environment is consistent with the ecological modernization perspective: Environmental protection happens when new coalitions take advantage of innovations in science and technology. Like in ecological modernization, proponents of reflexive modernization foresee this reorientation of social actors leading society to have a less harmful effect on the natural environment. In contrast to ecological modernization, though, the subpolitical social change described in reflexive modernization is driven from below, by “citizens, the public sphere, social movements, and expert groups” (Beck 1994:23). In reflexive modernization, civil society actors find envi-ronmental damage to be a greater concern than any associated constraints on production processes. Note that in contrast to the general consensus of more critical scholars, the reflexive modernization approach does not expect these civil society efforts via subpolitics to be ineffectual.

THE AnTHRO-SHIFT

We consider the society-environment relationship as a dynamic that integrates these differ-ent perspectives into a broader framework. When we look at society’s relationship to the natural environment over time, neither the critical nor the optimistic perspectives win out completely. Instead, we propose the anthro-shift, in which the society-environment relation-ship is determined by the configuration of social actors and the degree to which those actors prioritize environmental issues (through the regulation of environmental bads and the pro-tection of environmental goods). The anthro-shift has two distinctive features: (1) Risk reorients the relationships among the state, market, and civil society sectors, and (2) the relationship between society and the environment—which is determined by the varying combinations among the state, market, and civil society sectors—is multidirectional. In other words, society can shift to an orientation that reflects what scholars from the more critical perspective might expect, or it can move toward more effective environmental pro-tection and a stronger “environmental state”—and it can also move back again.

Risk as the Pivot

Like reflexive modernization theory, our framework for understanding the relationship between society and the natural environment sees risk as the impetus for social change. In contrast to reflexive modernization theory, however, we do not have particular expectations about which social actors will bring about this social change, nor do we interpret social progress as linear and unidirectional. Instead, we believe risk—in terms of the perception of risk and the actual experience of risk—serves as a pivot to reorient social actors and how they interact with one another and the natural environment.

Beck (2013:64) noted what he called “major risk events of recent decades,” including “Chernobyl, 9/11, climate change, the financial crisis, Fukushima, [and] the euro crisis” (see also Beck 2014). We believe such risk events can be expanded further to include other


“environment events,” such as Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil spill of 2016, as well as strictly social events, such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States.10 These events represent moments of risk-motivated pivots in society—some of which are more socially constructed than others—that lead to changes in the configura-tion of social actors and how they interact. This configuration in turn shapes the society-environment relationship.

Note that risk and the accompanying perceptions of risk both serve as a pivot. Extensive research has been dedicated to understanding risk and how it is constructed through social lenses such as the media (see Rosa et al. 2014; Slovic et al. 2004; Stallings 1990; Wright and Boudet 2012; for a discussion of “risk-taking society,” see Zinn 2016).11 Consistent with Wright and Boudet (2012), we believe the social context in which individuals and communi-ties are embedded determines their perceptions of risk as well as their responses. Comparing the opposition to energy infrastructure projects, Wright and Boudet (2012:764) found much variation: “[S]imilar contextual conditions can shape the judgments of large groups of peo-ple within a community. . . . The facts about the issue, such as the type of project proposed or the potential risks to safety and property, are understood within a broader context and evaluated differently across communities.” The authors specifically discussed a case of environmental risk, but this process of assessing and perceiving risks is not limited to envi-ronmental events.

Another example can be seen in the electoral victory of Donald Trump. Although the candidate’s success involved a mix of factors, numerous accounts discuss how he succeeded due, in part, to what Cox, Lienesch, and Jones (2017) called “fear of cultural displacement” or what Mutz (2018) described as “the result of anxiety about dominant groups’ future sta-tus.” In other words, risk associated with the sense of falling behind drove some Americans to vote for Trump; in turn, the election went to candidate Trump, leading to a reorientation of interactions among social actors. This reorientation of interactions resulted in a very dif-ferent relationship between society and the natural environment, as evidenced in the numer-ous examples we list in our introduction.

In the anthro-shift, risk serves as a pivot to shake up configurations among the state, mar-ket, and civil society sectors. These configurations determine how society functions and how it interacts with the natural environment. We contend that some of these configurations resemble the conditions and relationships highlighted by the varying perspectives on the society-environment relationship.

As risk permeates society, the main social actors from the state, market, and civil society sectors are reorganized. Turning first to the ways the state may be reoriented, we build on Skocpol’s work on the autonomy of the state (in Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol 1985; see also Fukuyama 2014, 2016). In particular, states are classified as strong or weak depend-ing on their independence and effectiveness in implementing official actions. We interpret these classifications as delineating a continuum. The characteristics of the nation-state are important to keep in mind because a state’s strength determines its level of autonomy in rela-tion to other social actors. A strong state has more capacity to implement regressive poli-cies—although it need not necessarily do so—and a weaker state is more likely to be collaborative and engage in cooperative arrangements with other social actors.

The extant research does not depict the full range of configurations; rather, this work records the most common configurations among the state, market, and civil society sectors. Discussing the corporatist state of Sweden in the early twentieth century, for example, Longhofer and Schofer (2010) highlighted the ways it established channels for civil society actors to participate in decision-making processes. Numerous studies within the ecological modernization tradition observed the relationship between a relatively weak state and the


civil society and market sectors (e.g., Fisher 2004; Fisher and Svendsen 2013; Galli and Fisher 2016; Koontz et al. 2004; see also Bulkeley 2005).

