This paper is concerned with analyzing the environmental movement in the US as a potential engine for social change. The movement’s ideology, membership, and leadership are investigated, with the contrast between the past and present iterations. Several contradictions and issues within the movement that may hinder its goal fulfillment are also highlighted, and it is determined that a slow shift is happening. Afterward, the movement’s impact on such social institutions as education, politics, economics, and religion is discussed, which, in turn, raises the population’s awareness of environmental issues. However, it is emphasized that the change is not significant enough, manifesting in some new social practices. The conclusion reflects the ambiguity of the movement’s role in changing society but expresses its potential that can be expanded by political activities and the population’s acknowledgment of environmental issues.
The Environmental Movement in the US
Humanity and nature have always had a complicated relationship ever since the former began its conscious activities. At first, people feared and revered their natural surroundings, exemplified by ancient myths and gods. However, humans were gradually gaining the upper hand, and it reached the point when their actions were destructive for the planet and themselves, although not everyone can realize that. The environmental (Green) movement acknowledges the issue and attempts to prevent further damage. Although it has a global reach, the paper will focus on the US due to the country’s impact on the environment and understanding of the repercussions. The movement’s ideology, membership, leadership, and subsequent social change will be considered, offering the historical perspective and various examples.
Ideology
The environmental movement has a complicated history in the US, reflected in the shifts in its ideology. Before the 20th century, it was indistinguishable from the conservation movement, which aimed to protect wilderness against urbanization and industrialization (Spears, 2020). The ideas were rooted in science and transcendentalism, and the movement was divided into two camps where either of those prevailed (Spears, 2020). However, their understanding of the environment was strictly non-human, which could be responsible for people still misunderstanding the movement and believing that humanity is unaffected by the harm caused to nature (Spears, 2020). Other movements emerged in the 20th century, such as anti-pollution regulation and energy conservation, which formed the crux of the modern-day environmental movement (Spears, 2020). Its current ideology is concerned with how people can live to sustain their surroundings, although that idea has different interpretations (Schreurs & Papadakis, 2020). However, all those who share the ideology wish to somehow improve the world for nature and humanity.
As mentioned, the environmental movement is not a monolith, hosting varying points of view and interest. For instance, the movement’s radical version wishes to dismantle capitalism, as they hold the system accountable for environmental issues (Woodhouse, 2018). Others may disagree that the capitalist system is the problem’s root and aim to promote the gradual implementation of socio-political policies (Woodhouse, 2018). Only time will tell which attitude will ultimately benefit the movement and its values.
Membership
The environmental movement’s composition is varied, reflecting that the primary issue concerns the whole population regardless of a person’s background, although it has been a long way until this point. Initially, only educated white men expressed worry regarding the environment, which was evident due to their status (Spears, 2020). As more demographic groups began acquiring rights, they also expressed interest in some of the environmentalist issues. For example, both as health care workers and patients, women were concerned with improving public health, which inevitably made them consider the environment’s state as a factor affecting it (McCammoon et al., 2018). The African-American population also started engaging with the movement’s ideas, as environmental justice, which views the issue from the point of its impact on the race, became prominent (Pellow, 2016). Eventually, the Green movement lost its elitist nuance and became accessible to everyone (Spears, 2020). Altogether, the Green movement is all-encompassing, attracting members regardless of their race, gender, income, and other factors, as everyone is affected.
Despite the movement’s supposedly universal nature, it is more likely to draw people with certain socio-political views and income levels. Right-wing authoritarians are not inclined toward pro-environmental attitudes and may not believe in climate change, which precludes them from joining the movement (Stanley et al., 2017). Meanwhile, fear exists that the environmental movement is dominated by the affluent, addressing their needs most of all (Dauvergne, 2017). While those tendencies do not negate the existing diversity, they reveal the contradictions that will have to be addressed.
Leadership
As the environmental movement has many branches, defining a single leader is a challenge because most prominent figures are involved with their field of interest. Historically, such scientists as John Muir and Rachel Carson are considered some of the first leaders, and the latter is attributed with establishing the movement’s modern form (Montrie, 2018). Nowadays, the leading figures happen to be in charge of a particular organization, political, profit, or non-profit, and they attempt to improve the environmental situation with the available tools. For instance, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein would be considered leaders due to their affiliation with the Green Party and participating in presidential elections (Schreurs & Papadakis, 2020). Priscilla Oliver, a former president of the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA), also used to be a leader through the organization’s influence and her encouragement of environmental leadership (Oliver, 2019). Company CEOs also contribute to the movement by following the principles of sustainability and pushing their enterprises to develop ecologically viable solutions for production and final products, which others will adopt (Hoffman, 2018). Thus, the movement is abundant in leaders who implement and advance its ideology.
Another point worth considering while discussing the environmental movement’s leadership is its diversity. As previously established, people of various backgrounds join the movement due to the universal issues it is trying to address. Therefore, its leadership should be reflective of the overall composition. While it is already true for smaller organizations and the NEHA, the said companies and bigger non-governmental bodies still lack diversity (McCammon et al., 2018). It may not be critical but could impact those newcomers who join a movement because of its leaders or notable representatives.
