Political Theory and the Ecological ChallengeAndrew Dobson, Robyn Eckersley Cambridge University Press, 2006 M08 10 In recent years the engagement between the environmental 'agenda' and mainstream political theory has become increasingly widespread and profound. Each has affected the other in palpable and important ways, and it makes increasing sense for political theorists in each camp to engage with one another. This book, first published in 2006, draws together the threads of this interconnecting enquiry in order to assess its status and meaning. Andrew Dobson and Robyn Eckersley have gathered together a team of renowned scholars to think through the challenge that political ecology presents to political theory. Looking at fourteen familiar political ideologies and concepts such as liberalism, conservatism, justice and democracy, the contributors question how they are reshaped, distorted or transformed from an environmental perspective. Lively, accessible and authoritative, this book will appeal to scholars and students alike. |
Other editions - View all
Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge Andrew Dobson,Robyn Eckersley No preview available - 2006 |
Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge Andrew Dobson,Robyn Eckersley No preview available - 2006 |
Common terms and phrases
agency aggression animals anthropocentric argue argument autonomy basic needs biocracy bioregion bioregionalists Cambridge citizens civic republican claim communitarians conception concern conflict conservative contemporary context cosmopolitan coverture critique culture deep ecology defend Deliberative Democracy democracy democratic Dobson dominant Dryzek Eckersley ecofeminism ecological challenge ecological footprint economic ecosystems endangered species envir environment environmental degradation environmental harm environmental problems environmentalists ethical example feminism feminist forms freedom future global environmental globalisation Goodin green political human and non-human idea individual institutions interests issues justice land ethic liberal democracy liberty limits living London means metaphors moral national security natural environment nature negative liberty norms obligations one’s organisations Oxford University Press perspective Plumwood policies political community political ecology political theory principle protection question reasons recognise represent representation require responsibility Routledge sense social socialist society solidarity sovereignty sphere sustainability theorists threat traditional transnational violence wellbeing
Popular passages
Page 154 - In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.
Page 133 - States, no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.
Page 245 - Once I take this view, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture them in the name, and on behalf, of their "real...
Page 108 - Beyond the Wild Wood comes the Wide World,' said the Rat. 'And that's something that doesn't matter, either to you or me. I've never been there, and I'm never going, nor you either, if you've got any sense at all. Don't ever refer to it again, please. Now then! Here's our backwater at last, where we're going to lunch.
Page 154 - The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land....
Page 138 - States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health.
Page 173 - ... reasons. Once the conflict is described in this manner, the third solution can be seen to be the one that is rationally required. This is because the first and second solutions give exclusive priority to one class of relevant reasons over the other, and only a completely question-begging justification can be given for such an exclusive priority. Only...