Reframing Problems of Incommensurability in Environmental Conflicts through Pragmatic Sociology: From Value Pluralism to the Plurality of Modes of Engagement with the Environment
Available accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2015
Reframing Problems of Incommensurability in Environmental Conflicts through Pragmatic Sociology: From Value Pluralism to the Plurality of Modes of Engagement with the Environment
This paper presents the contribution of the pragmatic sociology of critical capacities to the understanding of environmental conflicts. In the field of ‘environmental valuation', nowadays colonised by economics, the approach of plural modes (or ‘regimes') of engagement provides a sociological understanding of the unequal power of conflicting ‘languages of valuation'. This frame entails a shift from ‘values’ to ‘modes of valuation', and links modes of valuation to modes of practical engagement and coordination with the surrounding environment. Different social sources of incommensurability are thus detected and reframed as critical tension within and among modes of human coordination with the environment.
AdlerM.1998. ‘Law and incommensurability: Introduction’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review146: 1169–1184.
2.
BénatouïlT.1999. ‘A tale of two sociologies: The critical and the pragmatic stance in contemporary French sociology’. European Journal of Social Theory2(3): 379–396. CrossRef.
3.
BlokA.2013. ‘Pragmatic sociology as political ecology: On the many worths of nature(s)’. European Journal of Social Theory16(4): 492–510. CrossRef.
4.
BlokkerP.2011. ‘Pragmatic sociology: Theoretical evolvement and empirical application’. European Journal of Social Theory14(3): 251–261. CrossRef.
5.
BoltanskiL.1990. L'amour et la justice comme compétences. Trois essais de sociologie de l'action. Paris: Métailié.
6.
BoltanskiL. and ChiapelloE.. 2005. [1999.] The New Spirit of Capitalism, London/ New York, NY: Verso. [Published in French as Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.].
7.
BoltanskiL. and ThévenotL.. 1999. ‘The sociology of critical capacity’. European Journal of Social Theory2(3): 359–377. CrossRef.
8.
BoltanskiL. and ThévenotL.. 2006. [1991.] On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press [Published in French as De la justification: les economies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard.].
9.
BouniC., DufourA., NarcyJ.-B., and BouteloupC.. 2009. Préjudices écologiques des marées noires; revendications et valeurs économiques. Neuilly: Lafon.
BreviglieriM.2012. ‘L'espace habité que réclame l'assurance intime de pouvoir: Un essai d'approfondissement sociologique de l'anthropologie capacitaire de Paul Ricoeur’. Études Ricoeuriennes / Ricoeur Studies3(1): 34–52. CrossRef.
12.
CallonM. (ed.) 1998. The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell.
13.
CallonM., LascoumesP. and BartheY.. 2009. [2001.] Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, (MA): MIT Press [Published in French as Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.].
14.
CentemeriL.2012. ‘The contribution of the sociology of quantification to a discussion of objectivity in economics’. In Castro CaldasJ.M. and NevesV. (eds), Facts and Values in Economics, pp. 130–146. London: Routledge.
15.
ChangR. (ed.) 1997. Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
CheynsE.2011. ‘Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture: Limits of the ‘Inclusiveness’ paradigm’. In PonteS., GibbonP. and VestergaardJ., (eds.) Governing Through Standards: Origins, Drivers and Limitations, pp. 210–235. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
D'AgostinoF.2003. Incommensurability and Commensuration: The Common Denominator. Aldershot: Ashgate.
18.
DannenmaierE.2008. ‘Beyond indigenous property rights: Exploring the emergence of a distinctive connection doctrine’. Washington University Law Review86: 53–110.
19.
DescolaP.2005. Par-delà nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard.
20.
DesrosièresA.1990. ‘How to make things which hold together: Social science, statistics and the state’. In WagnerP., WittrockB. and WhitleyR., (eds.) Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines, pp. 195–218. Dordrecht: Kluger.
21.
DesrosièresA.1992. ‘Discuter l'indiscutable. Raison statistique et espace public’. In CottereauA. and LadrièreP., (eds.) Pouvoir et légitimité : figures de l'espace public, pp. 131–154. Paris: Éditions de l'EHESS.
22.
DesrosièresA.1998. [1993.] The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Published in French as La politiques des grands nombres. Paris: La Découverte].
23.
DodierN.1993. ‘Action as a combination of “common” worlds’. Sociological Review41(3): 556–71. CrossRef.
24.
DoidyE.2003. ‘La voix des usagers dans les concertations environnementales’. Sociologies pratiques7: 49–64.
25.
DosseF.1999. The Empire of Meaning: The Humanization of the Social Sciences. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
26.
DupuyJ-P, Eymard-DuvernayF., FavereauO., OrléanA., SalaisR. and ThévenotL.. 1989. ‘L'économie des conventions’. Revue économique40(2): 141–406.
27.
Environmental Law Reporter. ‘In re Exxon Valdez’. 27 ELR 20621, No. 94-36007: 9th Circuit. January 1997.
28.
EspelandW.N.1994. ‘Legally mediated identity: The National Environmental Policy Act and the bureaucratic construction of interests’. Law and Society Review28(5): 1149–1180. CrossRef.
29.
EspelandW.N. and StevensM.L.. 1998. ‘Commensuration as a social process’. Annual Review of Sociology24: 313–343. CrossRef.
30.
FavereauO. and LazegaE. (eds.). 2003. Conventions and Structures in Economic Organization: Markets, Networks and Organizations. Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
31.
FosterJ. (ed.) 1997. Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossRef.
