Riley E. Dunlap
Oklahoma State University
Discerning the Need for a Paradigm Shift
 In trying to establish a field of Environmental Sociology
William Catton and I were struck by sociologist’s reluctance to
pay attention to environmental problems, even though they
had become major social issues by the mid-1970s.
 We began to examine the context in which sociology had
developed, and argued that it shared the unecological
perspective of the “Dominant Western Worldview” which
assumed that via science and technology humans were
becoming free of ecological constraints and that progress and
growth were the natural state of affairs—i.e., modern societies
were becoming “exempt” from ecological constraints.
Mainstream Sociology’s Exemptionalism in 1970s
 “… the newly found environmental dangers are vastly
exaggerated….” Amatai Etzioni, 1970
 Basic needs “…are satiable, and the possibility of abundance
is real.” Daniel Bell, 1973
 “… there are no known limits to the improvement of
technology.” Amos Hawley, 1975
 Our major problem is declining “faith in progress.” Robert
Nisbet, 1979.
Calling for a New Paradigm
 Based on the work of ecologists such as Carson,
Hardin, Ehrlich and Commoner we discerned a
“new ecological paradigm” developing in intellectual
circles and the larger society, and argued that
sociology should replace its implicit “human
exemptionalism paradigm” (HEP) with an “NEP.”
We were NOT suggesting that the NEP would
replace current sociological theories, but that
embracing it would encourage attention to
environmental problems and lead to “greener”
versions of sociological theories.
Old Versus New Paradigms
Comparing the DWW, HEP and NEP
 Catton and I compared the Dominant Western
Worldview, Human Exemptionalism Paradigm
(sociology’s disciplinary version of the DWW) and
the New Ecological Paradigm in terms of:
 1. Assumptions about the nature of human beings.
 2. Assumptions about social causation.
 3. Assumptions about the context of human society.
 4. Assumptions about constraints on human society.
Assumptions About the Nature of Human
Beings
 DWW
 People are fundamentally different from all other creatures
on Earth, over which they have dominion.
 HEP
 Humans have a cultural heritage in addition to (and
distinct from) their genetic inheritance, and thus are quite
unlike all other animal species.
 NEP
 While humans have exceptional characteristics (culture,
technology, etc.), they remain one among many species
that are interdependently involved in the global ecosystem.
Assumptions About Social Causation
 DWW
 People are masters of their destiny; they can choose their
goals and learn to do whatever is necessary to achieve
them.
 HEP
 Social and cultural factors (including technology) are the
major determinants of human affairs.
 NEP
 Human affairs are influenced not only be social and
cultural factors, but also be intricate linkages of cause,
effect, and feedback in the web of nature; thus purposive
human actions have many unintended consequences.
Assumptions About the Context of Human
Society
 DWW
 The world is vast, and thus provides unlimited
opportunities for humans.
 HEP
 Social and cultural environments are the crucial context
for human affairs, and the biophysical environment is
largely irrelevant.
 NEP
 Humans live in and are dependent upon a finite
biophysical environment which imposes potent physical
and biological restraints on human affairs.
Assumptions About Constraints on Human
Society
 DWW
 The history of humanity is one of progress; for every
problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never
cease.
 HEP
 Culture is cumulative; thus technological and social
progress can continue indefinitely, making all social
problems ultimately soluble.
 NEP
 Although the inventiveness of humans and the powers
derived therefrom may seem for a while to extend carrying
capacity limits, ecological laws cannot be repealed.
Clearly Opposing Paradigms
C
Core of an Ecological Paradigm
Viewing the world ecologically involves
recognizing that modern human societies are
ecosystem-dependent and thus rejecting the
assumption that such societies are “exempt”
from the forces of nature.
Exemptionalist vs. Ecological Paradigms
The human exemptionalism and ecological
paradigms “entail competing views both of our
species and of the global ecosystem: adherents
to the human exemptionalism paradigm tend to
see the world as infinite and humans as
essentially omnipotent, while adherents to the
ecological paradigm tend to see the world as
finite and humans as constrained by that
finiteness.”
Dunlap, Comment on Ehrlich-Simon Debate, Social Science
Quarterly, March 1983
Simon versus Ehrlich Worldviews
Tentative Signs of Societal Worldviews Shifting
Not only were academics discussing shifting disciplinary
paradigms in the late 1970s, but social commentators were
suggesting shifting worldviews with terms like these:
Dominant Social Paradigm vs. New Environmental Paradigm
Technological vs. Ecological Worldviews
Technocentric vs. Ecocentric Worldviews
Expansionist vs. Limitationist Worldviews
Cornucopian vs. Spaceship Worldviews
The Acceptance of Ecological Limits in the
Scientific Realm
“…it is abundantly clear that human
activities… now match or even surpass natural
processes as agents of change in the planetary
environment.”
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 1990.
Emergence of the Anthropocene
 “Human activities have become so pervasive and
profound that they rival the great forces of Nature
and are pushing the Earth into planetary terra
incognita. The Earth is rapidly moving into a less
biologically diverse, less forested, much warmer,
and probably wetter and stormier state.”
