Environmental harm and the political economy of consumption.

• Date: 22 March 2002
• Author: White, Rob
• Published date: 22 March 2002
• Author: White, Rob

Introduction

THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT ADEQUATE STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARM MUST proceed from sustained analysis of the basic institutions and structures of contemporary capitalism. The central question at the core of environmental degradation and destruction is the organization of human subsistence and the relationship of this to nature. The article thus demonstrates the centrality of capitalist political economy to the construction of the substantive problem (environmental harm) and to the limitations of existing regulatory regimes in relation to this problem.

To illustrate the theoretical issues and complexities in this area, the specific focus will be on "consumption" relations. I will discuss the relationship between production and consumption, the developments underpinning the extension of "consumerism" in capitalist society (e.g., privatization and commodification), and the symbolic place of consumption and its association with the realization of surplus value by capital (e.g., production of meaning, identity, and desire). Each of these areas has implications for the conceptualization of environmental problems and for how to regulate or respond to environmental harm.

Criminology and the Study of Environmental Harm

By its very nature, the study of environmental harm raises issues pertaining to the proper domains of criminology as a field of inquiry. For example, from the point of view of conceptions of "harm" and the regulation of environmental activity, there is rarely a specific, or adequate, criminal justice response to the issues. There is enormous variation in how we conceptualize the problem and devise appropriate and effective measures to limit, reduce, or abolish certain types of environmental harm depending upon the philosophical framework within which analysis and intervention take place (see, for example, Halsey and White, 1998). The actual interplay between civil and criminal remedies also warrants close attention, as it represents attempts to deal with substantive issues through measures across a range of regulatory areas (Gunningham et al., 1995).

Major issues relating to environmental harm include its definition in criminological terms and the nature of responses to such harm. The politics of definition are complicated by the politics of "denial," in which particular concrete manifestations of social injury and environmental damage are obfuscated, ignored, or redefined in ways that re-present them as being of little relevance to academic criminological study or state criminal justice intervention. Similar to the denial of human rights violations, environmental issues call forth a range of neutralization techniques on the part of nation-states and corporations that ultimately legitimate and justify certain types of environmentally unfriendly activities. For instance, "green washing" media campaigns misconstrue the nature of collective corporate business regarding the environment (Beder, 1997). The arguments of critics of particular kinds of biotechnological development are attacked and delegitimated (see Hager and Burton, 1999; Hannigan, 1995), as in t he case of those who question the nature of genetically modified food (Hindmarsh, 1996). For governments, denial of harm is usually associated with economic objectives and the appeal to forms of "sustainable development" that fundamentally involve further environmental degradation (see Harvey, 1996).

At the heart of these processes of denial is a culture that takes for granted, but rarely sees as problematic, the proposition that continued expansion of material consumption is both possible and will not harm the biosphere in any fundamental way. Some aspects of denial are consciously and directly linked to instrumental purposes (as in firm's or industry campaigns to delegitimate environmental action surrounding events or developments that are manifestly harmful to local environments). At a more general level, however, denial is ingrained in the hegemonic dominance of anthropocentric, and specifically capitalist, conceptions of the relationship between human beings and nature. Basic assumptions about economic growth and commodity production--central components of the dominant worldview--make it difficult for many people to see the essence of the problem as lying in the system itself (see Halsey and White, 1998; Harvey, 1996).

The recent emergence of "environmental criminology" has been marked by efforts to reconceptualize the nature of "harm" more inclusively, to expose instances of substantive environmental injustice and ecological injustice, and to critique the actions of nation-states and transnational capital for fostering particular types of harm and for failing to adequately address or regulate harmful activity. Drawing upon a wide range of ideas and empirical materials, recent work on environmental harm has documented the existence of lawbreaking with respect to pollution, the disposal of toxic waste, and misuse of environmental resources. It has raised questions related to the destruction of specific environments and resources, in ways that are "legal" but ecologically disastrous. It has emphasized the dynamic links between the distribution of environmental "risk" (particularly as it affects poor and minority populations) and the claims of nonhuman nature to ecological justice. Moreover, it has criticized the inadequacies of environmental regulation in philosophical and practical terms (see Low and Gleeson, 1998; Halsey, 1997a,b; Harvey, 1996; Halsey and White, 1998). Environmental criminology has focused on aspects of offending and criminalization, as well as the nature of victimization, including social and governmental responses to this victimization (Williams, 1996).

The study of environmental harm is limited to a relatively small number of people within the wider criminological community. Although such issues are beginning to receive more attention, recognition of their importance within the field generally, and sustained conceptual and empirical investigation, are still in their formative phases. Certain features of current work do appear to be common to most of those working in the area:

* Increasing acknowledgement of the problem of environmental degradation and destruction, and the relevance of this to traditional criminological concerns with social injury and social regulation;

* Awareness of the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues, such that matters relating to poverty, health, indigenous people's rights, exploitation of nonhuman nature, corporate business misdealings; and state corruption are seen in many instances to be inseparable;

* The need for multidisciplinary approaches to the study of environmental harm, involving cooperation between different "experts," and sensitivity to ideas and research generated in intellectual domains such as law, zoology, biology, philosophy, sociology, and chemistry.

Though the eclecticism of much environmental criminology signifies an openness to ideas and information from a wide range of sources, such work must be grounded in an explicit political and economic framework. The liberal-pluralist sentiment evident in the area belies the need to clarify the key structures of contemporary life that provide the organizing principles underpinning the exploitation of human and nonhuman nature alike. Analysis of particular instances of harm (and regulation), for example, must be understood in the context of wider structural parameters that effectively shape the nature and processes associated with such harm. Examination of the contours of contemporary capitalism is essential to this task.

Consumption Relations and Commodification

Environmental harm is about what human beings do to and with Nature. How we do so is fundamentally a social process. It involves the actions of human beings working in concert to meet their needs in particular ways. To understand environmental harm, therefore, it is essential to ask basic questions about the mode of production in any given society.

In the present era, we must examine the nature of capitalism, the central defining feature of production in the world today. Much of the contemporary environmental and criminological literature suggests that the context for "regulation," "environmental crime," or "consumption" is global capitalism, but attempts to theorize what this might mean for the analysis of specific issues and trends are rare. Studies mainly focus on the undesirable effects of the dominant capitalist mode of production, rather than on its dynamics and operation. To discern the limits and possibilities of dealing with environmental harm, we must delve into the political-economic structures of capitalism. They dictate much of the public perception about, and definitions of, environmental harm and provide the basic frameworks for existing "management" practices in relation to this harm.

Built into the logic and dynamics of capitalism is the imperative to expand. Increasing labor's production of surplus value--the source of profit--demands constant changes in the ways labor is exploited and in the things that can be transformed from simple use-values (objects of need) into exchange-values (commodities produced purely for exchange). This can be achieved via changes in the organization of work, by manipulation of the conditions within specific workplaces, and by transforming previously unproductive or noncapitalist forms of activity into sites of productive labor (e.g., family farming into agribusiness). The extended reproduction of the system rests upon the expansion of commodity production, since only labor hired by commodity-producing capital is directly productive of surplus value (van der Velden, 1998).

Capitalism in essence means expansion. Moreover, this expansionary dynamic--the extended reproduction of capital accumulation--has several major implications for the environment. First, it implies that "natural resources" are...