www.environmental-justice.com/research

A review of ‘Environmental Justice’ research in the UK

By Rebecca Nada-Rajah

November 2010

Funded by

What is Environmental Justice?

Environmental Justice is a concept and social movement that seeks

to address the reality that environmental burdens (eg. intrusive mining and

extraction, dumping of toxic & contaminated materials, high-polluting

industry etc.) are inequitably distributed and often concentrated in areas of

socio-economically marginalized people (Agyeman et al. 2003). The basic

premise of environmental justice is the notion that all people have an equal

right to live in a healthy environment and, correspondingly, that

environmental harms should be equitably distributed amongst all social

groups (McLaren 2003).

The concept of environmental justice was borne out of the

movement against environmental racism in America in the 1980s and

1990s. The notion of ‘environmental racism’ emerged from the American

Civil Rights movement and attempted to address the injustice of toxic

industry being predominantly concentrated in areas of African- American,

indigenous and Hispanic residents (Agyeman et al. 2003). The term

environmental justice gained momentum, broadening the scope of the

movement to include marginalized residents of all races who face

inequitable distribution of environmental damage (Sze & London 2001).

The tendency for hazardous industry to be concentrated in low-

income areas is often based on a ‘path- of- least resistance’ for industries

and corporations. An example of this is a 1984 Report by Cerrell

Associates for the California Waste Management Board, “openly

recommending that polluting industries and the state locate hazardous

waste facilities in ‘lower socio- economic neighbourhoods’ because those

communities had a much lower likelihood of offering political opposition”

(Faber & McCarthy 2003 p.45).

What is referred to as the Environmental Justice movement in North

America, Europe and South Africa is also known as the ‘Environmentalism

of the Poor’ in many parts of the world. Scholar Joan Martinez Allier

describes the Environmentalism of the Poor as the occurrence of "unequal

incidence of environmental harm [giving] birth to environmental

movements of the poor” (2002). Proponents of these movements are local

landowners in the Global South whose livelihoods are threatened by

environmental damage. Examples of the ‘environmentalism of the poor’

movements include Chipko tree- hugging women in India and the Green

Belt Movement in Kenya founded in 1977 by Nobel Peace prize winner

Wangari Maathai. Furthermore, the discourses of ‘popular

environmentalism’, ‘liberation ecology and ‘livelihood ecology’ are

largely based on similar sets of ideas.

Environmental Justice as ‘Praxis’: Action Research

Environmental justice activist and scholar Eurig Scandrett argues

that “environmental justice should be seen as a provisional and contested

discourse embedded within a social movement” (2007 p. 4). It is a

movement that constantly evolves in response to grassroots activism,

cultural values, community organizations, local planning and development

and the implementation and enforcement of environmental law. It is a

highly interdisciplinary concept that sits at the “crossroads of social

movement, public policy and academic research” (Sze & London 2001 p.

1333).

Environmental Justice is largely regarded as a field of social ‘praxis’,

which “draws from and integrates theory and practice is a mutually

informing dialogue” (Sze & London 2001 p. 1334). In this respect,

researchers of the field tend to immerse themselves in the movement, in

line with the notion of Puiguert & Valls that the “only way to create relevant

social theories is via engaged collaboration” (2005 p. 90). In this respect,

academic inquiry into environmental justice is fairly unconventional,

involving the “blurring of boundaries between research and subject, the

embrace of political projects and values- driven scholarship, despite the

risk of losing objectivity (Smith 1999).

Much of the discourse of environmental justice is grounded in the

work of Brazilian educationalist Paolo Freire whose critical pedagogy calls

for the generation of knowledge via a process of dialogue (Scandrett 2007).

Here, researchers and educators alike are called to immerse themselves in

their vocational community with the radical understanding that learning

will inevitably happen in two directions: both the researcher and the

subject will be transformed by a mutual process of learning. Thereby, in

the words of activist and intellectual Jeanette Eby: “deconstructing notions

of control and condescension, and letting mutuality flourish in all

directions” (Eby 2009, p. 58). This phenomenon of mutuality in experiential

learning is known as transformative learning, and is called ‘action

research’ in practice (Puigvert & Valls 2005). The academic study of

environmental justice is based largely upon action research, as knowledge

is generated largely from the dialogue within the movement and is

constantly evolving in response to the changing context. Scandrett asserts

that: “In this dialogue epistemology, knowledge is generated in praxis […]

validated not only against the rigors of academic criteria, but also on

accountability to communities engaged in struggle and their changing

collective understanding” (Scandrett 2007). It is crucial to note that the

process of ‘uncovering’ an environmental injustice is largely based upon a

cultural dialogue: “environmental injustices are therefore not so much

discovered by research (and then responded to by policy makers) as

constructed by social processes of which research is a part” (Scandrett

2007).

