Environmental sociology and the Frankfurt School 1: reason and capital

Abstract

In a two-article project, I demonstrate that the first-generation Frankfurt School’s critical theory can conceptually inform sociological examinations of societal–environmental relations and address contemporary debates and issues in environmental sociology. This first companion article explains why Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse persistently tied the domination of nature to the domination of human beings in the context of two interrelated processes: (1) the instrumentalization of reason and (2) the development of capitalism. The Frankfurt School argued that capitalism was unsustainable due to growth dependence and provided an early analysis of environmentalism’s co-optation. While early critical theory argued that structural forces are primarily responsible for environmental degradation, they did not neglect the role of social psychological and cultural forces in maintaining these structures. In addition to clarifying and systematizing these broader contributions, I provide concrete examples of how their views can inform neo-Marxist models of growth dependency and offer an explanation as to why the mass response to environmental health hazards is through shopping.

Keywords:

• critical theory
• instrumental rationality
• domination of nature
• political economy of the environment
• commodification of nature

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Profs. Thomas Dietz, Linda Kalof, Diana Stuart, and Kyle Whyte for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper and the two anonymous Environmental Sociology reviewers for criticisms and suggestions. All mistakes are my own.

Notes

1. I use ‘mid-twentieth century’ loosely. The earliest Frankfurt School essay cited was written in the early 1930s (which could be conceptualized as classical due to its pre-Second World War status) and the latest work cited was published in the 1970s (which could be conceptualized as contemporary). That is, one could argue early critical theory spans late classical, midcentury, and early contemporary sociology. For convenience, the period in which the first generation formulated critical theory (the 1930s through the 1970s) is signified by ‘midcentury.’

2. Critical theory is a term used to refer to a wide range of normative theories that are not examined in this article. For convenience, the terms ‘Frankfurt School’ and ‘critical theory/theorists’ only signify the theorists and theories developed by the ‘first-generation,’ specifically of three major theoreticians: Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse. I exclude Walter Benjamin from my analysis because Wehling (2002) has already coherently clarified Benjamin’s insights for environmental sociology and I have written about Erich Fromm’s applications elsewhere (Gunderson 2014a, 2014c).

3. Bookchin departed from the first generation in two ways. First, he argued social domination preceded the domination of nature, not vice versa (1982a, 284n), though these lines of argumentation are mutually supportive (Aronowitz 2003, 196). Second, and more substantively, Bookchin put forth a new form of objective reason – an option Horkheimer and Adorno were ‘too prudent’ to take – rooted in ecology and neo-Aristotelianism.

4. It is possible the influence of early critical theory on Merchant is more informal, as she has edited a book with readings from Dialectic of Enlightenment and Marcuse (Carolyn 1994).

5. However, the subfield has taken on the ideas of the first-generation’s successor, Jürgen Habermas. While Habermas has been criticized in environmental philosophy and green political theory for a rather human-centered normative program and suspected anti-ecological assumptions (e.g., Bookchin 1982b; Ottmann 1982; Eckersley 1990; Nelson 2011), environmental sociologists have arrived at a more affirmative interpretation, arguing Habermas’ communicative-procedural theories should and can be employed to integrate competing views of how to properly organize societal–environmental relations and include the public in environmental decision-making (e.g., Dietz 1984, 1987, 1988, 1992, 2013; Brulle 2000, 2002; Webler 1995; Renn 2008, ch. 8; Rosa, Renn, and Aaron 2013). I have written about environmental sociology’s use of Habermas and the surrounding theoretical debates elsewhere (Gunderson 2014b). It should also be noted that my lack of analysis of the second generation of critical theory also excludes an important work in the Marx-nature debate (Schmidt 1971).

6. Regarding (2): when referring to nature, specifically when discussing their domination thesis, the Frankfurt School sometimes meant to signify nonhuman nature, sometimes to refer to other humans (as a part of external nature), sometimes to refer to human instincts and passions, and often to denote a combination of these categories. Signifiers such as ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ ‘nonhuman,’ or ‘human’ were not always provided; thus, the term’s use must be placed in the larger context of the discussion at hand.

7. This background is concerned with the sociological origins of the domination thesis, bracketing the philosophical influences. The phenomenologists Scheler and Husserl also influenced the formation of the Frankfurt School’s proto-environmental sociology. However, Leiss (1974) has already made this connection clear. And, of course, Lukács was influential, as Vogel (1996) made clear.

8. I would like to thank Thomas Dietz for discussions along these lines.

9. There are two reasons the Frankfurt School’s framework is notable in light of EMT. First, if only purely for scholarly reasons, it is important to give the Frankfurt theorists ample recognition as the first group of sociologists that questioned the possibility of ‘greening’ capitalism. Marcuse’s claims foreshadowed the ToP perspective by more than a decade, for example. This is significant. Second, and more substantively, the Frankfurt School’s views add to the customary critique of EMT through their analysis of the culture industry.

10. Marcuse usually called what we now broadly term environmentalism, ‘ecology.’

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ryan Gunderson

Ryan Gunderson will be joining the Department of Sociology and Gerontology at Miami University as an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Social Justice Studies in August, 2015. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Michigan State University in 2014. His research interests include environmental sociology, social theory, political economy, animal studies, the sociology of consumption, and the sociology of technology.