The obscured potential of environmental politics.

Abstract

There are at least two ways in which environmentalism can influence democratic politics. The first and most prominent way is to take the strong sense of purpose that guides the environmental movement and attempt to participate in and disrupt current parliamentary decision-making bodies. The second and largely obscured way is to focus on the explicitly political content of the desire to represent nature in public discourse and by doing so potentially add to the numerous contemporary challenges to present day pseudo-democracy. Arguments in this paper are in support of the second option. Specifically, it is argued that the present tendency to turn to the political sphere as a space or discourse of authority rather than a sphere of active engagement amongst those committed to resisting the present reduction of politics to administration is hindering the liberatory potential of environmental politics. Furthermore, it is suggested that green political thought's common partnership with deliberative approaches to the present condition of plurality assists the movement side as opposed to the political side of environmentalism. To offer an alternative political avenue the approaches to politics articulated by agonistic pluralists Chantal Mouffe and Hannah Arendt are explored and supported as access points to environmental inclusion in political communities committed to celebrating rather than dealing with present conditions of plurality.

L'environnementalisme peut influencer les politiques democratiques d'au moins deux facons. La premiere, et la plus courante, est de se servir de l'importante motivation qui guide le mouvement environnemental pour tenter de participer aux organisations parlementaires decisionnelles, pour les desorganiser. La deuxieme, a peu pres inconnue, est de mettre l'accent sur le contenu explicitement politique du desir de representer la nature dans les discours publics et, ce faisant, en multipliant possiblement les nombreux defis associes a la pseudo-democratie actuelle. Cet article presente des arguments en faveur de cette deuxieme facon. Plus precisement, on y soutient que la tendance actuelle de se toumer vers la sphere politique en tant que lieu au discours d'autorite au lieu de se tourner vers la sphere de l'engagement actif de ceux qui s'obstinent a resister a la presente limitation de la politique a de l'administration limite le potentiel liberateur des politiques environnementales. De plus, il est suggere que l' association de la pensee politique verte et des approches deliberantes dans les conditions actuelles de pluralite aide le mouvement, contrairement a l'aspect politique de l'environnementalisme. Afin d'offrir une alternative politique, les approaches politiques articulees par les pluralistes agonistiques Chantal Mouffe et Hannah Arendt sont explorees et soutenues en tant que points d'acces a l'inclusion environnementale dans les communautes politiques qui celebrent l'etat actuel de pluralite au lieu de le combattre.

Key Words:

Environmentalism, movement, politics, agonism, radical democracy

If the word of god can no longer be heard, we can start giving our voices a new dignity. If our actions no longer have to be justified before a tribunal external to ourselves -- history, Doctrine, the party -- we can begin to come to terms with the limitations from which we think and act, and even respect our mistakes (Laclau 1990: xvi).

We do not boast that we possess absolute truth; on the contrary, we believe that social truth is not a fixed quality, good for all times, universally applicable or determinable in advance...Our solutions always leave the door open to different and, one hopes better solutions (Malatesta 1965 [1921]: 269).

In a recent article in the journal Environmental Politics, Douglas Torgerson (2000) argues that one of the biggest problems with green political thought is that while the language of politics is consistently used it is rarely, if ever, defined. The result is an unfortunate reduction of intrinsically valuable politics to instrumentally necessary movements. The former is oriented toward becoming a part of the democratic forces of freedom and equality or what Hannah Arendt (1963: 1) has called the most ancient cause of all, "the one, in fact that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the causes of freedom versus tyranny." This non-instrumental aspect of green political thought relies on conversation and debate within what Torgerson (1999: 129) has called the green public spheres where "the very process takes on value for those who participate in it." Within these sphere(s) of discourse green political theorists begin to realise their own particularity in relation to oth er green theorists, and if opened to a wider audience, their own particularity in relation to broader democratic goals of increased freedom and equality. The purpose of this discursive sphere is not to achieve a desired end point but to understand others' positions and engage in creative conversation with those others. "The promise" of this type of intrinsically valuable politics, Torgerson (1999: 130) explains, "gains credibility as a historical possibility for the simple reason that a discourse has emerged, making it possible to formulate and discuss ideas that industrial discourse formerly excluded or marginalized." The latter is necessarily concerned with achieving desired ends, be they the creation of the conditions for harmonious relationships with non-human nature, or less lofty desires for access to decision-making bodies in order to ensure concerns for the non-human are taken into account by those authorised to directly influence or make policy. These end-focused approaches rely on knowledge usually pre-constituted in places free from public debate or interaction with others who can challenge the singularity and inevitable limitation of the knowledge generation. The substantive, instrumental, and end focused environmental movement -- regardless of its apparent benign purposes -- tends to justify its actions through reliance on knowledge emerging from a perverted version of a green public sphere. The claim that substantive end-focused goals of green political theorists have outweighed less urgent and immaterial arguments surrounding a "rethinking of political action," is not controversial, and should come as no surprise.

In the face of very real threats to ecological well-being, it seems irrational or irresponsible not to push for a more ecologically benign society (Carter 1993) by any means available. In fact, it appears, as Michael Saward (1993: 65) points out, that "our choice is no choice -- survival or self-administered destruction." The real significant point in Torgerson's (2000: 1) argument lies in his recognition that even with the focus on purposeful movements there is a challenge to, and rethinking of, political action "already present in green politics." By recognising this, he is able to convincingly argue that without allowing the political side of environmentalism to appear and act within green political discourse, an endorsement of the environmental position (1) can easily lead to the endorsement of a new fundamentalism. This partnership eliminates the opportunity for participation in the "forces of freedom" replacing discussion and debate with the need for well administered and managed individuals, groups and societies. Without space for critical engagement and interaction amongst environmentally, and, more broadly, democratically concerned citizens, there appears to be little chance of resisting the inevitable move towards greater dependence on the new elites and new authoritative languages needed to legitimise green positions in elite decision-making and managerial bodies.

As the critique of political action is already present, the blurring of these two distinct aspects of green political thought -- politics and movement -- has consequences well beyond the boundaries of environmentalism. (2) The costs are also of a democratic nature as general challenges to present day politics, which are implicit in environmental discourse, are replaced with strong directional strategies that call for "extended management, but disregard[s] intelligent self-limitation" (Sachs 1999: 67). These strategies either bypass political critiques or replace democratic ideals of freedom and equality with disciplinary requirements necessary for the realisation of end desires for harmonious relations between humans and non-humans. These two options have always guided the reform/revolution, shallow/deep, environmentalism/ecology debates and unfortunately still haunt present day environmental politics.

Before the threat of this reduction can be fully recognised and/or accepted by those participating in green politics, it is essential to offer a clear definition of what a substantial commitment to democracy requires and consequently what a commitment to democratic politics means for those concerned with "green" issues.

So the question to be asked of those who wish to be democratic environmentalists is: What makes a healthy democracy? For a good answer to the question we can turn to democratic historian Anthony Arblaster. He argues: