Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
who can implement solutions free of unscientifi c bias.
8
This emphasis on
knowledge production from above marginalizes alternative understand-
ings of humans and nonhumans by forwarding a rigorous separation be-
tween facts and values.
9
Political scientists Karin Bäckstrand and Eva
Lövbrand summarize this position when they state, “Through a detached
and powerful view from above—a 'global gaze'—nature is approached
as a terrestrial infrastructure subject to state protection, management and
domination.”
10
Rational politics is most often dominated by government actors but
also includes civil society groups. This was particularly evident in the
1980s as the so-called Big Ten environmental groups adopted legal and
scientifi c approaches to combat an increasingly antienvironmental fed-
eral administration.
11
The rise of counterexperts generated alternative
scientifi c and technical opinions on acceptable levels of environmental
pollution and opened up environmental expertise to critique and debate.
Refl ecting on the emergence of counterexperts, political scientists Marc
Landy, Marc Roberts, and Stephen Thomas write, “Supposedly neutral
expertise becomes the weaponry of partisan confl ict. The result is at best
confusion about the appropriate role (and limits) of technical knowledge,
and, at worst, the widespread belief that experts are mere hired guns who
have nothing to contribute to the policy debate. When that happens, both
government and ordinary citizens fi nd it diffi cult to learn about a problem
since they do not know who, if anyone, can be trusted.”
12
Environmental
groups in Austin and Seattle have engaged in practices of counter-expertise
to redirect the technomanagerial approach to urban runoff. The work of
the SOS Alliance in Austin and its success in passing the SOS Ordinance
in 1992 is perhaps the most vibrant example of counterexperts challeng-
ing rational politics. SOS used existing avenues of governance—namely,
regulation and litigation—to shift practices of urban development in a
new direction.
The government/civil society dichotomy of rational politics that
emerged over the last three decades mirrors the preservation/conserva-
tion dichotomy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in its
embrace of technomanagerial governance.
13
There is an implicit under-
standing that this is the “proper” mode of environmental management,
which means that rational political activities are limited to strengthening
existing regulations or creating new regulations as well as updating bu-
reaucratic procedures. There is no question that the state is the central
arbiter of human/nature relations.
14
Search WWH ::
Custom Search