At the same time, the market sector can shift from being neoliberal, with a command-and-control orientation, to having more hybrid and collaborative arrangements with other social actors. Scholars working from the critical perspectives in environmental sociology tend to expect a more neoliberal market sector, whereas scholars in the more optimistic vein tend to expect hybrid arrangements.

Finally, the civil society sector can be individualized and disengaged or more engaged and collective in its orientation. Most of the theories summarized earlier presume some level of collective action around environmental issues, but they have very different expectations about their effectiveness. For example, Rudel and colleagues (2011) pointed out that social movements mobilize in response to environmental degradation but are ineffectual overall. The world society perspective, in contrast, identifies a more successful role for civil society through voluntary associations and environmental INGOs (see Givens and Jorgenson 2013; Hironaka 2014; Longhofer and Schofer 2010).

Reflexive modernization, in contrast, focuses on subpolitics to highlight collaborations among civil society actors and individuals from different social sectors (see Beck 1997, 1999; Elliott and Frickel 2013; Holzer and Sørensen 2003). As previously noted, subpolitics starts with civil society actors and diffuses throughout society in radical ways. The anthro-shift integrates all of these perspectives: Risk drives a reconfiguration among social actors that in turn leads to a different relationship between society and the natural environment.12

The reorientation of the configuration of social actors can be seen in the aftermath of environmental disasters such as Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina, where collaborative efforts were initiated among the state, markets, and civil society to address environmental risks and recover from the damage caused by these events. Similarly, in the throes of the Great Recession, when Americans were feeling substantial economic risk (see Grusky, Western, and Wimer 2011), Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. Obama began his presidency by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which invested in infrastructure throughout the United States, including supporting green jobs and energy and conservation initiatives (for a discussion, see Galli and Fisher 2016). In both cases, risk drove social change that reoriented the way social actors worked together and interacted with the natural environment. These examples present cases of the anthro-shift leading to configurations consistent with the more optimistic perspectives on the society-environment relationship.

We can also find examples of the anthro-shift leading to configurations of policy actors that are less environmentally supportive. Mutz (2018), for example, showed how candidate preferences in 2016 were due to elevated anxiety among high-status groups, or what she called “status threat” (for alternative interpretations, see Cox et al. 2017; ECRI 2016). With the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, the role different social actors played in society was reconfigured. As a result, there have been numerous changes to the way U.S. society interacts with the environment, with substantial conse-quences for anthropogenic climate change and other sustainability concerns. These changes are consistent with more critical perspectives of the society-environment relationship.

Multidirectionality

In addition to illustrating the ways risk serves as a pivot in socio-environmental transfor-mation, the transition from the Obama to the Trump administration and the ways social actors have reconfigured themselves since provide evidence of the multidirectionality of the


anthro-shift. Multidirectionality of the theory means that risk pivots lead to reorientations of social actors that in some cases lead to better environmental outcomes and in other cases do not. In other words, even though we see risk as driving social change, we do not see the process as leading to one specific configuration among social actors. Like Pinch and Bijker’s (1984) work that provided a multidirectional view of technological development, we also find that a multidirectional perspective is necessary to understand the empirical reality of the society-environment relationship. As Pinch and Bijker (1984:411) suggested, historical hindsight may make it possible to collapse the multidirectionality of the anthro-shift, provid-ing “retrospective distortion.” However, to see how social actors interrelate in varying ways at varying times, a multidirectional model is likely necessary.13

A society could be oriented such that the state is relatively weak, collaborating with both civil society and market sectors; in such a case, the relationship between society and the environment would function in a manner consistent with ecological modernization. Increasing uncertainty due to some major “risk event,” such as a terrorist attack, environ-mental disaster, or financial crisis, may then lead to changes in the configuration of social actors that changes the relationship between society and the natural environment (Huang 2018). This reconfiguration may (but does not necessarily) involve the state accumulating strength and the market sector functioning more independently, which would be more con-sistent with expectations of the treadmill of production theory. Similarly, a social or environ-mental event could lead to a reorientation in the other direction, and a more collaborative and “environmental” state might emerge. We do not privilege one transition over another. Over the course of history, there are myriad examples of the anthro-shift moving in various directions, leading to substantial changes in the society-environment relationship.

The multidirectionality of the anthro-shift contrasts with the dominant perspectives of the society-environment relationship, which tend to assume a relatively unidirectional trajec-tory. For example, treadmill of production theory concludes that “[t]he major institutions of modern society are ‘addicted’ to economic growth and treadmill expansion” (Schnaiberg and Gould 1994:92). Similarly, reflexive modernization expects society to move toward a new orientation of social actors as a result of the “social explosiveness of global risk” (Beck 2014:xvi).

Note that the process of reflexive modernization is quite different from the other theories: It expects society will continually move in the direction of the universalization of risk and then, eventually, beyond it to a reorientation of society. This reorientation goes in a very dif-ferent direction than other theories that come from what Beck (1999:8) termed a more “post-modernist constellation.” In other words, Beck’s (1994:18) perspective involves a complete reorientation of society where “the political breaks open and erupts beyond the formal responsibilities and hierarchies.” Although it envisions a different end point than other theo-ries, reflexive modernization expects unidirectional progression from modernity through risk society to reflexive modernization; the social change is radically different than predicted by other theories, but once society enters the stage of reflexive modernization, there is no going back. In summary, the multidirectionaliy of the antro-shift could allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the society-environment relationship and how it changes over time.