32.
FourcadeM.2011. ‘Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of “Nature”’. American Journal of Sociology116(6): 1721–77. CrossRef.
33.
FuntowiczS. and RavetzJ.. 1994. ‘The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science’. Ecological Economics10: 197–207. CrossRef.
34.
GodardO.2003. ‘Développement durable et principes de légitimité’. Information sur les Sciences Sociales42(3): 375–402. CrossRef.
35.
GowdyJ. and EricksonJ.D.. 2005. ‘The approach of ecological economics’. Cambridge Journal of Economics29: 207–222. CrossRef.
36.
GuggenheimM. and PotthastJ.. 2012. ‘Symmetrical twins: On the relationship between Actor-Network theory and the sociology of critical capacities’. European Journal of Social Theory15(2): 157–178. CrossRef.
37.
IngoldT.2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge. CrossRef.
38.
LafayeC. and ThévenotL.. 1993. ‘Une justification écologique? Conflits dans l'aménagement de la nature’. Revue Française de Sociologie34(4): 495–524. CrossRef.
39.
LafayeC., MoodyM. and ThévenotL.. 2000. ‘Forms of valuing nature: Arguments and modes of justification in environmental disputes’. In LamontM. and ThévenotL., (eds.) Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States, pp. 229–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
LamontM.2012. ‘Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation’. Annual Review of Sociology38: 201–221. CrossRef.
41.
LamontM. and ThévenotL. (eds) 2000. Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef.
42.
LatourB.1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
LatourB.1998. ‘To modernise or ecologise? That is the question’. In BraunB., (ed.) Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium, pp. 221–242. Florence, KY: Routledge.
44.
Martinez-AlierJ.2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Cheltenham: Elgar. CrossRef.
45.
Martinez-AlierJ.2008. ‘Languages of valuation’. Economic and Political Weekly43(8): 28–32.
46.
Martinez-AlierJ., O'NeillJ. and MundaG.. 1998. ‘Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics’. Ecological Economics26: 277–286. CrossRef.
47.
MilanesiJ.2011. ‘Une histoire de la méthode d'évaluation contingente’. Genèses84(3): 6–24.
48.
MoodyM. and ThévenotL.. 2000. ‘Comparing models of strategy, interests, and the common good in French and American environmental disputes’. In LamontM. and ThévenotL., (eds.) Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States, pp. 273–306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef.
49.
MundaG.2008. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Berlin: Springer. CrossRef.
50.
NussbaumM.2001. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef.
51.
O'NeillJ.1997. ‘Managing without prices: The monetary valuation of biodiversity’. Ambio26(8): 546–50.
52.
O'NeillJ.2007. Markets, Deliberation and Environment. London: Routledge.
53.
O'NeillJ., HollandA. and LightA.. 2008. Environmental Values. London/New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
PellizzoniL.2003. ‘Knowledge, uncertainty and the transformation of the public sphere’. European Journal of Social Theory6(3): 327–355. CrossRef.
55.
PicouJ.S.2000. ‘The ‘talking circle’ as sociological practice: Cultural transformation of chronic disaster impacts’. Sociological Practice2(2): 77–97. CrossRef.
56.
PorterT.M.1995. Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
RazJ.1986. The Morality of Freedom. Chicago, IL: Clarendon Press.
58.
Richard-FerroudjiA.2011. ‘Limites du modèle délibératif : composer avec différents formats de participation’. Politix96(4): 161–181. CrossRef.
59.
SchönD. and ReinM.. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.
60.
SilberI.F.2003. ‘Pragmatic sociology as cultural sociology: Beyond repertoire theory?’. European Journal of Social Theory6(4): 427–49. CrossRef.
61.
SpashC.L.1999. ‘The development of environmental thinking in economics’. Environmental Values8(4): 413–435. CrossRef.
62.
StarkD.2009. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton, NJ/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
63.
SunsteinC.R.1994. ‘Incommensurability and valuation in law’. Michigan Law Review92:779–861. CrossRef.
64.
ThévenotL.1990. ‘L'action qui convient’. In PharoP. and QuéréL. (eds) Les formes de l'action, pp. 39–69. Paris: Éditions de l'EHESS.
65.
ThévenotL.2001. ‘Pragmatic regimes governing the engagement with the world’. In Knorr-CetinaK., SchatzkiT. and von SavignyE., (eds.) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, pp. 56–73. London: Routledge.
66.
ThévenotL.2006. L'action au pluriel. Sociologie des régimes d'engagement. Paris: La Découverte.
67.
ThévenotL.2007. ‘The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements: Moving between the familiar and the public’. European Journal of Social Theory10(3): 413–27. CrossRef.
68.
ThévenotL., Eymard-DuvernayF., FavereauO., OrléanA. and SalaisR.. 2005. ‘Values, coordination and rationality: The economy of conventions’. In OleinikA. N. (ed.) The Institutional Economics of Russia's Transformation, pp. 21–44. Aldershot: Ashgate.
69.
ThompsonC.2002. ‘When elephants stand for competing models of nature’. In MolA. and LawJ., (eds.) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, pp. 166–190. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. CrossRef.
70.
TrainorS.F.2006. ‘Realms of value: Conflicting natural resource values and incommensurability’. Environmental Values15: 3–29. CrossRef.
71.
WagnerP.1999. ‘After justification: Repertoires of evaluation and the sociology of modernity’. European Journal of Social Theory2(3): 341–57. CrossRef.
72.
ZelizerV.A.1997. The Social Meaning of Money. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
