Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 85–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /e ia r

Book Review

Rationality and theEnvironment:DecisionMaking inEnvironmentalPolitics andAssessment, Bo Elling, Earthscan, 2008 (Hardback) / June2010 (Paperback), ISBN: 9781844075249 (HB, 304 pages),9781849710787 (PB, 296 pages)

Bo Elling's book is about far more than environmental assessment(EA): it engages centrally and critically with philosophy, social theoryand politics, and hence the many issues they each encompass. Thisreview emphasizes the contribution of the book to deliberations onEA, however, given the nature and audience of this journal (and theability of the reviewer to offer reasoned comment). In his book, Ellingradically reinterprets the role, form and function of EA through ananalysis which draws centrally upon the work of Jürgen Habermas.The conceptualization of EA promoted by Elling is premised on a beliefthat it is not modernity per se that has created the contemporaryenvironmental crisis, but a failure to implement themodernist projectin its entirety. Elling seeks to renew the modernist project through EAby setting free additional modes of reasoning.

The book consists of five weighty chapters. In chapter one(Introduction) Elling maps out key premises, principal goals and thestructure of the book. EA is described as an important focus ofcontemporary environmental politics and hence a valuable lensthrough which to explore a concern with if, and how, modernitycan be rendered environmentally conscious. Yet it is said to havefailed to achieve its purposes for environmental information has beenwithheld (in various ways) from decision makers and publicinvolvement has been constrained. The need to democratize envi-ronmental decision-making is also emphasized.

Chapter two (The environment as a goal) is fundamentallyconcerned with the connection between environment and the so-called ‘modern value problematic’ concerning what constitutes truth.The author embarks on an ambitious reviewof sociological thinking onthe modern problematic, with a particular focus on how environmenthas affected (or, according to Elling, accentuated) discussions on thisissue. There follows an analysis of debates on reason within modernand post-modern thinking, which Elling uses to underpin a decision toroot his reconceptualization of EA in modernity.

Chapter three (Modernity and reflexivity) covers in detail sociolog-ical thinking on modernity. It takes the reader on a journey throughdeliberations on modernity, rationality, reflexivity, and capitalism,drawing on the works of, amongst others, Ulrich Beck, AnthonyGiddens, Max Weber and Karl Marx. The centre piece is a detailedpresentation of Habermas' theory of communicative action and Elling'sjustification for its influence on his thinking. Habermas' understandingof types of rationality and his distinction between systems (e.g. thepolitical system, the economic system, etc.) and the lifeworld (i.e. thesocial world), in particular, are pivotal to Elling's thesis.

Can the modernization process be made environmentally con-scious? It is around this question that Elling frames chapter four(Ecological modernization). His attention naturally focuses on thedominant modernist school of thought in environmental sociology,ecological modernization, and whether it offers theoretical or

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.012

practical prescriptions for transcending the domination of modernityby instrumental reason. Through a robust critique of this school ofthought that focuses, in particular, on the work of Maarten Hajer andArthur Mol, the conclusion Elling reaches is an unequivocal no. This isattributed, in part, to the failure within ecological modernization todevelop an explicit understanding of modernity and how it could bemade environmental conscious, with Elling pointedly suggesting amore appropriate name for it would be, “internalization of environ-mental concerns in economic development strategy” (p. 215).

In chapter five (The environmental politics of modernity) Ellingreturns to the topic of EA. He contrasts conventional interpretations ofEA (which he labels ‘technical–scientific’) with his ‘political–demo-cratic’ and ‘communicative reflection’ conceptualization. The techni-cal–scientific conception is said to turn politicians into, “the tools oftechnocrats” (p. 235), stripping them of their political responsibilities,and to involve the public in a manner that leaves unchallenged theprimacy of instrumental reason. Elling's conceptualization of EAdraws on a “higher degree of reason” (p. 232) by transcendinginstrumental reason. This is said to be possible through the inclusionof the communicative reason of the lifeworld, for here, and here alone,the wholeness of reason has been maintained. EA in Elling'sconception becomes a reflexive, dialogical process oriented towardsmutual understanding of environmental problems and priorities.A crucial condition for success in terms of the goal of mutualunderstanding is:

“that it [EA] is not started, implemented or finalized with a viewto arriving at a solution… The construction of a solution mustoccur in a political process following after and clearly detachedfrom the reflexive process. Accordingly, the political process is notone that decides upon a proposal, but one that draws up asolution.” (p. 257, original emphasis).

This approach, Elling suggests, should result in the internalizationof environmental considerations in reason and make the outcome ofpolitical processes less controllable by powerful interests. He notesthat it also places certain responsibilities or demands on the public toengage in societal dialogues. In these respects, it can be viewed as away of harnessing debate about environment, science and technologyto reinvigorate contemporary democracies (Jasanoff, 2004).

Make no mistake, this is a book that I believe many interested‘students’ of EA will find challenging to read and digest. This is not areflection of its translation from Danish to English, which is absolutelyfirst class. Nor is it, in the main, a function of Elling's style of writing,although there are places where the text could be communicatedmore straightforwardly. Rather, I think it is because myself and, Ibelieve, many others interested in EA are not sociologists, and henceare not overly familiar with the debates, concepts and language of thisdiscipline. The book also presents a steep learning curve for it isextremely dense; Elling's analysis covers (well, in my opinion) longrunning, broad ranging and complex philosophical and sociologicaldebates. The breadth of topics covered also means that there is

86 Book Review

inevitably much that is contestable in Elling's analysis, but thesignificance of this book lies, in part, in that it robustly opens up newavenues for future deliberations.

The suggestions that result from Elling's work (the need for greatercitizen participation, the inclusion of a wider variety of knowledgesthan simply science, etc.) may superficially seem not too dissimilarfrom those reached in much other literature on EA. What is significantand innovative is Elling's grounding of these arguments in a criticalanalysis of social theory. This results in a unique analysis which hasthe potential to become a seminal publication in the field of EA, andbeyond.

The paperback edition of this book is published in June 2010.

Reference

Jasanoff S. Design on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States.Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004.

Matthew CashmoreSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich,

Norfolk NR7 4TJ, UKE-mail address: m.cashmore@uea.ac.uk.