This book presents an academic, reasoned critique of contemporary thinking on social theory in the context of policy formulation and decision-making on environmental matters. Based on his own experience and study of the use of environmental impact assessments in political decision-making, the author identifies the fundamental problems and shortcomings of such decisions and sets out his thinking as to how these difficulties might be resolved. Much of the book is devoted to an investigation and analysis of key sociological and philosophical ideas – particularly those of the German sociologist and philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, the sociologist Max Weber and the risk theoreticians Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens – as related to the debate on the environment by particular reference to the writings of Arthur Mol and Maarten Hajer and their theories of ecological modernisation. Some of the ideas of Karl Marx and Nietzsche are cited, as are those of postmodernist writers and thinkers, such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.
The author starts by introducing what he terms ‘the problematic’. He asserts that an environmental assessment can only be meaningful with the participation of the general public, so that public values and priorities, particularly on ethical and aesthetic issues, can be included as well as technical and scientific knowledge. The problem is that such a process becomes political in itself. His research identified a number of fundamental problems and led him to conclude that there must be better communication between the public, the planners and administrators, and the politicians. This gave rise to three questions, which formed the starting point for his analysis of the reasons for what he perceives to be ‘the standstill in environmental politics’.
Can such communication lead to more rational decisions about the environment?
Can openness and participation counter the abuse of power?
Can communication and information influence a situation with more complicated environmental problems and growing risks?
The stated aim of the author is ‘to create understanding and knowledge of the social necessity of a democratization of the environmental decision-making process’.
The author’s analysis is set out in four subsequent chapters. Chapter 2, ‘The environment as a goal’, looks at the character of environmental problems – ‘the environmental problematic’ – and their institutionalisation in public debate and political structures from a mainly sociological viewpoint. The notion of ‘the modern problematic’ – what is ‘truth’ and ‘how true knowledge can be obtained in the modern era’ – is investigated, which leads to considerations of ‘modern’ and ‘postmodern’ forms of understanding society. The concept of ‘modernity’, which the author chooses for his understanding of society (rather than a postmodern form of understanding), is explored further in chapter 3, ‘Modernity and reflexivity’. In this chapter, the reader is taken through some of the key ideas and insights of Habermas, Weber, Beck and Giddens, and into a debate about ‘communicative’ and ‘instrumental’ rationality, ‘reflexivity’ and ‘reflexive modernity’, which also touches on the ‘risk society’, ‘globalisation’, ‘capitalism’ and the ‘duality of knowledge’ (deriving from both expert and lay knowledge). Chapter 4, ‘ecological modernization’, discusses and criticises some of the theories of ‘ecological modernisation’, which have developed since the mid-1980s, and which engage with the proposition that a solution to the ecological crisis might be found by making the modernisation process itself ecologically sound. While acknowledging the range and diversity of theories of ecological modernisation, the analysis focuses on the work of Mol and Hajer.
Having identified the shortcomings in the theories of ecological modernisation, the author puts forward in chapter 5, ‘The environmental politics of modernity’, ‘a model for a democratized and de-instrumental environmental assessment’ which he characterises as ‘communicative reflection’. This envisages environmental assessment as a ‘reflexive arrangement’ which involves the developer, the administration (planning authority) and the citizens, with the crucial difference from the current practice being the full and meaningful participation of the public in the assessment process on an equal footing with the other participants. The argument being that, unlike the developer and the administration, whose input is most likely to be conditioned by money or power, the citizen is more likely to bring in a completely different set of values – aesthetic, ethical, moral – from his/her experiences of the real world (the ‘lifeworld’). Using the environmental assessment obtained in this way, the final decision on a specific proposal is taken by democratically elected politicians, based on their own convictions but taking account of the assessment and giving reasons for their decision. The author acknowledges that this approach to environmental assessment does not ignore the realities of power but ‘it seeks to have power exercised by those elected to do so’ rather than by ‘the hidden exercise of power by the administration vis-à-vis decision makers, population and developers, and vice versa’.
As fascinating as all this might sound, it must be said that this reviewer did not find the book easy to read and I suspect that I will not be alone in that difficulty. It seems a great pity that such an important and interesting topic could not be presented in more readily understandable language. In fairness to the author, he is probably writing for a different reader in order to contribute to a higher academic debate. However, when one of the key conclusions is that there should be greater public involvement and participation in environmental assessments, in order to achieve the democratisation of the environmental decision-making process, it seems somewhat ironic that most of the people that could make that difference will not be able to easily understand why their contribution is so important.
