Philosophical Considerations: Paradigms, Permanence, & Policy

Inspired by my talk with Dr. Bannon [see post from last Monday] and admittedly the product of a weariness from immersion in the semantics of divisive political discourse, the following takes a look at several philosophical considerations behind environmental policy.

Known by many as the father of environmental policy studies, Dr. Lynton Caldwell in his book Environment as a Focus for Public Policy articulates one underlying problem that arises from meshing defense of the earth with public policy. Caldwell begins with the claim that we each attribute certain significance to our surroundings based on our specialized training or other experiences:

You see a picture of a traffic jam on a Los Angeles Freeway. This may be all that some see. Others, depending on the specialized character of their interest and perception, may see problems of transportation, public health, or engineering; or perhaps, problems of urban design, metropolitan government, or public finance (p. 28).

And this is the ordinary individual’s encounter. However an alternate, less prevalent social viewpoint, “sees the congested freeway as an aspect of human environment, all of these things and many others come into focus simultaneously, forming a profile of one aspect of our society” (p. 28). The problems we usually run into with environmental policy, according to Caldwell, stem from deviation from this encompassing consideration. The world around us is our environment, our shared habitat full of vast complexity both inherently and subjectively to each person’s field of vision. Narrowly focused approaches towards “correct” visions of the environment, therefore, raise blinders to all other social data-points. This disservices not only the deafened voices but also the object of the analysis itself. Alienation yields contention and often dissent.

So then what does this mean for environmental policy? According to Caldwell, the grand unifying conceptual potential of the environment is often lost in political discourse as it becomes merely a “general object of public policy” (p. 30). Caldwell not only demands a paradigm shift towards a unifying vision the environment but even suggests that charging administrations as sole executors of environmental policy is a fundamentally flawed practice. The solution towards achieving positive environmental progress (under a comprehensive scope) requires redefinition of “social responsibility” and “public authority” (p. 98). No longer can we rely simply on unilateral policy legislation within Congress or EPA regulation. Rather, reform must take place via multi-faceted public engagement:

A mutually reinforcing relationship among major social institutions is needed. Schools, laws, and the administrative agencies of government are especially critical, but certain sectors of the professions and the business community must also be brought into a concerted effort toward environmental protection and improvement (p. 102).

Caldwell’s cooperative, grand vision sounds great. It only takes a quick glance at current environmental policy efforts to reveal the vast potential for policy-makers to muck things up [see various postings below]. However, how do we get there from here? Current widespread concern for specific crises, such as global warming, has seen a public uprising similar to the “mutually reinforcing relationship” within sectors of society of which Caldwell speaks. I can’t go a day without seeing a television commercial warning of impending climate change and touting the benefits of “going-green” in one’s own life.GE’s Ads Even these days are exclusively about clean energy.

But I’m not sure this global warming trend is the solution to Caldwell’s critique of our flawed, narrow view of the environment. Given Caldwell’s premise, global warming concerns seem to certainly unite us, even extending beyond the domestic scope of his argument. [It is, afterall, a global problem]. However, what happens when this craze is over. Assuming we’re not all floating in inner tubes within fifty years, it would seem that once at least mitigating global warming to acceptable levels, the problematic paradigm would persist. Caldwell was not talking about a hip, singular ecological crisis to permanently change our cultural views. He was talking about an expansive recognition of our deep personal relations with the environment.

To this assertion I would like to enter the work of philosopher Edward Casey. Casey’s Getting Back into Place (1993) is a metaphysical examination of the “place” concept, which provides some insight to Caldwell’s introduction. To Casey, the concept of “place” is primary to human existence; it is what Caldwell might term environment. Humanity is emplaced in that we each have bodies which occupy a place [“space” and “time” are irrelevant to Casey, as they represent mere attempts to order “our embodied emplacement” (p. 15)]. Casey discusses that our embodiment enables us to interact with places and foster significant relationships with certain landscapes (p. 16). This process is known as “cultivation” and represents our acquisition of familiarity with places as we both construct them with our own values and derive reciprocal significance from the places themselves (p. 173). The most obvious example is one’s home, the epitome of cultivating a familiar place. However, we also cultivate relationships with natural locations—outdoor sporting complexes, local nature preserves, National Parks.

What all this means is that our relationship with the environment [Casey’s “place”], is the essential unifying element of human existence. Furthermore, our significant interactions with [for our purposes] natural landscapes, cultivate relations of familiarity and help us derive value from the place. Herein lies a link to Caldwell’s proposed paradigm shift. Indeed if we learn to cultivate personal relations with certain landscapes, then familiarity will breed caring. In fact, this task could be performed on a regional, or even individual basis, as each member of society would only need to connect with their particular place [see Dr. Bannon’s mention of bioregionalism in our prior interview]. This could be achieved by reexamining our natural place construction with a critical eye, so as to imply human-nature mutual interactions, not simply preserved pristine nature. Perhaps by cultivating significant familiarity with our natural landscapes we can obtain the paradigm shift necessary to instill a more permanent eco-caring within society—not simply a hysteria-induced, transient trend, such that I feel global warming represents.