Social Change
The environmental movement is ambiguous regarding producing any social change as it does not affect interpersonal relationships as much as those between society and nature. However, it may still be seen in the way people treat the environment. Previously, environmental concerns allowed women and people of color to establish and strengthen their positions in society, which was a part of social change caused by the feminist and the Civil Rights movements (Spears, 2020). Currently, the environmental movement wishes to achieve sustainability, potentially leading to a new perception of certain practices (Harper & Snowden, 2017). People will assess their actions (consumptions) and those of manufacturers or politicians (production) from the point of being sustainable, which will eventually lead to changes (Harper & Snowden, 2017). While the shift to sustainability is already happening, it may be hindered by politicians refusing to acknowledge environmental issues or companies only claiming to adhere to the principle (Fredrickson et al., 2018). However, that does not imply that the movement has gone unnoticed in various social institutions.
The Movement’s Impact on Social Institutions
Due to the elements discussed previously, the environmental movement has managed to raise awareness of the issues on a national level. It has led to the incorporation of environment-related topics into the curriculum, both in social studies and natural sciences, which promotes environmental literacy among students (Hollstein & Smith, 2020). As far as politics is concerned, the environmental movement is responsible for the creation of the Green Party and the Green New Deal, although both are subject to controversy (Galvin & Healy, 2020). Regardless, many laws targeting environmental protection have been passed since the 1960s, including the Clean Air and Water Acts (Schreurs & Papadakis, 2020). Economics-wise, the movement has caused a shift toward sustainable production and made being environmentally friendly an important part of a company’s strategy (Hoffman, 2018). Religion has also been impacted by the movement, as evident from the emergence of religious environmentalism organizations (Ellingson, 2016). The environmental movement’s ideology is consistent with most teachings, so the trend does not appear surprising (Ellingson, 2016). Overall, the environmental movement has brought certain changes to such social institutions as education, politics, economics, and religion, facilitating sustainability.
Conclusion
As previously stated, the environmental movement has impacted social institutions, but the change may seem subtle and not palpable by the majority. For example, a person not involved in mass production, education, or politics might not be aware of the planet’s issues. However, such events as Earth Day and National CleanUp Day exist, along with local initiatives, and many people tend to participate in them (Dietz, 2020). While those are not staggering changes influencing the American society at large and transforming its values, they demonstrate some established practices that may draw people not deeply interested in environmental issues.
In conclusion, the debate whether the environmental movement can be considered a genuine engine of social change remains open. On the one hand, it has impacted many social institutions and introduced several practices, and its ideology can resonate with anyone, which is evident from the varied membership. On the other hand, the movement remains controversial, and the shift is toward sustainability is ongoing, but it is not clear whether it will achieve the goal in a timely manner. The environmental movement has a great potential to reform society and ensure its sustainable existence with nature, although the feat will require more political actions and the universal acceptance. While the latter is impossible for other movements, such as feminism and anti-racism, environmental issues affect everyone, so the realization will probably make social change more pronounced.
References
Dauvergne, P. (2016). Environmentalism of the rich. The MIT Press.
Dietz, T. (2020). Earth Day: 50 years of continuity and change in environmentalism. One Earth, 2(4), 306-308. Web.
Ellington, S. (2016). To care for creation: The emergence of the religious environmental movement. The University of Chicago Press.
Fredrickson, L., Sellers, C., Dillon, L., Ohayon, J. L., Shapiro, N., Sullivan, M., Bocking, S., Brown, P., de la Rosa, V., Harrison, J., Johns, S., Kulik, K., Lave, R., Murphy, M., Piper, L., Richter, L., & Wylie, S. (2018). History of US presidential assaults on modern environmental health protection. American Journal of Public Health, 108(S2), S95–S103. Web.
Galvin, R., & Healy, N. (2020). The Green New Deal in the United States: What it is and how to pay for it. Energy Research & Social Science, 67, 101529. Web.
Harper, C., & Snowden, M. (2017). Environment and society: Human perspective on environmental issues (6th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Hoffman, A. J. (2018) The next phase of business sustainability. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 16(2), 34-39. Web.
Hollstein, M. S., & Smith, G. A. (2020). Civic environmentalism: Integrating social studies and environmental education through curricular models. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(2), 223-250. Web.
McCammon, H. J., McGrath, E., Hess, D. J., & Moon, M. (2018). Women, leadership, and the U.S. Environmental movement. In H. J. McCammon & L. A. Banaszak (Eds.), 100 years of the Nineteenth Amendment: An appraisal of women’s political activism (pp. 312-333). Oxford University Press.
Montrie, C. (2018). The myth of Silent Spring: Rethinking the origins of American environmentalism. University of California Press.
Oliver, P. (2019). Environmental health leadership: Where do we go from here? Journal of Environmental Health, 82(3), 6-7. Web.
Pellow, D. N. (2016). Toward a critical environmental justice studies. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 13(2), 221–236. Web.
Schreurs, M., & Papadakis, E. (2020). Historical dictionary of the Green movement (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Spears, E. G. (2020). Rethinking the American environmental movement post-1945. Taylor & Francis.
Stanley, S. K., Wilson, M. S., & Milfont, T. L. (2017). Exploring short-term longitudinal effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on environmentalism. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 174–177. Web.
Woodhouse, K. M. (2018). The ecocentrists: A history of radical environmentalism. Columbia University Press.