Introduction
Environmental justice is a relatively old concept and one whose pertinence cannot be wished away. Establishing environmental justice has given rise to a social movement with the aim of ensuring equitable allotment of both the environmental burdens and benefits through effective laws and policies. As such, complete environmental justice requires the involvement of everyone, regardless of their color, race, religion, or physical situations as the environmental issues affect everyone in equal measure. The concept operates through both the traditional and modern approaches. Thus, the aim of this essay is to prove that, theoretically and practically, the modern approach, ecological citizenship, is better than the traditional frameworks, namely liberal citizenship and civic republicanism, given that the contemporary approach employs promising strategies regarding globalization. Correspondingly, the overall aim of the essay is to understand environmental justice from the perspective of both the traditional and modern approaches.
Background
Environmental justice, also known as ecological justice, entails the fair and just treatment and productive involvement of everyone notwithstanding their race, income, or color concerning the implementation, development, and enforcement of laws, policies and regulations affecting the environment (Christoff, 1996 p.151-169). The goal of environmental justice is to ensure that every person shares in the formulation of any environmental laws in a manner that takes into consideration their rights to protection from environmental hazards and facilitates their peaceful existence in a conducive environment. Dobson (2003 p.18) notes that the definition of the environmental justice should encompass the holistic inclusion of everyone in the environmental decision-making, equitable distribution of the benefits and risks of the environment, and recognition of a community’s way of life as well as the cultural difference in the course of environmental law formulation. In this manner, the justice must facilitate the functioning and flourishing of all communities and individuals in their society without fear of environmental dangers (Schlosberg, 2004, p.517-540; 2007, p.36-42; 1999, p.145-147). Evidently, the environmental justice harmonizes both the human and non-human law with the aim of ensuring a co-existence between human beings and animals as well as conceiving justice as both human and non-human (Young, 1989, p.2). Even so, the concept of environmental justice, especially concerning non-human law has faced challenges stemming from the Western perspective of non-human law. The traditional Western perspectives of justice are human-centered because they only assign intrinsic value to human beings (Dobson, 2004 p.1-7). The assignment of the higher intrinsic value to human beings at the expense of the non-human things with the treatment of the non-human law as ‘other’ obscures the course of complete environmental justice (Young, 1989 p.2).
Environmental citizenship connotes the idea that each one is a fundamental part of the entire ecosystem, and the future of everyone is a direct function of the manner in which people treat the environment (Dobson, 2006 p.216-223; Gardiner, 2006, p.397-413). How people treat the environment, in this case, describes their overall response to the challenges of the environment and the ultimate impacts of those responses to the environment. Environmental citizenship, both in definition and practice, differs in several ways from the ‘average’ citizenship. Precisely, an environmental citizen is one who is committed to gaining an in-depth comprehension of the environment and taking the requisite care of the environment and the accompanying aspects (Gabrielson & Parady, 2010, p.374-391). On the other hand, an average citizen is committed to several other issues such as the economy with the environment forming just a portion of their responsibilities. Harris (2010 p.35) notes that the idea of citizenship defines a status that springs from membership of a policy, and leaves the citizens with a set of reciprocal individual rights and responsibilities. However, Dobson (2005, p.596-607) argues that this definition does not necessarily describe an environmental citizenship, given that environmental citizenship is not only a prerogative of a person, but also an individual’s duty and right. He further adds that the existence of a polity with the fundamental characteristics of a state makes the ecological citizens the victims with only rights but no definitive duties. It, thus, suffices to say that the existence of a polity means that the citizens, while they have a right to benefit from the environment, they have no duty to champion for environmental justice or uphold environmental citizenship. For instance, an environmental citizen will walk or ride a bike to work while an average citizen is focused on material prosperity, thus, will use a car to work. An environmental citizen participates actively in both local and global environmental affairs while an average citizen is highly likely to make environmental issues just a small part of their daily affairs (Godden, 1998, p.719-742). Such citizens are wearier and act in the best interest of the environment (Bell, 2005, p.179-194; King, 2000, p.115-131). Regardless, it is noteworthy that the concept of environmental citizenship is considered a noble idea and viable project whose pursuit seems to be the chief solution to the current global environmental woes.