 Steffen, Crutzen and McNeill, Ambio (Dec. 2007).
Planetary Boundaries – Rockström et al. 2009
Global Ecological Footprint
 “Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide
the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now
takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we
use in a year.
 Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and
consumption trends continue, by the 2030s, we will need the
equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only
have one.”
 Global Footprint Network, 2015
Clarifying Limits and Boundaries: Three
Functions of the Environment
 Supply Depot
 Source of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources (air, water,
forests, and fossil fuels) which are necessary to sustain human
societies. Overuse results in shortages of renewable resources such
as clean air and water and scarcities of nonrenewable resources such
as fossil fuels.
 Waste Repository
 A “sink” which absorbs the waste products of human life, including
industrial production. Exceeding the ability of ecosystems to absorb
wastes creates pollution, which may harm humans and other living
beings and eventually lead to the disruption of entire ecosystems.
 Living Space
 The home for humans and other living beings, including not only our
houses but where we work, play, and engage in other activities (for
example, our transportation systems). Overuse of this function
results in crowding and congestion and the destruction of habitats for
other species.
Ecological Limits
Limits to growth no longer refers primarily
to resource limits (as it did in the 1970s),
but to the full ensemble of ecological
constraints imposed by the finite ability of
the global ecosystem to fulfill these three
functions for modern societies. The
growing global ecological footprints of
modern societies suggests that Homo
sapiens may have exceeded the Earth’s
carrying capacity.
The World of Sociology’s Youth
Fig. 1. Competing Functions of the Environment -Circa 1900*
* Area within largest circle symbolizes global carrying capacity
.
Contemporary “Overshoot”
Fig. 2. Competing Functions of the Environment -Current
Situation*
* Areas outside of largest circle symbolize human load in excess of global carrying capacity.
Scientific Responses
In response to growing evidence of ecological limits
we see the growth of new fields like “Sustainability
Science” aimed at helping document our current
ecological situation and find ways to transition to a
more ecologically sustainable future.
But despite hopes in the late 1970s, the larger society
has not accepted the notions of ecological limits
and boundaries nearly as much as have many (but
clearly not all) scientists.
Major Scientific Paradigm Shifts with
Significant Societal Implications
 Copernican Revolution
 Recognized that the sun and not the earth was the center
of our solar system, and thus that the home of human
beings (the Earth) was not the center of the ‘universe’.
 Darwinian Revolution
 Challenged the notion that humans (Homo sapiens) were a
totally unique species that shared nothing in common with
other animals.
Major Scientific Paradigm Shifts with
Significant Societal Implications, cont.
 Freudian Revolution
 Challenged the notion that humans were fundamentally
rational creatures.
 Ecological Revolution ?
 Challenges the notion that humans are ‘exempt’ from the
ecological constraints that apply to all other species.
Resistance to the NEP
 The Dominant Western Worldview is inherently
optimistic about continued growth and
(assumed) prosperity.
 Major institutions and traditions reinforce the
idea that science and technology, coupled with
the free market, will overcome all limits and
ensure continued progress.
 Human ingenuity has always solved problems
and will continue to do so.
Rejecting Limits
 “To say that the Earth is a human planet becomes
truer every day. Humans are made from the Earth,
and the Earth is remade by human hands. Many
earth scientists express this by stating that the
Earth has entered … the Anthropocene, the Age of
Humans.”
 “…we write with the conviction that knowledge and
technology, applied with wisdom, might allow for a
good, or even great, Anthropocene.”
 The Breakthrough Institute, An Ecomodernist
Manifesto, 2015
Techno-Optimism: Climate Engineering
 “Climate engineering” (or “geoengineering” is
attractive because it legitimates business as usual,
justifying endless growth, because engineers will
come up with ways to offset rising carbon
emissions.
 “For sheer audacity, no plan by humans exceeds
the one now being hatched to take control of the
Earth’s climate.”
 Clive Hamilton, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age
of Climate Engineering
Neo-liberalism’s Need for Growth
 As Neo-liberal politico-economic ideology
becomes increasingly hegemonic, its promoters
take three steps to ensure the global spread of
free markets, access to resources, and the right
to reasonable pollution:
1. Limitations on and ideally abolition of
governmental restrictions on capital.
2. Promotion of a technologically optimistic
approach to all problems
3. Rejection of evidence of ecological problems
and limits.
Emergence of an Anti-Ecological Paradigm
 Originally in the USA but increasingly in all neo-liberal
nations we see the following:
 Lead by the conservative movement and particularly
conservative think tanks (which are funded by industry), a
concerted anti-environmental “counter-movement” has been
successful in casting down on the credibility of environmental
scientists and the seriousness of environmental problems,
and in the process fought the spread of the NEP by promoting
“environmental skepticism.”
 The result is that while the NEP has gained in credibility
throughout the sciences and academia, it has been combated
effectively in the larger society and in policy circles. It’s future
remains in doubt.