COnClUSIOn

For decades, sociologists who study the society-environment relationship focused on resolv-ing the debate regarding the relationship between economic development and environmental degradation. As we summarized in detail, this debate can generally be classified as one


between relatively critical perspectives that tend to find economic development is antitheti-cal to environmental protection and a suite of more optimistic perspectives regarding the potential for environmental governance and its effectiveness at mitigating environmental bads. To date, scholars have been slow to move beyond this stalemate (but see efforts by Grant et al. 2018; Longhofer and Jorgenson 2017; Shorette 2012; Shwom 2009, 2011).

In this article, we argued that one way to resolve these differences is by situating the theo-retical debate within the larger framework of the anthro-shift. Overall, the anthro-shift pro-vides an explanation of how the society-environment relationship changes over time by focusing on how the interrelations among the state, market, and civil society sectors shift. We highlighted two distinctive qualities of the anthro-shift: (1) Risk serves as a pivot for reorienting how society interacts with the natural environment, and (2) these reorientations are multidirectional. Underlying our approach is the notion that the more critical and more optimistic perspectives are all relevant and perhaps related to one another in meaningful ways. As such, we situate them within this broader framework of the anthro-shift. Taken as a whole, the integrated framework of the anthro-shift helps explain the full variation in society-environment interactions that can be observed in the world through time (as well as the interrelations among social actors more broadly).

Given this proposed framework, there is much work to be done. In particular, future research is needed to test the anthro-shift empirically, investigating the conditions under which the shifts from one perspective to another actually happen and how they are related to social actors and structural context. Such research must include extensive comparative anal-yses across societies as well as in-depth analyses within societies. Future work should also take advantage of the full range of research methods available to sociologists, especially because environmental sociology is a methodologically pluralistic field (Marquart-Pyatt, Jorgenson, and Hamilton 2015). It is important to acknowledge that future social and envi-ronmental changes could occur that would facilitate a need to refine the anthro-shift, and the framework is structured in a way that allows for such refinements if and when they become useful and necessary.

We proposed the anthro-shift framework to understand the society-environment relation-ship more clearly and comprehensively, but we believe the theory has potential beyond the society-environment relationship. Our shared understanding of other sociologically relevant topics could be enriched if researchers take the notion of the anthro-shift and explore the degree to which it applies to other contexts. Such an extension of the framework could pro-vide added validity to the notion of the anthro-shift and how risk contributes to reconfigura-tions of the state, market, and civil society sectors more broadly.

ACknOWlEDgMEnTSThe authors wish to thank Shamus Khan, Wes Longhofer, and Lennart Olsen for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.

nOTES 1. For an overview, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-what-the-coming-attack-on

-climate-science-could-look-like/2016/12/16/e015cc24-bd8c-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html ?utm_term=.50a88ede27f2.

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=0. 3. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/309628-trump-to-pick-rep-mcmorris-rodgers-for-inte-

rior-secretary-report. 4. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/11/everything-you-need-know-about-exxonmobil-climate-/;

see also https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-supreme

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-what-the-coming-attack-on-climate-science-could-look-like/2016/12/16/e015cc24-bd8c-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.50a88ede27f2https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-what-the-coming-attack-on-climate-science-could-look-like/2016/12/16/e015cc24-bd8c-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.50a88ede27f2https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-what-the-coming-attack-on-climate-science-could-look-like/2016/12/16/e015cc24-bd8c-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.50a88ede27f2http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=0http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/309628-trump-to-pick-rep-mcmorris-rodgers-for-interior-secretary-reporthttp://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/309628-trump-to-pick-rep-mcmorris-rodgers-for-interior-secretary-reporthttps://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/11/everything-you-need-know-about-exxonmobil-climate-/https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-supreme-court-ruling-massachusetts-attorney-general-healey


-court-ruling-massachusetts-attorney-general-healey. These three political appointees are no longer serving in the Trump administration, but their replacements are expected to continue to carry out the “the president’s de-regulatory agenda” (Gullén 2019).

5. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html?mcubz=0&_r=0. 6. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html. 7. These efforts have been compared to the contents of the Green New Deal, which gained attention in

spring 2019 (for details, see Iaconangelo 2019). 8. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/president-obama-climate-action-. Much of the emission reduc-

tion in the United States during this period has been attributed to energy transitions from coal-fired power to natural gas as well as the economic recession. However, transitioning to natural gas, as the Trump administration advocates, poses very serious challenges to long-term climate mitigation. Another partial explanation, that is empirically documented, is the outsourcing of production-based emissions from the United States to developing nations (Huang 2018).

9. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/2/1566211/-President-Barack-Obama-has-now-protected -more-national-park-land-than-any-other-President-in-history.

10. This list is not meant to be exhaustive.11. In a related vein, other scholars have written about how elite social actors, especially in the neoliberal

era, have “capitalized on crisis” (e.g., Gotham and Greenberg 2014; Harvey 2005; Klein 2007). Similarly, studies have analyzed cultural interpretations of nature, connecting capitalism, nature, and culture (see Fine 1998; Tsing 2015). We thank an anonymous reviewer for making these important observations.

12. In some ways, this component of the anthro-shift is consistent with Shwom’s (2011) middle-range theory of energy politics. Shwom suggested that ecological modernization theory will prove valid when an issue features high levels of public awareness, a record of past regulation, a threat of future regulation, and disunity of the business class. In contrast, she argued that treadmill of production will likely prove valid in situations where there is low public consciousness, absence of past regulation, low threat of future regulation, and high levels of business unity.