Are Justice and Sustainability Compatible Objectives? Treading the ground between anti- poverty and environmental

movements, environmental justice can be seen as: “a social conflict which

exposes negative externalities at the heart of economic development”

(Scandrett 2007). Faber & McCarthy (2003) note the capacity of the

environmental justice movement to challenge the “’single- issue focus’ of

the traditional environmental movement, which often constrains its

capacity to affect change. Referencing the work of Paolo Eisenberg they

discuss the tendency of non- profit organizations to operate in a manner

that “fails to recognize the complexity and connectedness of our

interrelated socio-economic, ecological and political problems” (2003

p.42).

One of the key strengths of the concept of environmental justice is

that the breadth of its scope allows it to address ‘root causes’ of the

ecological crises. Middleton and O’Keefe argue that examining social

inequity should be a key tenet of the sustainability movement as: “Unless

analyses of development begin with not the symptoms, environmental or

economic instability, but with the cause, social injustice, then no

development can truly be sustainable” (2001, p. 16).

An emergent strain of discourse, especially in the non- profit sector,

concerns whether or not environmental sustainability and international

development are truly compatible agendas. In a paper declaring a

‘reluctant’ conclusion that social justice and environmental sustainability

are “not always compatible objectives,” (2003 p. 83) Andrew Dobson notes

that a tension will always exist because ‘reds’ (advocates of social justice)

and ‘greens’ (environmentalists) have inherently different motives.

For example, addressing the tendency for poverty alleviation

measures to exacerbate climate change, Terrence Dawson and Simon

Allen (2007) note the propensity of international development

organizations to advocate for the removal of trade barriers and promote

international tourism in order to bolster economic growth in the global

South. Increased global trade and tourism comes at the cost of an increase

in greenhouse gas emissions, thus acting in direct opposition to climate

change mitigation efforts. They assert: “Climate change therefore seems to

demand that the international community should find new ways of

transferring wealth from rich to poor countries, instead of relying on ever

increasing volumes of trade and tourism with their associated greenhouse

gas emissions” (2007 p. 372).

As an inherently localized movement, environmental justice groups

often eschew anti- poverty solutions involving such economic growth. In

tackling localized injustice, groups confront global and international

powers that whilst addressing environmental injustices on a local scale.

For example, the people of Bhopal, India- as a localized community- seek

justice and retribution for the 1984 chemical disaster from global

multinational corporations Union Carbide and now Dow Chemicals.

Attempts to link ecological crises with issues of global poverty has

spawned such concepts such as ‘ecological debt’ and ‘climate justice’.

Ecological debt is the notion that the existing Western consumer culture

has been built on resources exceeding the local carrying capacity and thus

the West is ecologically ‘indebted’ to other nations (Simms 2005). Climate

justice addresses the injustice present in the reality that adverse effects of

climate change are, and will continue to be, largely endured by the global

South, whilst been caused by the hyper-consumptive culture of the North

(Hill 2008). Both concepts thereby press for a justice- based redistribution

of wealth amongst and within nations, eschewing anti-poverty solutions

reliant on environmentally destructive economic growth.

Asserting that “the issue of environmental quality is inextricably

linked to that of human equality,” Agyeman et al. stress the need for the

“discourse of environmental justice to be firmly placed within the

framework of sustainability” (2003, p. 13). The core tenet of the

sustainability ethos is living within the earth’s carrying capacity such that

the global ecosystem may maintain its biodiversity and resilience for

future generations. The implementation and enforcement of the

sustainability- based values on a policy level is referred to as sustainable

development.

Perhaps the most widely acknowledged definition of sustainable

development is from the oft quoted 1987 World Commission on

Environment and Development Report (WCED), (commonly referred to as

the Bruntland Report) which identifies sustainable development as

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Baker 2006).

Sustainable development theory largely challenges core tenets of the

dominant development paradigm, perhaps most notably in challenging the

limits to economic growth. As an early precursor to the conception of

sustainable development, two seminal papers by Herman E. Daly and

Kenneth E. Boulding rattled the field of economics by challenging

fundamental assumptions about the nature of our planet. Boulding’s The

Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth (1966) and Daly’s The Economic

Growth Debate: What Some Economists Have Learned But Many Have Not

(1987) sparked the recognition that the dominant ‘growth’ paradigm of our

economy is, at best, incompatible with the exhaustible nature of the earth’s

resources (Edwards- Jones, Davies & Hussain 2000). Written with a strong

sense of urgency, both papers tackle the question of how the global

economy must adapt to a planet dipping into its final reservoirs and

reaching its limits. Daly’s The Economic Growth Debate: What Some

Economists Have Learned but Many Have Not takes a strong stance against

the ‘growth’ of the economy, defined as the “a quantitative increase in the

scale of the physical dimensions”, as opposed to the “qualitative

improvement” inherent in the economy’s ‘development’ (1987: p. 323). His

stance is triggered by his recognition that we are nearing the biophysical

and ethicosocial limits of our planet (Daly 1987). Sustainable development

theory fundamentally questions the dominant notion of ‘progress’,

specifically where it applies to progress being associated with an

increased domination over nature (Baker 2006). An example of this is the

use of integrative ‘Quality of Life’ indicators to measure sustainable

development, as opposed to traditional development indicators which

measure development in terms of GDP and human consumption of

resources. ). A combination of ‘top- down’1 (e.g. economic reforms such as

emissions ‘cap- and- trade’ programs limit the amount of pollutants that

industry may emit) and ‘bottom up’ 2 (e.g. community campaigning against

injustice in land use issues) approaches combine in a wide spectrum of

individual movements to drive structural change.

