Social theories of environmental reform - Environmental Reform in the Information Age - page 71

environment in social theory is, at best, marginal (cf. Mol and Spaar-
garen, 2006 ). And, to some extent, this new social theory of networks
and flows runs counter to the same frictions environmental sociolo-
gists had with earlier social theories (as was so strongly articulated in
the HEP-NEP debate; Catton and Dunlap, 1978; 1978b ). So, in apply-
ing insights from the sociology of networks and flows to develop a
sociology of environmental reform, we will combine the sociology of
networks and flows with earlier contributions in the social sciences
of environmental reform, most notably ecological modernisation per-
spectives.
Whereas most of the flow literature in the social sciences emphasises
flows of capital, money, images, information, and people (travel and
migration) and analyses them from perspectives as diverse as economic
development, governance and control, cultural diversity or democracy,
an environmental sociology of flows focuses on an explicitly environ-
mental interpretation of the flow concept. This environmental interpre-
tation differs in two ways from the sociology of flows: (i) by analysing
flows of information, capital, goods and persons from an ecological
rationality point of view (by looking at environmental information,
green products, green investment funds, sustainable management con-
cepts, environmental certifications schemes, flows of environmental
activists and their ideas); and (ii) by analysing environmental flows
as such, that is, energy, water, waste, biodiversity, natural resources,
contaminants and the like. Neither Castells nor Urry have developed
so far an in-depth account of environmental change in either of the two
ways. Environmental flows are mentioned in between all other kinds
of 'flows' that could become or are the object of sociological analyses,
and these other flows are not assessed for their role in and (potential)
contribution to environmental governance, deterioration, or reform.
Nowhere, however, do these authors argue that the set of material
flows as commonly addressed within the environmental sciences and
social sciences would deserve special social science reflection. Clouds,
information, capital, people or wastes are analysed, conceptualised and
understood in similar ways. The question is whether that is helpful for
a full understanding of environmental reform. I think we are in need
of a more specific environmental social theory of networks and flows,
which builds on such general conceptualisations but specifies them
for environmental networks and flows. Such a specific environmen-
tal emphasis and substantiation also might reflect on and contribute