Traditional Approaches
Liberal Citizenship
A liberal citizen is one who is free and autonomous (Soper, 1996 p. 22-34). Their citizenship allows them to have equal and free access to all forms of freedom that serve to facilitate their endeavor to be autonomous by enabling them to realize their strengths and weaknesses, fearlessly exercise their rights and have their rights not only protected, but also respected (Soper, 1996, p.22-34; Tilman, 2000, p.208-211). On this note, the primary responsibility of a government is to ensure that its citizens co-exist peacefully regardless of their stake and numbers in the populace by resolving the issue of inequality and promotion of the citizen’s right to freedom and enjoyment (Marshall, 1949, p.61-78). Contextually, the examination of the drawbacks of the liberal citizenship as an approach to the environmental citizenship is best achieved through an examination of the specific liberal theories and their link to environmental citizenship. The classical liberalism theory holds that liberty is the core value of citizenship (Dasgupta, 2001). In this case, the two most fundamental features of citizenship include rights and equality. The major shortcoming of the link between this theory and environmental citizenship is the fact that it champions for the rights and equality of the individuals without including the most vital aspect of environmental citizenship- identity. Another theory is the ‘social citizenship’ theory that comes from Marshall (1949, p.61-78)’s perspectives. In this respect, citizenship branches into three main levels, namely social, civil and political levels. Civil citizenship comprises the requisite rights to the freedom of a person, for instance, their liberty, freedom of speech, justice, opinion, and faiths (Marshall, 1949 p. 9). On the other hand, the political aspect of citizenship includes elements such as the rights to take part in the political process, including the right to cast a vote, elect and contest in elections (Marshall, 1949, p.8-11). Finally, the social aspects of citizenship encompass a large variety of rights from the rights to enjoy the life of civility as defined by the societal standards of the right to security and appropriate economic welfare. Marshall’s primary argument holds that citizenship draws from the three bundles of rights, with social citizenship being the most pertinent underpinning compared to the other two (Marshall, 1949, p.8-11).
However, Marshall’s theory has attracted criticisms from various quarters given that it is agency-based. For Marshall (1949, p.8-11), Rawls (1999, p.99) and Rawls (1999b, p.80-83), the facilitation of a good life is a sole function of the state as an agency. The critics, especially Bell (2005, p. 189) point out that the state can be compromised to favor the interests of a certain class over that of the rest of the social classes. Therefore, the introduction of social rights in the concept of citizenship cannot eliminate the elements of inequality synonymous with the capitalist system. Similarly, the feminist theories criticize the liberal citizenship model because it is sharply gendered, and forwards the private/public dichotomy (Bell, 2005, p.188). The compartmentalization of the citizenship into three classes also makes it difficult to comply with the tenets and requirements of environmental citizenship. It is noteworthy that the hypotheses treat the state as the sole agency charged with bettering the lives of the citizens, thus, creating a notion among the citizens that the government is more responsible for the environment compared to the individual citizens (Barry, 2003 pp. 4-6; Barry, 1995 pg. 9). The lose grip on the concept of environmental citizenship resulting from the theories leads to a limitation of citizens’ duties to the environment (Murphy, 1993, p.269-292; Bell, 2005, p.179-194). Using Marshall’s framework to identify the duties of a liberal citizen is challenging as most of the duties are left to the government, with the citizens mostly meant to look up to the government for the provision of a better life. As already discussed, this view is particularly detrimental to environmental citizenship given that the government can be compromised to act based on the interests of a particular class of people whose aims may not sit well with the environment. Besides, the environmental issues continue to evolve on a daily basis, thus, creating the need for new approaches.
Civic Republicanism
Civic republicanism is one of the traditional citizenship approaches that emphasizes on the interlink between the freedom of an individual and their civic participation with respect to the promotion of the common good (Jackson, 2015 p.23-27). The concept draws its roots from the works of Plato, Plutarch, Aristotle, and Cicero. It entails two unique, but related approaches to citizenship. The first approach is the neo-Athenian civic republicanism, which draws from the civic humanism practiced in the Ancient Greece (Kawan, 2010). It states that persons only achieve a realization of their social nature when their society is democratic and facilitates their active participation in the political affairs (Isin, 2000, p.1-21; Sipii, 2008, p.71-103). Correspondingly, democratic participation seems to be the chief way of fostering and ensuring the freedom of the state. The second tenet of civic republicanism, known as neo-Romanian republicanism, shares similar notions as those of the neo-Athenian approach except for the fact that it represents a more decisive drift from the obvious and existential forms of democracy. In this case, an individual’s freedom is closely connected to that of the state (Isin, 2000 p. 19). Unlike its previous counterpart (liberal citizenship), it insists on the need to not only protect, but also promote the freedom of an individual (Pogge, 2001, p.6-24). The foundation of such principles seeks to prevent the government’s capability of exercising arbitrary power over its citizenry. The notion also seeks to promote the common good, which entails practices that benefit the entire society as opposed to the ‘private good,’ which only serves to benefit a section of the society (Sipii, 2008, p. 100).