1 wherein‘expert’opinionisnegotiatedbyaselectfewandthenintegratedintoatactic 2 wherein‘expert’opinionisgeneratedandexecutedatagrassrootslevel,(e.g.communitycampaigningagainstinjusticeinlanduseissues

Where ‘Top-Down’ Meets ‘Bottom Up’: Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

There is a growing recognition within the field of sustainable

development that tackling inequality and building resilient communities is

a vital and necessary precursor to a sustainable society (Baker 2006; Beder

2006; Jackson 2009). In addition to challenging economic growth,

sustainable development theory openly admits the ”penetration of

Western environmentally destructive development models” (Baker 2006,

p.3) as a key factor in the perpetration of poverty and inequity in the both

within Western countries and in the global South (Kirkby, O’Keefe &

Timberlake 1995). Tim Jackson’s Prosperity without Growth report (2009)

outlines ’12 Steps To a Sustainable Economy’, five of which specifically

address issues of community and inequality: “sharing the available work

and improving the work- life balance, tackling systematic inequality,

measuring capabilities and flourishing, strengthening human and social

capital and reversing the culture of consumerism” (2009 p.12)

However, it must be noted that current sustainable development

discourse has very little to say about the pragmatics of bringing about

cultural change. There are, perhaps, three main reasons for this

discrepancy. First, a large part of sustainable development discourse leans

closely to what Blowers refers to as ‘ecological modernization’, and seeks

only reform the existing infrastructure without pro-actively challenging its

core tenets, which may perpetuate consumption and thus exploitation. For

example, whilst Jackson’s 2009 report calls for the “tackling of systematic

inequality” he makes no tangible political or economic recommendations

on how this can be done, and fails to address concepts such as ‘climate

justice’ and ‘ecological debt’ which have the capacity to tackle systematic

inequality with a justice- based approach. It is important to note that whilst

sustainable development initiatives largely seek to reform existing

structures from within, the environmental justice tends to be more

oppositional, challenging the core tenets of the existing infrastructure3

(Scandrett 2007). Scandrett observes: “Mainstream policy discourse has

increasingly restricted [the operation of] environmental justice to policy

areas which do not challenge [economic] growth.” Second, as sustainable

development is predominantly a top- down initiative, it lacks the capacity

to effectively tackle core issues of community cohesion. However well-

intentioned, approaches to tackling issues of community from the ‘top-

down’ can often cripple grassroots community organizing by imposing

artificial community structures using institutions. For example, the late

social critic Ivan Illich (1973) identifies the increasingly ‘institutionalized’

nature of our communities as a factor in creating social isolation and

decreasing neighbourly reciprocity. To illustrate this the American

community development scholar John McKnight (1984) often tells the tale

of ‘the bereavement counsellor’ in which a small village has an established

system of dealing with death: when someone dies the members of the

community go over to the house of the family in mourning to comfort and

cook for them. The system functions on the ‘grassroots’ agency of the

community in taking the initiative to do so. However, in order to

‘guarantee’ and homogenize this outcome, the village then hires a

bereavement counsellor to comfort the mourning. The institutionalization’

of this duty thereby removes from the community’s initiative in dealing

with loss (McKnight 1984), thus unintentionally fracturing initiatives

towards reciprocity. This illustration implies that issues of community

cohesion are perhaps best tackled with ‘bottom- up’ approaches, instead

of the macro- level policy and economic reforms of sustainable

development. A third reason that the practice of sustainable development

perhaps lacks the capacity to affect change within the core “social logic” of

our culture is due to its rigidity as a discourse (McLaren 2003). As a higher- 3 Thisisnottrueofallenvironmentaljusticeinitiatives,especially‘top‐down’environmentaljusticeapproaches,asScandrett(2007)notes,critiquingtwoenvironmentaljusticeresearchpublicationsrecentlycommissionedbytheScottishgovernment.Scandrettobservesthatwhileboththe2005publicationbyFairburnetalInvestigatingEnvironmentalJusticeinScotland,linksbetweenmeasuresofenvironmentalqualityandsocialdeprivationandthe2005publicationbyCurticeetalPublicAttitudesandEnvironmentalJusticeinScotland,presentthoroughanalyseslinkingsocialdeprivationandproximitytoenvironmentalharms,bothpapersresistmakingrecommendationsthatchallengethecoretenetsofasystemthatperpetuatesthecorrelation.

level policy oriented concept, whose very discourse was generated and

perpetuated by international conferences (Baker 2006), its is inherently

unable to be responsive to the fluid and localized events that drive cultural

change from the bottom- up.

