50
2
As pointed out by Fraser (2018), a considerable part of early EJ scholarship
drew on the work of the liberal philosopher John Rawls (1999). However, this liberal justice tradition has to some extent been abandoned within EJ, particularly so
in the literature on radical EJ. As described above, the first three elements of radical EJ were drawn from radical justice philosophy that contrasts with the liberal
justice perspectives of Rawls. On the other hand, the fourth element of the radical
EJ framework (capabilities theory) is often characterized as a liberal theory—especially in Sen’s version—due to its focus on individual choices and deliberate processes. Schlosberg, however, applies what Edwards et al. (2016) interpret as a radical
version of this theory, with a primary focus not on the hedonic well-being of individuals, but on the functioning of communities and collective goods. Thus, all four
elements of the radical EJ framework may be seen as constituting a radical alternative to liberal EJ theory.
The literature that builds on the radical EJ framework has become extensive
over the last decade. Examples of the broad range of EJ topics discussed are:
elderly people in urban neighbourhoods (Day 2010); ecosystem services (Sikor
2013); biodiversity conservation (Martin et al. 2013; Lecuyer et al. 2018); climate
change interventions in cities (Bulkeley et al. 2014); and carbon offset forestry projects (Fisher et al. 2018).
Walker (2012) also uses this radical EJ approach in his expanded framework
focusing on the main distinctions between claims about justice, evidence and process. In Walker’s framework, all such claims can be classified as being about distribution, recognition, procedural justice or capabilities.
Radical EJ is, however, only one of the various types of EJ that may be applied
today. For instance, contributions are still made to liberal EJ studies. In addition,
there is an approach known as ‘critical EJ’ (Pellow and Brulle 2005; Pellow 2016,
2018), which—with its multi-scalar approach and critique of the state—has much
in common with PE. Critical EJ is based on four pillars (Pellow 2018: 17–18): (1)
Paying more attention to multiple social categories; (2) Promoting multi-scalar
methodological and theoretical approaches; (3) Pursuing transformative rather
than reformist approaches to challenge inequality and resist the power of the state;
and (4) Focusing intensely on how humans and more-than-human nature are indispensable in terms of building just sustainabilities.
Furthermore, Pulido and De Lara (2018) have recently argued for yet another
alternative way to frame EJ, based on abolitionist theories and decolonial epistemologies, which may serve to critique power relations without depending on state
recognition. Agreeing with Pellow, Pulido and De Lara view the lack of power
analyses as problematic aspects in mainstream EJ (including radical EJ).
2.6 Écologie Politique, Ecología Política and Degrowth
The political ecology we present in this book refers mainly to the approach that
emerged in the USA and the UK in the 1980s. But there is also a southern European
version of political ecology (écologie politique, ecología política), which again is
closely connected to the degrowth movement that started in France in the 1970s
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions
2
As pointed out by Fraser (2018), a considerable part of early EJ scholarship
drew on the work of the liberal philosopher John Rawls (1999). However, this liberal justice tradition has to some extent been abandoned within EJ, particularly so
in the literature on radical EJ. As described above, the first three elements of radical EJ were drawn from radical justice philosophy that contrasts with the liberal
justice perspectives of Rawls. On the other hand, the fourth element of the radical
EJ framework (capabilities theory) is often characterized as a liberal theory—especially in Sen’s version—due to its focus on individual choices and deliberate processes. Schlosberg, however, applies what Edwards et al. (2016) interpret as a radical
version of this theory, with a primary focus not on the hedonic well-being of individuals, but on the functioning of communities and collective goods. Thus, all four
elements of the radical EJ framework may be seen as constituting a radical alternative to liberal EJ theory.
The literature that builds on the radical EJ framework has become extensive
over the last decade. Examples of the broad range of EJ topics discussed are:
elderly people in urban neighbourhoods (Day 2010); ecosystem services (Sikor
2013); biodiversity conservation (Martin et al. 2013; Lecuyer et al. 2018); climate
change interventions in cities (Bulkeley et al. 2014); and carbon offset forestry projects (Fisher et al. 2018).
Walker (2012) also uses this radical EJ approach in his expanded framework
focusing on the main distinctions between claims about justice, evidence and process. In Walker’s framework, all such claims can be classified as being about distribution, recognition, procedural justice or capabilities.
Radical EJ is, however, only one of the various types of EJ that may be applied
today. For instance, contributions are still made to liberal EJ studies. In addition,
there is an approach known as ‘critical EJ’ (Pellow and Brulle 2005; Pellow 2016,
2018), which—with its multi-scalar approach and critique of the state—has much
in common with PE. Critical EJ is based on four pillars (Pellow 2018: 17–18): (1)
Paying more attention to multiple social categories; (2) Promoting multi-scalar
methodological and theoretical approaches; (3) Pursuing transformative rather
than reformist approaches to challenge inequality and resist the power of the state;
and (4) Focusing intensely on how humans and more-than-human nature are indispensable in terms of building just sustainabilities.
Furthermore, Pulido and De Lara (2018) have recently argued for yet another
alternative way to frame EJ, based on abolitionist theories and decolonial epistemologies, which may serve to critique power relations without depending on state
recognition. Agreeing with Pellow, Pulido and De Lara view the lack of power
analyses as problematic aspects in mainstream EJ (including radical EJ).
2.6 Écologie Politique, Ecología Política and Degrowth
The political ecology we present in this book refers mainly to the approach that
emerged in the USA and the UK in the 1980s. But there is also a southern European
version of political ecology (écologie politique, ecología política), which again is
closely connected to the degrowth movement that started in France in the 1970s
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions