422 Conceptualizing Global Environmental Politics This Essay example essay topic

Travis Fol tz 10/18/01 Pol. Sci. 422 Conceptualizing Global Environmental Politics This essay will respond to the central problem facing global environmental politics insofar as the resolution of such problems as global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, the loss of biodiversity, and many other transnational environmental issues rests upon some sort of consensus among extremely diverse groups. These are considered global problems not only because of their apocalyptic potential but they are also unique in that the "terrain where they occur [is] property that could be claimed by everyone or by no one.

They [are] global also in that no nation [is] fortunate enough to be insulated from their effects" (Guha 139). From this worrisome background, the starting point of this essay begins with the question that Ramachandra Guha leaves the reader in his conclusion of the global history of environmentalism: he asks "one world or two?" In other words, Guha challenges the reader to wonder whether humanity will be able to cooperate on a global scale to avert environmental disaster, or if we will be forever mired in the North vs. South debate with "the industrialized and mainly affluent countries of the North [on one side] and... the industrializing and mostly still-poor countries of the South [on the other side]" (Guha 141). This essay will examine the ways that Guha has already worked towards constructing a theoretical consensus among global environmentalists with an aim towards conceptualizing what global cooperation might look like. Take, for example, Guha's pairing of the environmentalism of India's Mahatma Ghandi with the "back-to-the-land" movement in the "North".

This is significant for two reasons. First, Guha argues that Ghandi and the earliest of modern environmentalists in 19th century Britain are united by their shared disgust of the Industrial Revolution and a corresponding " focus on manual labor, [an] elevation of the village as the supreme form of human society, [and] a... rejection of industrial culture as violent" (Guha 24). Ghandi sums up the "back-to-the-land" critique of both North and South nicely as he "thought the distinguishing characteristic of modern civilization is a multiplication of wants... [and] wholeheartedly detest [ed] this mad desire to destroy distance and time, to increase animal appetites, and go to the ends of the earth in search of their satisfaction" (Guha 20). Thus, Guha establishes a linkage between environmentalists that transcends time and place.

But impressive as this pairing may seem it is more important to understand the ways that Ghandi's differing historical and material circumstances inform the "back-to-the-land" ethic of the "North". Due to the fact that Ghandi did not yet live in an industrialized society his environmentalism tended to stress more practical and instrumental ways in which industrialization could be averted whereas the "North" was characterized by a degree of romanticism. In other words, for "Northerners" to stress "back-to-the-land" was in fact a departure from the status quo but for Ghandi he had no choice. To point out the difference between Ghandi's pragmatism and the northern "back-to-the-ladders" is not to disparage either side. Rather, in a wider sense, it is valuable to know that "global cooperation" will require not only consensus (to a certain degree) about the negative aspects of industrialization but will also require self-reflexive acknowledgements that account for differing historical and material circumstances. Furthermore, on top of recognizing differences among historical and material circumstances the environmental discourse will need to account for differing views of how to best "manage" the destructive propensity of industrialization.

For instance, in 1972 Ghandi's own daughter (Indira Ghandi), and prime minister of India is said to have argued that "if pollution [is] the price of progress, her people wanted more of it" (Guha 112). As this quote indicates, although Ghandi and the "back-to-the-ladders" offer a valuable alternative to industrialization, at this time it does not seem realistic to hope that all humans will scorn the conveniences of modern-industrialized life. Environmentalists that have sought to make the industrialization "better" (as in, less destructive to the environment) are termed by Guha as "Scientific Conservationists". They are united by a commitment to "careful research in the empirical mode, rather than on a purely artistic or affective response... To work on taming [industrial society's] excesses" (Guha 6).

Some would argue that this is evidence of a schism in environmental theory itself. From a more holistic view, the work done by environmentalists advocating a life of simplicity and those working to make industrialization more "eco-friendly" simply indicates that in order to reach global consensus a "division of labor" needs to be accepted and nurtured in the common fight to preserve the environment. Additionally, Guha also shows how the common fight to preserve the environment will be tested at times by a multiplicity of forces but also that it is possible to synthesize this conflict into a more progressive environmental ethic. Within Guha's vocabulary, some good examples of conflicts within northern conceptions of the "wilderness ideal" are exemplified by the debate between John Muir and Aldo Leopold. On one hand, both John Muir and Aldo Leopold advocated the idea that some "wild" areas should be kept protected from human forces but Muir adopted the hard-line stance of "the wilderness lover; he was hostile to any force or form that might disturb the integrity of nature" (Guha, 57). On the other hand, Leopold was not only able to synthesize the valuable lessons of Muir but he was also able to address the shortfalls of the "back-to-the-ladders".