The environmental justice movement identifies strongly as a

grassroots, ‘bottom- up’ approach- challenging the core tenets of a

political and economic system that perpetuates exploitation and excess-

consumption. Benjamin Zephaniah, a poet who famously turned down the

prestigious OBE notes the importance of being able to maintain one’s

ability to be oppositional. “I don’t want to do government or monarchy

approved poetry. We need the freedom to be critical of these institutions,

and once you become part of them, that’s very difficult” (Zephaniah in Pool

2009).

An Infrastructure of Consumption and Exploitation

In the World Watch Institute’s State of the World 2008 report, Tim

Jackson (2008) argues that a key reason that materialistic consumerism is

so deeply entrenched in our society is that it is perpetuated by an

“infrastructure of consumption”. The summation of the effects of dominant

structures and institutions in society are geared to promote wasteful and

consumptive behaviour: “private transport is incentivised over public

transport; motorists are prioritized over pedestrians; energy supply is

subsidized and protected, while demand management is often chaotic

and expensive, waste disposal is cheap, economically and

behaviourally; recycling demands time and effort: ‘bring centres’ few

and far between and often overflowing with waste” (Jackson 2008, p.

56) This recognition does not negate the role of individual choice in

sustainable decision- making, but instead highlights the means by which

our structures and institutions largely promote a “social logic of

consumerism”(Jackson 2009). Living in a society with such a heavy

predisposition towards excess, Jackson asserts, makes it difficult for even

the most highly motivated individuals to live sustainable lifestyles. Noting

that “the issue of environmental quality is inextricably linked to that of

human equality” (Agyeman et al. 2003) Jackson’s conception can be built

upon to argue that our Western consumer society is also constructed with a

predisposition towards exploitative behaviour: disruptive, polluting

industry is more likely to go into low- income neighbourhoods than

wealthy neighbourhoods, goods produced with ethical labour tend to be

more expensive than products of sweatshop labour et cetera. Thus,

perhaps a more comprehensive term for that which perpetuates both

unsustainable and inequitable behaviour in society is the ‘Infrastructure of

Consumption and Exploitation’.

The structures and institutions that perpetuate such hyper-

consumptive, exploitative behaviour in our social system are built upon a

core set of ideas and assumptions that inform their internal logic (Meadows

1999). This set of dominant ideas and assumptions are woven together to

form a social paradigm, or the dominant cultural narrative. In the

sociological sense, a paradigm refers to “a constellation of concepts,

values, perceptions and practices shared by a community, which forms a

particular vision of reality […] paradigms provide the framework of

meaning within which "facts" and experiences acquire significance and can

be interpreted” (Capra 1996).

The concept of a paradigm allows us to examine the root causes of

our social and ecological crises by providing a framework for the

discussion of ideas and assumptions which are not always explicitly stated.

Tim Jackson notes how the manifestation of these ideas and assumptions

can be seen in “…the subtle but damaging signals sent by government,

regulatory frameworks, financial institutions, the media and our education

systems: business salaries are higher than those in the public sector,

particularly at the top; nurses and those in the caring profession are

consistently lower paid; private investment is written down at high

discount rates, making long- term costs invisible; success is counted in

terms of material status (salary, house size etc.); children are brought up as

a ‘shopping generation’, hooked on brand celebrity and status” (2008,

p.56).

Thus, although social structures are predisposed to perpetuate

wasteful materialism and exploitation, it is vital to address this “extremely

powerful social logic” (Jackson 2008, p. 56) that locks both people and

institutions into this type of behaviour. For the purpose of this exploration,

the paradigm, or social logic, underlying our social infrastructure is

referred to as a ‘core cultural mythology’. The core cultural mythology is

defined as the ‘lowest common denominator’ of a shared narrative which

governs our lifestyles, incorporating the values and assumptions which are

widely experienced but rarely explicitly stated.

Addressing the ‘Core Cultural Mythology’ Environmental scientist Donella Meadows addresses the subject of

paradigmatic change in her 12 Places to Intervene in a System. She asserts

that: “transcending paradigms may go beyond challenging fundamental

assumptions, into the realm of changing the values and priorities that lead

to the assumptions, and being able to choose among value sets at will”

(1999). Referring to Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,

Meadows concludes that paradigmatic change can best occur when a wide

variety of individuals systematically point out the deficiencies of the ‘old’

paradigm while others lead us outside of ‘old’ paradigm by proactively

modelling a new one (Meadows 1999).

So what are the deficiencies of our current paradigm that have led to

such consumptive materialism and exploitation on a macro scale? Suppose

that our core cultural mythology is largely informed by both the varied and

dynamic means by which we pursue truth (ie. art, science, spirituality), in

addition to more fixed and static considerations such as our biological

nature and our historical context. Imagining the ‘core cultural mythology’

as a dynamic entity that is in constant flux, it becomes evident that there

will be a constant power struggle for the control of the ideas and

assumptions which form the dominant cultural narrative. Since the dynamic

processes by which we collectively pursue truth, such as through the

sciences, the arts and through spirituality are highly influential in their

ability to impact the core cultural mythology, they are also especially

vulnerable to the interests of power (Greig 2007).

In an essay calling upon artists to pursue the truths of the times we

live in through honest, socio-politically responsive work, Scottish

playwright David Greig argues that one of the key roles of theatre in our

times is to resist “the management of the imagination by power” (2007, p.