13. The multidirectionality of the anthro-shift is consistent with recent efforts to think through the relation-ship between society and nature from an urban perspective (see Angelo 2017; Brenner, Madden, and Wachsmuth 2011; Wachsmuth 2012). In contrast to our approach, which focuses on the interrelations among social actors and how their specific configurations lead to variations in the society-environment relationship, this line of inquiry builds on attempts to link “analytical and methodological orientations of assemblage urbanism to the tools of geopolitical economy in ways that contribute to a genuinely critical approach to ongoing planetary urban transformations” (Brenner, Madden and Wachsmuth 2011:238; see also Latour 2005). In some cases, this approach involves applying a “historically vari-able relational embeddedness” to the study of an urbanizing planet (Angelo 2017:17).

REFEREnCESAdua, Lazarus, Richard York, and B. A. Schuelke-Leech. 2016. “The Human Dimensions of Climate

Change: A Micro-Level Assessment of Views from the Ecological Modernization, Political Economy and Human Ecology Perspectives.” Social Science Research 56:26–43.

Angelo, Hillary. 2017. “From the City Lens toward Urbanisation as a Way of Seeing: Country/City Binaries on an Urbanising Planet.” Urban Studies 54(1):158–78.

Beck, Ulrich. 1994. “The Reinvention of Politics.” Pp. 1–55 in Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford University Press.

Beck, Ulrich. 1995. Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Beck, Ulrich. 1997. “Subpolitics: Ecology and the Disintegration of Institutional Power.” Organization &

Environment 10(1):52–65.Beck, Ulrich. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Beck, Ulrich. 2009. World at Risk. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Beck, Ulrich. 2013. “Why ‘Class’ Is Too Soft a Category to Capture the Explosiveness of Social Inequality

at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century.” The British Journal of Sociology 64(1):63–74.Beck, Ulrich. 2014. “Foreword: Risk Society as Political Category.” Pp. xiii–xxiv in The Risk Society Revisited,

edited by E. A. Rosa, O. Renn, and A. M. McCright. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-supreme-court-ruling-massachusetts-attorney-general-healeyhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html?mcubz=0&_r=0https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.htmlhttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/president-obama-climate-action-http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/2/1566211/-President-Barack-Obama-has-now-protected-more-national-park-land-than-any-other-President-in-historyhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/2/1566211/-President-Barack-Obama-has-now-protected-more-national-park-land-than-any-other-President-in-history


Beck, Ulrich, Wolfgang Bonss, and Christoph Lau. 2003. “The Theory of Reflexive Modernization.” Theory, Culture & Society 20(2):1–33.

Beck, Ulrich, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash. 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Block, Fred, and Margaret R. Somers. 2014. The Power of Market Fundamentalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boli, John, and George Thomas, eds. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Non-Governmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bonds, Eric, and Liam Downey. 2012. “Green Technology and Ecologically Unequal Exchange: The Environmental and Social Consequences of Ecological Modernization in the World-System.” Journal of World-Systems Research 18(2):167–86.

Boström, Magnus, Rolf Lidskog, and Ylva Uggla. 2017. “A Reflexive Look at Reflexivity in Environmental Sociology.” Environmental Sociology 3(1):6–16.

Brenner, Neil, David J. Madden, and David Wachsmuth. 2011. “Assemblage Urbanism and the Challenges of Critical Urban Theory.” City 15(2):225–40.

Bulkeley, Harriet. 2005. “Reconfiguring Environmental Governance: Towards a Politics of Scales and Networks.” Political Geography 24(8):875–902.

Bunker, Stephen G. 1990. Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burns, Thomas, Byron Davis, and Edward Kick. 1997. “Position in the World-System and National Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.” Journal of World-Systems Research 3(3):432–66.

Buttel, Frederick H. 2000a. “Classical Theory and Contemporary Environmental Sociology.” Pp. 17–40 in Environment and Global Modernity, edited by G. Spaargaren, A. P. J. Mol, and F. H. Buttel. London: Sage Studies in International Sociology.

Buttel, Fredrick H. 2000b. “World Society, the Nation-State, and Environmental Protection.” American Sociological Review 65(1):117–21.

Cable, Sherry, Thomas E. Shriver, and Tamara L. Mix. 2008. “Risk Society and Contested Illness: The Case of Nuclear Weapons Workers.” American Sociological Review 73(3):380–401.

Calhoun, Craig, ed. 1992. Habermas in the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Catton, William R. 1982. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Chicago: University

of Illinois Press.Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1998. Global Formation: Structures of the World Economy. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Christoff, Peter. 2010. “Ecological Modernisation, Ecological Modernities.” Pp. 101–22 in The Ecological

Modernization Reader, edited by A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, and G. Spaargaren. New York: Routledge.

Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. 2001. “William Stanley Jevons and the Coal Question: An Introduction to Jevons’s ‘Of the Economy of Fuel.’” Organization & Environment 14(1):93–98.

Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. 2009. “Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4):311–34.

Clark, Brett, Andrew K. Jorgenson, and Daniel Auerbach. 2012. “Up in Smoke: The Human Ecology and Political Economy of Coal Consumption.” Organization & Environment 25(4):452–69.

Clark, Brett, and Richard York. 2005. “Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift.” Theory and Society 34(4):391–428.

Clausen, Rebecca, and Brett Clark. 2005. “The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology: An Analysis of the Ocean Crisis within Capitalist Production.” Organization & Environment 18(4):422–44.