For Leopold, "responsible human behavior outside the national parks was perhaps even more important than the protection of wild species within them" (Guha, 57). Thus, Leopold enveloped both the "back-to-ladders" and Muir's "wilderness ideal" without a dismissal of the industrial world. In this sense, Leopold also intersects with the "scientific conservationists" aim to improve industrialism. The Harvard historian David Fleming describes Leopold best as he describes how Leopold shunned the religious-like mystification that those that advocated a retreat to a life of simplicity or the creation of national parks that are zealously guarded by nature conservationists.

Fleming says, "Leopold... wanted to strip the conservation ideal of its remote and sacred aspects and make the cultivation of a loving and wondering attitude towards other organisms and toward the land itself a matter of voluntary daily practice in modest contexts" (Guha, 57). In sum, for Guha and environmentalists of all stripes, Aldo Leopold stands as an exemplary figure in his ability to synthesize the lessons and conflicts within environmentalism in order to create a more progressive environmental ethic. Nevertheless, some may argue that even Leopold's exemplary environmental ethic cannot be enlarged into a global perspective. Guha is very careful to continually remind the reader that in order to overcome conflicts within "Northern" environmentalism and the "North vs. South" dichotomy the specific historical, geographical, and material circumstances of each place must always be accounted for.

Guha summarizes the split between "North and South" as "Northern environmentalism has highlighted the significance of value change, Southern movements seem to be more strongly rooted in material conflicts, with the claims of economic justice" (Guha, 122). This statement again repeats a certain theme that has been echoed throughout this essay. The material well being of the "North" as contrasted with the material poverty of the "South" is an issue that specifically molds the context of all global environmental politics. Northern environmentalists can afford to be "deeply attentive to the rights of victimized or endangered animal and plant species, [whereas] Southern greens [are forced to be] more alert to the less fortunate members of their own species" (Guha, 122). Some may conclude that we indeed are destined to two divided worlds.

Unfortunately, this essay cannot propose any easy answers to this pessimistic but nonetheless valid critique. The only answer to the question "one world or two? ' Is to confront it with the fact that if we do not cooperate "in the long run we are all dead" (Guha, 145). The brute realization that environmental degradation literally threatens the human species leads Guha to believe that the one uniting feature between all environmentalists it is the idea of "restraint" a precautionary inclination to subordinate humankind's thirst for freedom in deference to the future of the world (145).

This essay's simple analysis certainly will not try to dispute this claim except to add one caveat that Guha implies but never makes explicit. The environmental problems confronting the world require an entirely new conception of what humans define as politics. Traditionally, "political life concerns collective, public action; it aims at the construction of a "we" in a context of diversity and conflict. But to construct a 'we,' it must be distinguished from the 'they'... that means establishing an enemy" (qt d. in Brown, 11). In order to construct a "we" concerning global environmental politics their must not only be an acknowledgement of the differences within global environmentalism but a corresponding appreciation and nurturing of it. Quite literally, an "enemy" of the environment would mean and enemy of the world, its future, and all the life that inhabit it.

This is not acceptable. It seems paradoxical, but a "consensus of conflict" may yield the only lasting answers to avert a global environmental apocalypse. In conclusion, this essay has shown that the dichotomy between "North and South" will not be overcome by "transcending" environmental problems through some universal consensus but through a multi-faceted environmental discourse that is better described as a journey. We have seen division between environmentalists of the South and North as well as divisions between Northern environmentalists themselves. Yet, due to Guha's rigor he has shown the opportunities for reciprocal learning between Mahatma Ghandi and the "back-to-the-ladders", between "scientific conservationists" and the purveyors of the "wilderness ideal", and ultimately between all humans regardless of their stage of environmental consciousness. His cause should not be taken for granted.

At the start of the twentieth century, Freud warned humanity that "the fateful question for the human species seems to be whether and to what extent their cultural development will succeed in mastering the disturbance of their communal life by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction" (Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents). In the start of the twenty-first century Guha shows how relevant Freud's hypothesis still is. Even as the resolution of this powerful question still remains uncertain, Guha stands as one of the guides who help lead humanity through the labyrinth of conflicts that threaten to avert the common journey towards a just equilibrium between human freedom and the long-term sustainability of the world. Work Cited Brown, Michael P., Replacing Citizenship. New York: The Guilford Press, 1997.