215). Here, Greig paints a picture of the influence of capital and power on

the core cultural mythology:

“The institutions of global capital mange the imagination in the first instance through media institutions. Hollywood cinema, the television and newspapers of the great media empires like Fox and CNN. These forms create the narrative superstructure around which our imagination grows. In this way we learn to think along certain paths, to believe certain truths, all of which tend, in the end to further the aims of capital and the continuance of economic growth. Once the superstructure is in place, our own individual creativity will tend to grow around it and assume its shape so that the stories we tell ourselves, the photographs we take and so forth, are put in the service of the same narratives and assumptions […]Very few imaginations are totally colonized, just as very few are totally liberated. In most minds there is a constant back and forth- a dialogue between challenge and assumption like waves washing against a shoreline. […] By intervening in the realm of the imaginary, power continually shapes our understanding of reality” (2007, p. 216)

Greig argues that art has the capacity to resist this ‘management of the

imagination’ by the interests of capital by being dedicated first and

foremost to the truth, and thereby challenging the core cultural mythology

which has led to an Infrastructure of Consumption and Exploitation. Thus, if

we are to truly address our social and ecological crises, we require both an

art and a science that is unrelenting in its pursuit of truth. This may allow us

to recover our core cultural mythology from the ‘management of the

imagination by capital’.

Perhaps this sentiment is better expressed in playwright Harold

Pinter’s 2005 Nobel Lecture: “I believe that despite the enormous odds

which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as

citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial

obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a

determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of

restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man” (Pinter 2005).

The Virtues of Storytelling As we have seen, the environmental justice movement is a highly

localized struggle, most often arising in response to injustice affecting a

specific community. For a popular movement to take off, an injustice must

be uncovered and gain the widespread recognition of the people. Thus,

the role of the village bard is just as important as that of international policy

–makers.

Social change is never a merely intellectual process- it demands the

engagement of the senses and the passions in addition to the intellect. In

the words of Antonio Gramsci: “The intellectual’s error consists in

believing that one can know without understanding and even more without

feeling and being impassioned [...] that is, without feeling the elementary

passions of the people” (in Conquergood 2002, p.418). The arts provide a

space for the engagement of the passions with the intellect and create a

forum wherein the key paradigms that underlie a society can be called into

question as necessary.

German philosopher Jurgen Habermas describes the process of

'rational reconstruction' as the means by which intuitive knowledge is

systematically linguistically and philosophically coded into a 'rational',

logical form (1979). ‘Rational reconstruction’ is used to make sense of

external and internal realities via a process of interpretation (eg.

interpreting a smile as benevolent), as opposed to generating theoretical

knowledge via a process of deduction and description (eg. using the

scientific method). Thus, according to Habermas' conception, a great

proportion of what we construe as knowledge originates in a sensory-

intuitive experience and subsequently becomes codified via a process of

rationalization. As artistic creation is an expression of the sensory- intuitive

experience, art has the capacity to serve as a precursor to rationalized

knowledge.

In a paper entitled Interventions and Radical Research, the

performance studies scholar Dwight Conquergood explores the "indirect,

nonverbal and extralinguistic modes of communication [in society], rich in

subversive meanings and utopian yearnings” (Conquergood 2002 p.148).

Conquergood provides a particularly illuminative example of the

phenomena of 'rational reconstruction' as conceptualized by Habermas in

his discussion of the life narrative of the African- American abolitionist and

former slave, Frederick Douglass (1818-1895). He quotes at length from

Douglass' memoirs, well worth reiterating:

But, on allowance day, those who visited the great house farm were peculiarly excited and noisy. While on their way, they would make the dense old woods, for miles around, reverberate with their wild notes. These were not always merry because they were wild. On the contrary, they were mostly of a plaintive cast, and told a tale of grief and sorrow. In the most boisterous outbursts of rapturous sentiment, there was ever a tinge of deep melancholy [...]. I have sometimes thought that the mere hearing of those songs would do more to impress truly spiritual-minded men and women with the soul-crushing and death-dealing character of slavery, than the reading of whole volumes [...]. Every tone was a testimony against slavery [...]. The hearing of those wild notes always [...] filled my heart with ineffable sadness [...]. To those songs I trace my first glimmering conceptions of the dehumanizing character of slavery [...]. Those songs still follow me, to deepen my hatred of slavery, and quicken my sympathies for my brethren in bonds[...] If any one wishes to be impressed with a sense of the soul-killing power of slavery, let him go to Colonel Lloyd’s plantation, and, on allowance day, place himself in the deep pine woods, and there let him, in silence, thoughtfully analyze the sounds that shall pass through the chambers of his soul, and if he is not thus impressed, it will only be because “there is no flesh in his obdurate heart.” (Douglass [1855] 1969:99 in Conquergood 2002 p. 145)

This selection of Douglass' memoirs lends valuable insight into the

capability of artistic expression to provide a means for the initial voicing

and recognition of an injustice. Here, in taking in an artistic expression (ie.

the singing of the slaves) Douglass' understanding of the injustice of

slavery can be seen to develop from the intuitive to rational stage: "...to

those songs I trace my first glimmering conceptions of the dehumanizing

character of slavery", by a process perhaps akin to Habermas’ 'rational

reconstruction’. Douglass' memoirs provide a written record of how the

slave songs- a human expression of an intuitive sensibility - serve as a key

driving force in the movement towards the abolition of slavery.

