Environmental Sociology
...nue without limit, making all social problems ultimately solvable. The authors note that pre 1970 sociological concepts developed using HEP conceptions lack modern environmental knowledge that is paramount in today’s society. One example that the authors provided, is seen simply in the vocabulary. Modern environmental and scientific terms like, “carrying capacity”, and “environment”, are virtually nonexistent in pre 1970 sociological works “As if human actions were unaffected by them”(Catton, Dunlap 1978:360). The word “environment” it self traditionally exists only in sociological definitions such as Symbolic Environment, and Social Environment. The authors point out that a major turning point towards a more ecological train of thought, began the early 1970s with the rise of the environmental movement. Sociologists began to realize the importance of ecological constraints. Exploring the problems that they oppose to society, and making it “necessary to rethink the traditional Durkheimian norm of sociological purity”(Catton, Dunlap 1978:361). A new school of thought was needed, one that would address both present and future environmental concerns, and at the same time develop a revised sociological perspective. The result was the birth of environmental sociology. A new perspective that would focus on the “interaction between the environment and society”(Catton, Dunlap 1978:361). Quite the converse to the previous beliefs of the HEP. This new perspective of thought would bring about a revision of the old worldview assumptions, assumptions that would change the essence of contemporary sociology. The new worldview was introduced by Dunlap and Vanleir coining the term, New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). Characteristics of the NEP include; acknowledging that our planet has a limited supply of natural resources, agreeing that there are limits to growth beyond which our industrial society cannot expand, and that humankind will always be interdependent on ecosystems. Two examples of NEP assumptions that Catton and Dunlap provide are listed below. 1. Human beings are but one species among the many that are interdependently involved in the biotic communities that shape out social life. 2. The world is finite, so there are potent physical and biological limits constraining economic growth, social progress, and other societal phenomena. Earlier, Catton and Dunlap stressed the important effects that the NEP has on earlier perspectives. They now make an attempt to illustrate the usefulness of the NEP on to days social problems. Moving there focus on to more recent works of environmental sociology. Catton and Dunlap attempt to show the reader the effects of the NEP on these newer perspectives, written by sociologists with HEP views. Although there are many aspects of society that can benefit from the HEP. There are three topics that the authors discuss, declination in the standard of living, class conflict, and poverty. Each topic explores possible sociological solutions by applying the NEP. Likewise the converse solutions of the HEP are also discussed, and evaluated. In one example Catton and Dunlap applied the NEP to help explain cleavages within the stratification system. Long term, they found that the increase of environmental constraints on production, would have a direct reflection on the price of consumer goods and slowed growth. Causing a larger gap between societies “haves” and “have-nots”. Therfore supporting Marx’s theory of cultural conflict, although “for reasons Marx could not have foreseen” (Catton, Dunlap 1978 :364). Catton and Dunlap’...