Clemens, Elisabeth, and Doug Guthrie, eds. 2011. Politics and Partnerships: The Role of Voluntary Associations in America’s Political Past and Present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, Jean L., and Andrew Arato. 1994. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cohen, Maurie J. 2004. “George W. Bush and the Environmental Protection Agency: A Midterm Appraisal.”

Society & Natural Resources 17(1):69–88.Cohn, Samuel. 2016. “The State and Development.” Pp. 393–413 in The Sociology of Development

Handbook, edited by G. Hooks, P. Almeida, D. Brown, S. Cohn, S. Curran, R. Emigh, H. Hung, A. Jorgenson, R. Lachmann, L. Lobao, and V. Moghadam. Oakland: University of California Press.


Cox, Daniel, Rachel Lienesch, and Robert P. Jones. 2017. Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump. PRRI/The Atlantic Report. https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/.

Curran, Dean. 2013. “Risk Society and the Distribution of Bads: Theorizing Class in the Risk Society.” The British Journal of Sociology 64(1):44–62.

Davidson, Debra, and Scott Frickel. 2004. “Understanding Environmental Governance: A Critical Review.” Organization & Environment 17(4):471–92.

Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Dietz, Thomas. 2015. “Prolegomenon to a Structural Human Ecology of Human Well-Being.” Sociology of

Development 1(1):123–48.Dietz, Thomas, and Andrew K. Jorgenson, eds. 2013. Structural Human Ecology: New Essays in Risk,

Energy, and Sustainability. Pullman: Washington State University Press.Dietz, Thomas, and Eugene A. Rosa. 1997. “Effects of Population and Affluence on CO2 Emissions.”

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94(1):175–79.Dietz Thomas, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York. 2007. “Driving the Human Ecological Footprint.”

Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 5(1):13–18.Dietz, Thomas, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York. 2012. “Environmentally Efficient Well-Being: Is there

a Kuznets Curve?” Applied Geography 32(1):21–28.Dillon, Lindsey, Christopher Sellers, Vivian Underhill, Nicholas Shapiro, Jennifer Liss Ohayon, Marianne

Sullivan, Phil Brown, Jill Harrison, and Sara Wylie. 2018. “The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture.” American Journal of Public Health 108(S2):S89–94.

Dunlap, Riley E., and William R. Catton. 1994. “Struggling with Human Exemptionalism: The Rise, Decline and Revitalization of Environmental Sociology.” The American Sociologist 25(1):5–30.

Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm.’” The Journal of Environmental Education 9(4):10–19.

Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. Van Liere. 1984. “Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and Concern for Environmental Quality.” Social Science Quarterly 65(4):1013–28.

ECRI. 2016. US Cyclical Outlook. https://ecri-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/1611USCO_Essentials_EXCERPT.pdf

Edwards, Michael. 2009. Civil Society. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Ekberg, Merryn. 2007. “The Parameters of the Risk Society: A Review and Exploration.” Current Sociology

55(3):343–66.Eliasoph, Nina. 2009. “Top-Down Civic Projects Are Not Grassroots Associations: How the Differences

Matter in Everyday Life.” Voluntas 20(3):291–308.Elliott, James R., and Scott Frickel. 2013. “The Historical Nature of Cities: A Study of Urbanization and

Hazardous Waste Accumulation.” American Sociological Review 78(4):521–43.Elliott, James R., and Scott Frickel. 2015. “Urbanization as Socioenvironmental Succession: The Case of

Hazardous Industrial Site Accumulation.” American Journal of Sociology 120(6):1736–77.Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Mimi Sheller. 1999. “Publics in History.” Theory and Society 28(1):143–97.Evans, Peter. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States & Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge

Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press.Fine, Gary Alan. 1998. Morel Tales: The Culture of Mushrooming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Fisher, Dana R. 2002. “From Treadmill of Production to Ecological Modernization? Applying a Habermasian

Framework to Understanding Environment-Society Relationships.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 10:53–64.

Fisher, Dana R. 2004. National Governance and the Global Climate Change Regime. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Fisher, Dana R., and William R. Freudenburg. 2001. “Ecological Modernization and Its Critics: Assessing the Past and Looking toward the Future.” Society and Natural Resources 14(8):701–709.

Fisher, Dana R., and William R. Freudenburg. 2004. “Post Industrialization and Environmental Quality: An Empirical Analysis of the Environmental State.” Social Forces 83(1):157–88.

https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/https://ecri-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/1611USCO_Essentials_EXCERPT.pdfhttps://ecri-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/1611USCO_Essentials_EXCERPT.pdf


Fisher, Dana R., Oliver Fritsch, and Mikael S. Andersen. 2009. “Transformations in Environmental Governance and Participation” Pp. 141–55 in Ecological Modernisation Reader, edited by A. P. J. Mol, G. Spaargaren, and D. Sonnenfeld. London: Routledge Press.

Fisher, Dana R., Anya M. Galli Robertson, Joseph McCartney Waggle, Amanda M. Dewey, Ann H. Dubin, and William Yagatich. 2018. “Polarizing Climate Politics in America.” Pp. 1–23 in Environment, Politics, and Society (Research in Political Sociology). Vol. 25, edited by R. Alagan and S. Aladuwaka. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Fisher, Dana R., and Erika S. Svendsen. 2013. “Hybrid Arrangements within the Environmental State.” Pp. 179–89 in Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change, edited by S. Lockie, D. A. Sonnenfeld, and D. R. Fisher. London: Routledge Press.

Foster, John Bellamy. 1992. “The Absolute General Law of Environmental Degradation under Capitalism.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 3(3):77–81.

Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift.” American Journal of Sociology 105(2):366–405.

Foster, John Bellamy, and Brett Clark. 2012. “The Planetary Emergency.” Monthly Review 64(7):1–25.Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2010. The Ecological Rift. New York: Monthly

Review Press.Frank, David John, Ann Hironaka, and Evan Schofer. 2000. “The Nation-State and the Natural Environment

over the Twentieth Century.” American Sociological Review 65(1):96–116.Freudenburg, William R. 2005. “Privileged Access, Privileged Accounts: Toward a Socially Structured

Theory of Resources and Discourses.” Social Forces 84(1):89–114.Fukuyama, Francis. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the

Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.Fukuyama, Francis. 2016. “Governance: What Do We Know, and How Do We Know It?” Annual Review

of Political Science 19:89–105.Galli, Anya M., and Dana R. Fisher. 2016. “Hybrid Arrangements as a Form of Ecological Modernization:

The Case of the US Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants.” Sustainability 8(88):1–19.Gareau, Brian. 2017. “Sociology in Global Environmental Governance? Neoliberalism, Protectionism, and

the Methyl Bromide Controversy in the Montreal Protocol.” Environments 4(4):173.Gareau, Brian, and Cristina Lucier. 2018. “Neoliberal Restructuring of the World Polity: The Weakening

of the Montreal Protocol and Basel Convention in Historical Perspective.” Environmental Sociology 4(3):325–42.

Giddens, Anthony. 1998. The Third Way. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Givens, Jennifer. 2016. “Urbanization, Slums, and the Carbon Intensity of Well-Being: Implications for

Sustainable Development.” Human Ecology Review 22(1):107–28.Givens, Jennifer, Brett Clark, and Andrew K. Jorgenson. 2016. “Strengthening the Ties between

Environmental Sociology and the Sociology of Development.” Pp. 69–94 in The Sociology of Development Handbook, edited by G. Hooks, P. Almeida, D. Brown, S. Cohn, S. Curran, R. Emigh, H. Hung, A. Jorgenson, R. Lachmann, L. Lobao, and V. Moghadam. Oakland: University of California Press.

Givens, Jennifer, and Andrew K. Jorgenson. 2013. “Individual Environmental Concern in the World Polity.” Social Science Research 42(2):418–31.

Goldman, M. 2001. “Constructing an Environmental State: Eco-Governmentality and Other Transnational Practices of a ‘Green’ World Bank.” Social Problems 48(4):499–523.

Gotham, Kevin Fox, and Miriam Greenberg. 2014. Crisis Cities: Disaster and Redevelopment in New York and New Orleans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gould, Kenneth A., Tammy L. Lewis, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2004. “Blue-Green Coalitions: Constraints and Possibilities in the Post 9-11 Political Environment.” Journal of World-Systems Research 10(1):91–116.

Gould, Kenneth A., David Pellow, and Allan Schnaiberg. 2004. “Interrogating the Treadmill of Production: Everything You Wanted to Know about the Treadmill but Were Afraid to Ask.” Organization & Environment 17(3):296–316.

Gould, Kenneth A., David Pellow, and Allan Schnaiberg. 2008. The Treadmill of Production: Injustice and Unsustainability in the Global Economy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.


Grant, Don, Andrew K. Jorgenson, and Wesley Longhofer. 2018. “Pathways to Carbon Pollution: The Interactive Effects of Global, Political, and Organizational Factors on Power Plants’ CO2 Emissions.” Sociological Science 5(4):58–92.

Grant, Don, and Ion Bogdan Vasi. 2017. “Civil Society in an Age of Environmental Accountability: How Local Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations Reduce U.S. Power Plants’ Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” Sociological Forum 32(1):94–115.

Grusky, David B., Bruce Western, and Christopher Wimer. 2011. The Great Recession. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gullén, Alex. 2019. “Senate Confirms Wheeler as Trump’s Permanent EPA Chief.” Politico, February 28. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/andrew-wheeler-epa-confirmation-1221189.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. Towards a Rational Society. Boston, MA: Beacon.Habermas, Jürgen. 1975. The Legitimation Crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere.” Pp. 421–61 in Habermas in the Public

Sphere, edited by C. Calhoun. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hann, Chris, and Elizabeth Dunn. 1996. Civil Society: Challenging Western Models. London: Routledge.Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Hironaka, Ann. 2014. Greening the Globe: World Society and Environmental Change. New York:

Cambridge University Press.Holzer, Boris, and Mads P. Sørensen. 2003. “Rethinking Subpolitics: Beyond the Iron Cage of Modern

Politics?” Theory, Culture & Society 20(2):79–102.Huang, Xiaorui. 2018. “Ecologically Unequal Exchange, Recessions, and Climate Change: A Longitudinal

Study.” Social Science Research 73:1–12.Huber, Joseph. 2010. “Upstreaming Environmental Action.” Pp. 334–55 in The Ecological Modernisation

Reader, edited by A. P. J. Mol, G. Spaargaren, and D. Sonnenfeld. London: Routledge.Humphrey, Craig R., and Frederick H. Buttel. 1982. Environment, Energy, and Society. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.Iaconangelo, David. 2019. “‘Green New Deal’—an Obama Stimulus 2.0?” E & E News, February 22.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122143.Jevons, William Stanley. 2001. “Of the Economy of Fuel.” Organization & Environment 14(1):99–104.Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2006. “Global Warming and the Neglected Greenhouse Gas: A Cross-National

Study of the Social Causes of Methane Emissions Intensity, 1995.” Social Forces 84(3):1779–98.Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2014. “Economic Development and the Carbon Intensity of Human Well-Being.”