Additionally since art communicates in a deeper form of language

than words, it has the ability to ‘de-professionalize’ public debates,

broadening citizen participation in addressing and identifying key social

issues of our time. Conquergood acknowledges the ability of the arts to

communicate in a language that transcends what he refers to as

'scriptocentrism', essentially the notion that ‘everything there is to be

known can be codified in text’. In reference to Michel Foucault’s idea of

“subjugated knowledges”, he asserts that scriptocentrism is a form of

epistemic violence that has “squeezed out… the whole realm of complex,

finely nuanced meaning that is embodied, tacit, intoned, gestured,

improvised, coexperienced, covert- and all the more deeply meaningful

for its refusal to be spelt out” (Conquergood, 312). Conquergood thus

draws attention to the capability of art (in this case performance art) to

exploit these other types of knowledge for a purpose of searching for

truths and communicating understandings.

Take for example Pablo Picasso’s Guernica, a painting which depicts

the of bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The work is

remarkable in its ability to communicate the horrors of war in a language

beyond words (Martin 2003). In addition to drawing international attention

to the Spanish Civil War, it has become a global symbol of Anti- War

movements (Martin 2003). A reproduction of the painting adorns the

headquarters of the UN Security Council, whose stated mission is to “end

the scourge of war.” As a testament to the power of the artwork, US officials

had the painting covered for the press conference in February 2003 in

which the American government pressed to go to war with Iraq (Vallen

2003).

An example of a performance art that pertains directly to

environmental justice, is a performance by ‘political tricksters’ and

‘corporate ethics activists’, the Yes Men, at the 2007 Gas and Oil Exposition

in Calgary, Alberta. “Intended as a critique of the fossil fuel industry’s

influence on energy policy” (Keim 2007), the piece exploded the logical

endpoints of the political prioritization of industry amidst current

ecological crises. Posing as representatives of the Exxon- Mobil CEO Lee

Raymond, Andy Bichlbaum- posing as Shepard Wolff- had arranged to

deliver a keynote lecture at a luncheon of the conference, to announce

findings of Raymond’s study team, commissioned by the Department of

Energy (Keim 2007). Bilchbaum / ‘Wolff’ opened his lecture by

acknowledging the propensity of current energy policies to lead to

“widespread global calamities” thereby posing a threat to oil industry

(Keim 2007). Announcing the ‘results’ of the Exxon- Mobil study team’s

findings, he announced that “in the worst case scenario, the oil industry

could "keep fuel flowing" by transforming the billions of people who die

into oil, called ‘Vivoleum’".

Figure: The Yes Men’s 'Vivoleum Candles’

Bilchbaum/ ‘Woolf’’s ‘research assistant’ Mike Bonnano or “Florian

Ossenberg” announced that: "With more fossil fuels comes a greater

chance of disaster, but that means more feedstock for Vivoleum. Fuel will

continue to flow for those of us left." Keim (2007) reports that:

“The impostors led growingly suspicious attendees in lighting Vivoleum candles made, they said, from a former Exxon janitor who died from cleaning a toxic spill. When shown a mock video of the janitor professing his desire to be turned in death into candles, a conference organizer pulled Bonanno and Bichlbaum from the stage. As security guards led Bonanno from the room, Bichlbaum told reporters that "Without oil we could no longer produce or transport food, and most of humanity

would starve. That would be a tragedy, but at least all those bodies could be turned into fuel for the rest of us."”

In the words of the German playwright Heiner Mueller: “the role of art

is to mobilize the imagination" (Waltemath 2004). In 2005 Heavy Trash, "an

anonymous arts organization of architects, designers and urban planners"

set up viewing platforms on the streets of Los Angeles' gated communities,

wherein the general public can look onto the properties of gated homes by

climbing onto a platform and peering over (Heavy Trash 2005).

Figure: 'Viewing Platforms' into Los Angeles Gated Communities (Heavy Trash

2005)

Constructed after the viewing platforms at the Berlin Wall which

historically allowed citizens from West Berlin to see into the East of the city,

the platforms juxtapose past and present in order to spark debate on the

right to block off access to parts of the city. In a statement on their official

website, Heavy Trash voices their intent to promote dialogue on issues

concerning privatization in urban planning. USC Lusk Center Director Ed

Blakely and UC Berkeley professor Mary Gail Snyder comment: "When

public services and even local government are privatized, when the

community of responsibility stops at the gates, the function and the very

idea of democracy are threatened. Gates and barricades that separate

people from one another also reduce people's potential to understand one

another and commit to any common or collective purpose" (Heavy Trash

2005).

