Search

The theory of ecological modernization has received growing attention over the past decade, but in the process, it has been interpreted in conflicting and sometimes contradictory ways. In this article, we attempt to bring greater clarity to the discussion. Reviewing the works both by the theory's best-known proponents and by its most outspoken critics, we note that difficulties are created not just by the combining of theoretical predictions and policy prescriptions - a point that has already been noted in the literature - but also by the stark and highly significant differences in expectations between ecological modernization and most prevailing theories of society-environment relationships. Perhaps in part because of these differences, disagreements have often been expressed in stark, black-and-white terms. If the problems are to be resolved, there will be a need for greater theoretical precision, developed in conjunction with empirical research that is more focused, more finely differentiated, and more rigorous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of "succession," originally borrowed from plant ecologists, has been employed fruitfully by sociologists for over half a century. Social scientists, however, have tended to use the inherently dynamic concept in a relatively static way. Building on recent critiques, this paper notes that there are basically four meanings of the term that have special relevance to sociology, with traditional usage representing only one of the four. A meaning that has largely been ignored to date--"autogenic socio-cultural succession", in this paper's terminology--holds particular potential, drawing attention to the possibility that apparently "successful" actions can be self-displacing as well as self-reinforcing. Succession, as redefined, offers promise for conceptualizing social change not as a series of discrete steps, but as an ongoing process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]