Nature Climate Change 4(3):186–89.Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2009. “The Economy, Military, and Ecologically Unequal

Relationships in Comparative Perspective: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1975–2000.” Social Problems 56(4):621–46.

Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2011. “Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1960–2003.” Social Science Research 40(1):226–44.

Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2012. “Are the Economy and the Environment Decoupling? A Comparative International Study, 1960–2005.” American Journal of Sociology 118(1):1–44.

Jorgenson, Andrew K., Christopher Dick, and Matthew Mahutga. 2007. “Foreign Investment Dependence and the Environment: An Ecostructural Approach.” Social Problems 54(3):371–94.

Jorgenson, Andrew K., Shirley Fiske, Klaus Hubacek, Jia Li, Tom McGovern, Torben Rick, Juliet B. Schor, William Solecki, Richard York, and Ariela Zycherman. 2019. “Social Science Perspectives on Drivers of and Responses to Global Climate Change.” WIREs Climate Change 10:e554.

Klein, Naomi. 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Toronto, ON: Random House of Canada.

Knight, Kyle, and Juliet B. Schor. 2014. “Economic Growth and Climate Change: A Cross-National Analysis of Territorial and Consumption-Based Carbon Emissions in High-Income Countries.” Sustainability 6(6):3722–31.

Koontz, Tomas M., Toddi A. Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig W. Thomas. 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: RFF Press.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/andrew-wheeler-epa-confirmation-1221189https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122143


Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lichterman, Paul, and Nina Eliasoph. 2014. “Civic Action.” American Journal of Sociology. 120(3):798–863.Longhofer, Wesley, and Andrew K. Jorgenson. 2017. “Decoupling Reconsidered: Does World Society

Integration Influence the Relationship between the Environment and Economic Development?” Social Science Research 65:17–29.

Longhofer, Wesley, and Evan Schofer. 2010. “National and Global Origins of Environmental Association.” American Sociological Review 71(4):505–33.

Longo, Stefano, and Brett Clark. 2016. “An Ocean of Troubles: Advancing Marine Sociology.” Social Problems 63(4):463–79.

Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra, Andrew K. Jorgenson, and Lawrence Hamilton. 2015. “Methodological Approaches for Sociological Research on Climate Change.” Pp. 369–411 in Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives, edited by R. Dunlap and R. Brulle. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly.2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Social Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Marx, Karl. [1867] 1976. Capital. Vol.1. New York: Vintage.Meyer, John W., David John Frank, Ann Hironaka, Evan Schofer, and Nancy Brandon Tuma. 1997. “The

Structuring of the World Environmental Regime, 1870–1990.” International Organization 51(4): 623–51.

Mol, Arthur P J. 2000. “The Environmental Movement in an Era of Ecological Modernisation.” Geoforum 31(1):45–56.

Mol, Arthur. 2001. Globalization and Environmental Reform. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Mol, Arthur P. J. and Fredrick H. Buttel. 2002. “The Environmental State under Pressure: An Introduction.”

Pp. 1–11 in The Environmental State Under Pressure. Vol. 10, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, edited by P. J. M. Arthur and H. B. Frederick. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Mol, Arthur, and Martin Jänicke. 2010. “The Origins and Theoretical Foundations of Ecological Modernisation Theory.” Pp. 17–27 in The Ecological Modernization Reader, edited by A. P. J. Mol, D. Sonnenfeld, and G. Spaargaren. New York: Routledge.

Mol, Arthur, Gert Spaargaren, and David Sonnenfeld. 2009. “Ecological Modernisation: Three Decades of Policy, Practice and Theoretical Reflection.” Pp. 3–14 in The Ecological Modernisation Reader, edited by A. P. J. Mol, G. Spaargaren, and D. Sonnenfeld. London: Routledge.

Mol, Arthur, Gert Spaargaren, and David Sonnenfeld. 2014. “Ecological Modernization Theory: Taking Stock, Moving forward.” Pp. 15–30 in The Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change, edited by S. Lockie, D. Sonnenfeld, and D. R. Fisher. Routledge Press.

Mutz, Diana C. 2018. “Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(19):E4330–39.

O’Connor, James. 1991. “On the Two Contradictions of Capitalism.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 2(3):107–9.

Obach, Brian. 2015. Organic Struggle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Pellow, David. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Pellow, David, and Hollie Brehm. 2013. “An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First Century.”

Annual Review of Sociology 39:229–50.Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the

Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science 14(3):399–441.

Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Rosa, Eugene A., and Thomas Dietz. 2012. “Human Drivers of National Greenhouse-Gas Emissions.” Nature Climate Change 2:581–86.

Rosa, Eugene A., Ortwin Renn, and Aaron M. McCright. 2014. The Risk Society Revisited. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Rosa, Eugene A., Richard York, and Thomas Dietz. 2004. “Tracking the Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecological Impacts.” Ambio 33(8):509–12.


Rudel, Thomas K., J. Timmons Roberts, and JoAnn Carmin. 2011. “Political Economy of the Environment.” Annual Review of Sociology 37:221–38.

Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.Schnaiberg, Allan, and Kenneth Gould. 1994. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York:

St. Martin’s Press.Schofer, Evan, and Ann Hironaka. 2005. “The Effects of World Society on Environmental Protection

Outcomes.” Social Forces 84(1):25–47.Schofer, Evan, and Wesley Longhofer. 2011. “The Structural Sources of Association.” American Journal

of Sociology 117(2):539–85.Schor, Juliet B., and Andrew K. Jorgenson. 2019. “Is It Too Late for Growth?” Review of Radical Political

Economics 51(2):320–29.Shandra, John. 2007a. “International Nongovernmental Organizations and Deforestation: Good, Bad, or

Irrelevant?” Social Science Quarterly 88(3):665–89.Shandra, John. 2007b. “The World Polity and Deforestation: A Quantitative, Cross-National Analysis.”

International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48(1):5–27.Shandra, John, Christopher Leckband, Laura A. McKinney, and Bruce London. 2009. “Ecologically

Unequal Exchange, World Polity, and Biodiversity Loss: A Cross-National Analysis of Threatened Mammals.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4):285–310.

Shandra, John, Bruce London, Owen Wooley, and John Williamson. 2004. “International Nongovernmental Organizations and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Developing World: A Quantitative, Cross-National Analysis.” Sociological Inquiry 74(4):520–44.

Shorette, Kristen. 2012. “Outcomes of Global Environmentalism: Longitudinal and Cross-National Trends in Chemical Fertilizer and Pesticide Use.” Social Forces 91(1):299–325.

Shorette, Kristen, Kent Henderson, Jamie Sommer, and Wesley Longhofer. 2017. “World Society and the Natural Environment.” Sociology Compass 11(10):e12511.

Shwom, Rachael. 2009. “Strengthening Sociological Perspectives on Organizations and the Environment.” Organization & Environment 22(3):271–92.

Shwom, Rachael. 2011. “A Middle Range Theorization of Energy Politics: The Struggle for Energy Efficient Appliances.” Environmental Politics 20(5):705–26.

Slovic, Paul, Melissa L. Finucane, Ellen Peters, and Donald G. MacGregor. 2004. “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality.” Risk Analysis 24(2):311–22.

Sonnenfeld, David. 2002. “Social Movements and Ecological Modernization: The Transformation of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing.” Development and Change 33(1):1–27.

Spaargaren, Gert, and Arthur P. J. Mol. 1992. “Sociology, Environment, and Modernity: Ecological Modernization as a Theory of Social Change.” Society & Natural Resources 5(4):323–44.

Spaargaren, Gert, Arthur P. J. Mol, and Frederick H. Buttel. 2006. Governing Environmental Flows: Global Challenges to Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stallings, Robert A. 1990. “Media Discourse and the Social Construction of Risk.” Social Problems 37(1):80–95.

Thombs, Ryan. 2018. “The Transnational Tilt of the Treadmill and the Role of Trade Openness on Carbon Emissions: A Comparative International Study, 1965–2010.” Sociological Forum 33(2):422–42.

Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in

Capitalist Ruins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Wachsmuth, David. 2012. “Three Ecologies: Urban Metabolism and the Society-Nature Opposition.” The

Sociological Quarterly 53(4):506–23.White, Damian, Alan Rudy, and Brian Gareau. 2016. Environments, Natures, and Social Theory. New

York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Wright, Rachel A., and Hilary Schaffer Boudet. 2012. “To Act or Not to Act: Context, Capability, and

Community Response to Environmental Risk.” American Journal of Sociology 118(3):728–77.Wuthnow, Robert. 1991. Between States and Markets: The Voluntary Sector in Comparative Perspective.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Yang, Xiaoliang. 2016. “U.S.-China Clean Energy Collaboration: Lessons from the Advanced Coal

Technology Consortium.” Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/publication/us-china-clean-energy-research-collaboration.

https://www.wri.org/publication/us-china-clean-energy-research-collaborationhttps://www.wri.org/publication/us-china-clean-energy-research-collaboration


York, Richard. 2008. “De-Carbonization in Former Soviet Republics, 1992–2000: The Ecological Consequences of De-Modernization.” Social Problems 55(3):370–90.

York, Richard, and Julius McGee. 2016. “Understanding the Jevons Paradox.” Environmental Sociology 2(1):77–87.

York, Richard, and Eugene Rosa. 2012. “Choking on Modernity: A Human Ecology of Air Pollution.” Social Problems 59(2):282–300.

York, Richard, Eugene A. Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003a. “Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity.” American Sociological Review 68(2):279–300.

York, Richard, Eugene A. Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003b. “A Rift in Modernity? Assessing the Anthropogenic Sources of Global Climate Change with the STIRPAT Model.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(10):31–51.

Zinn, Jens Oliver. 2016. “Living in the Anthropocene: Towards a Risk-Taking Society.” Environmental Sociology 2(4):385–94.

AUTHOR BIOgRAPHIESDana R. Fisher is a professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Maryland. Her research focuses on studying democracy, civic participation, activism, and environmental policymaking. She is cur-rently involved in projects that study the youth climate movement, the Resistance, and the relationship between civic engagement and climate change. In addition to six books, she has published her work in over 60 peer-reviewed journal articles. Professor Fisher has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, PBS Newshour, and various programs on NPR to discuss her work. She has presented her work to federal agencies, foundations, and other organization, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office, the State Department International Visitor Leadership Program, the Let’s Move Campaign in the Obama White House, the Brookings Institution, and to program members at the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fisher earned her undergraduate degree from Princeton University and a PhD in sociology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Andrew Jorgenson is professor and chair in the Department of Sociology and professor of environmental studies at Boston C

ending the stalemate: toward a theory of anthro-shift · anthro-shift explains how the...

Documents