Bibliography Agents for Environmental Justice (2003). Voices from the Grassroots: Redressing the Balance: Working Towards Environmental Justice in Scotland. Scandrett, E., (ed.), Edinburgh: Friends of the Earth Scotland. Alinsky, S. (1989). Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage. Agyeman, J.(2002)'Constructing Environmental (in)Justice: Transatlantic Tales’, Environmental Politics,11:3,31 — 53 Agyeman, J., Bulllard, R.D. & Evans, B. (2003). Joined- up Thinking: Bringing Together Sustainability, Environmental Justice and Equity. In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., ed., 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan. Baker, S. (2006). Sustainable Development. New York: Routledge. Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies. London: Earthscan. Belk, M., (2009). Art and Matter. One Magazine. Published 25 May 2009. Billington, M., (2003). Drama out of Crisis. The Guardian. Published: 10 April 2003. Blowers, A. (2003). Inequality and Community and the Challenge to Modernization: Evidence from the Nuclear Oases. In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., ed., 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan. Boal, A. (1979) Theatre of the Oppressed. In Prentki, T. & Preston, S. (ed.), 2009. The Applied Theatre Reader. New York: Routledge.

Boulding, K.E. (1966). The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, [online], Available at: http://www.ub.es/prometheus21/articulos/obsprometheus/BOULDING.pdf [Accessed: 1 July 2009] Cairns, J.L., 2002. Sustainability and Sacred Values. Ethics in Science and Environmental Policies. 15- 27. Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life. New York: Harper Collins. Conquergood, D. (2002). Performance Studies: Interventions and Radical Research The Drama Review 46(2):T174. Crowther, J.; Galloway, V.; Martin, I. (eds.) Popular Education: Engaging the Academy: International perspectives. pp. 88-99. Leicester: NIACE. Daly, H.E., 1987. The Economic Growth Debate: What Some Economists Have Learned But Many Have Not. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14, p. 323- 336.

Dawson, T.P. & Allen, S.J. (2007). Correspondence: Poverty reduction must not exacerbate climate change. Nature 446 (7134): p. 372. Dobson, A. (2003). Social Justice and Environmental Sustainability: Ne’er the Twain Shall Meet? In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., ed., 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan. Dunion, K. & Scandrett, E. (2003).The Campaign for Environmental Justice in Scotland as a Response to Poverty in a Northern Nation. In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., ed., 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan. Dunion, K., (2003) Troublemakers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Eby, J. (2009). Building a Resilient Community: Creativity and Mutuality in Hamilton Unpublished BSc. thesis, McMaster University. Edwards- Jones, G., Davies, B. & Hussain, S., 2000. Ecological Economics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Evans, P. (2000).Drama Queens and Radical Greens: A Bit of Performance, ECOS 21(1). Faber, D.R. & McCarthy, D. (2003) Neoliberalism, Globalization and the Struggle for Ecological Democracy- Linking Sustainability and Environmental Justice. In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., ed., 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan

Finger, M. & Asún, J. M. (2001), Adult Education at the Crossroads Learning our way out, Zed Books: London. Flaherty, J., (2001). A New Kind of Test at Amherst, on the Day the Urns Went Dry. The New York Times. Published 9 May 2001. Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. USA: Continuum International Publishing Group. Freire, P. (2001) Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Friedman, T. L. (2005). It’s a Flat World After All. In Roberts J.T. & Hite A.B., 2007. The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change. UK: Blackwell Publishing Giroux, H. (1992) Border Crossings. In Prentki, T. & Preston, S. (ed.), 2009. The Applied Theatre Reader. New York: Routledge. Gramsci, A., (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. In Prentki, T. & Preston, S. (ed.), 2009. The Applied Theatre Reader. New York: Routledge. Greig, D. (2007). Rough Theatre. In D’Monte, R. & Saunders, G., (ed.), Cool Britannia? British Political Drama in the 1990s. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Toronto: Beacon Press. Hardin, G., 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243- 1248. Heavy Trash. (2004). Press Release: Heavy Trash Installs Viewing Platforms at Los Angeles Gated Communities. [online] Available at: http://heavytrash.blogspot.com/ [Accessed: 11 July 2009]. Hill, A. (2008)'Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change', Development in Practice 18(1): 141 — 143. Hintz, J. G., 2003, Review: Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. Human Ecology Review, 10(1), 2003. Illich, I., (1973). Tools for Conviviality. Harper & Row Publishers: New York. Itzin, C., (1980). Stages in the Revolution. London: Methuen. IPCC , 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E., Eds., Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf [Accessed: 1 July 2009]. Jackson, T., (2005). Live Better by Consuming Less: Is there a “Double Dividend”in Sustainable Consumption? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1): 19- 36. Jackson, T., (2008). The Challenge of Sustainable Lifestyles. In Flavin, C., ed. 2008. State of the World 2008: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy. Washington DC: World Watch Institute. Jackson, T., (2009). Prosperity without Growth? The Transition to a Sustainable Economy. London. Sustainable Development Commission. Keim, B., (2007). Yes Men Strike Oil: Civil Disobedients Make Modest Flesh-to Fuel Proposal. Wired Science. Published: 14 June 2007. [online] Available at: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/yes_men_strike_/ [Accessed: 11 July 2009] Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P. & Timberlake, L., 1995. Sustainable Development. In: Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P. & Timberlake, L. (ed.), 1995. The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan Publications Limited. Kuhn, T., (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Luke T.W. (1992). Art and the Environmental Crisis: From Commodity Aesthetics to Ecology Aesthetics. Art Journal 51(2) pp. 72-76. Mamet, D., (2007). Three Uses of the Knife: On the Nature and Purpose of Drama. London: Methuen Drama. Martin, R. (2003) Picasso’s War: The Destruction of Guernica and the Masterpiece that Changed the World. New York City: Plume. Martinez-Alier, J. (2002) The Environmentalism of the Poor. Cheltenham UK/ Northampton MA: Edward Elga. Martinez- Alier, J., (2003). Mining Conflicts, Environmental Justice and Valuation. In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., ed., 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan McCormack, C. & Pallister, M., (2009). The Wee Yellow Butterfly. Glasgow: Argyll Publishing.

McGrath, J.A., (1981). The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil. U.K.: Heinmann Educational Books. McKnight, J., 1984. John Deere and the Bereavement Counsellor: Fourth Annual E.F. Shumacher Lectures, H. Hannum, ed., [online] Available at: http://smallisbeautiful.org/publications/mcknight_84.html. [Accessed: 11 March 2009]. McLaren, D., (2003). Environmental Space, Equity and the Ecological Debt. In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., ed., 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan Meadows, D., 1999. Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability Institute. [online] Available at: http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf [Accessed: 11 July 2009]. Middleton, N. & O’Keefe, P., 2001. Redefining Sustainable Development, Pluto Press, London. Nelson, R., (2002). The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil: Political Theatre and the Case Against Television Naturalism. International Journal of Scottish Theatre, 3(2). O’Brien, K.L. & Leichenko, R.M., 2000. Double Exposure: Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change within the Context of Economic Globalization. Global Environmental Change, 10(3): 221-232. Orbinski, J., 2001. University of Alberta Visiting Lectureship in Human Rights. [online] Available at: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/humanrightslecture//pdfs/Orbinski-2001.pdf [Accessed: 11 July 2009]. Penn, D. J., 2003. The Evolutionary Roots of Our Environmental Problems: Toward a Darwinian Ecology. The Quarterly Review of Biology 78 (3): 275- 301. Pinter, H., 2005. Nobel Lecture: Art, Truth and Politics.[online] Available at: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html [Accessed: 11 July 2009]. Plumwood, V., 2002, Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. Routledge: New York. Pool, H. (2009) Question Time: Benjamin Zephaniah. The Guardian. Published: 21 May 2009.

Puigvert, L. & Valls, R.(2005) Dialogic learning in popular education movements in Spain. In Crowther, J.; Galloway, V.; Martin, I. (eds.) Popular Education: Engaging the Academy: International perspectives. pp. 88-99. Leicester: NIACE.

Ravenhill, M., (2003). A Touch of Evil. The Guardian. Published 22 March 2003. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Rees, W. E. & Westra, L. (2003) When Consumption Does Violence: Can There be Sustainability in and Environmental Justice in a Resource Limited World? In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. & Evans B., (ed.), 2003. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan Scandrett, E. (2007) Environmental Justice in Scotland: Policy, Pedagogy and Praxis Environmental Research Letters (2) 2007: 1-7. Selby,D., 2000. A Darker Shade of Green: The Importance of Ecological Thinking in Global Education and School Reform, Theory Into Practice 39(2): 88-96. Sims, A., (2005). Ecological Debt: The Health of the Planet and the Wealth of Nations. London: Pluto Press. Stevenson, R.B., 2007 [1987]. Schooling and Environmental Education: Contradictions in Purpose and Practice. Environmental Education Research 13(2): 139- 153. Sutcliffe, B., 1995. Development After Ecology. In Hite, A.B & Roberts J.T., 2000. From modernization to globalization: perspectives on development and social change. UK: Wiley- Blackwell.

Sze, J. & London, J.K. (2008). Environmental Justice at the Crossroads: A Critical Introduction to the ‘State of the Field’. Sociology Compass 2/4: 1331–1354

Vallen, M. (2003). Pablo Picasso's ‘Guernica’ censored at U.N. Art for a Change [online] Available at: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/News/guernica.htm. [Accessed: 11 July 2009]. Virilio, P., 1999. The Politics of the Very Worst. New York: Semiotext(e). Wayne, A. (2007). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Resistance Amongst Singaporeans? The Singapore Angle. Published: 7 May 2007 [online] Available at:

http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/05/weapons_of_the_weak_everyday_f.html [Accessed: 11 July 2009]. Wesker, A., (2003). The Smaller Picture. The Guardian. Published: 15 March 2003. Williams, C. (1998). Environmental Victims. London: Earthscan. Žižek, S., (1991).For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor. New York: Verso Žižek, S., (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. New York: Verso.