Evidently, civic republicanism explains civic duty based on the two ideas of community and civic responsibility. In this respect, the primary argument stipulates that the duty of the citizens is always to abide by the law and ensure an active interaction with the political community (Purcell, 2003, p.564-590). The state makes the laws, and the requirement that the greatest civic responsibility is to abide by the law equals the liberal view that the citizens should always look upon the state as a source of common good (Kartel, 2002 p.4-7; Redclift, 2005, p.212-227). However, as already noted, the government may decide to act in the interest of the few bourgeoisies in the society, thus, adopting the private good over the common good. Thus, while civic republicanism is inclined to the common good, its very components seem to encourage the private good. To this end, the similarity between the liberal approach and the civic republicanism approach is evident. It then suffices to apply the criticisms of the liberal approach to the case of the civic republicanism, especially on the grounds of such similarities (Bartel, 2002, p.125). Besides, it is notable that at least two prominent philosophers, like Daniel and Rail, have contested each of the traditional approaches (Dunlap et al., 2000 p.425-442). Generally, in the times of civic republicanism, the communities that informed the notion of civic responsibility were too small to qualify the holistic application of this approach in the case of environmental citizenship.
The Contemporary Approach
Shifting away from the traditional approach, ecological citizenship is the most contemporary framework. The ecological citizenship is a branch of the post-cosmopolitan citizenship. Dobson (2007, p.161-164) defines the ecological citizenship as a variant of the environmental citizenship that focuses on the people’s obligation to minimize their ecological footprint and shifts the citizenship status from the public to the private eye. The foundation of the concept of ecological citizenship borrows from the belief that much of the energy consumption as well as waste production take place in the homes (Sandler, 2007). In this case, the ecological footprint represents the political space in the sense of an ecological (McCann, 2002, p.77-79; McCann, 1999, p.163-184). The current notions (traditional approaches) largely concentrate on the public sphere while the ecological citizenship seeks to expand the interventions into the private sphere. Ideally, the expansion and shift into the private sector indicate the endeavor to extend the cultural, legal and political aspects of the environmental citizenship with the aim of bettering the practice (McCann, 1999, p. 173). The main duty of an ecological citizen is to ensure that the ecological footprints contribute to a sustainable impact. As opposed to the rights and responsibilities in the traditional approaches, this obligation is not only non-reciprocal, but also asymmetrical (Dobson, 2006 p.447-451). In the modern application, the concept uses global warming to exhibit the asymmetrical tie of globalizing cause-and-effect, which creates the necessity for post-cosmopolitan duties (duties beyond the state) (Dobson, 2006 p. 449).
Hayward (2007, p.438) criticizes the ecological citizenship and take issue with the notion of viewing the ecological footprint as a space where people have political relations. While they acknowledge that unequal distribution of ecological resources results in duties, especially for those with excess footprint, they assert that such are the moral duties of humanity in a more general sense rather than political obligations of citizenship (Hayward, 2006 p.444). Similarly, Carter (2007, p.65) suggests that the ecological citizenship be nurtured at the stages of a reformed state by the deliberate mechanisms and procedures threatened by egalitarianism, democratization, and decentralization. However, he also notes that the effect of the ecological citizenship would affect the realms of both social and economic activities as a spillover from the political arena. In a critical examination, beyond sustainability, ecological citizenship proves to be a better and more modern approach (Latta, 2007 pp. 377-393). It perceives citizens and citizenship to have a co-defining relationship, thus, incorporates the ultimate ecological impact. Considering citizenship in the realm of the ecological paradigm makes overlooking the ecological impacts of the citizens impossible. Also, ecological citizenship is a holistic approach comprising transformations and fundamental principles, whose application facilitates the shift from the ‘ground up’ and beyond the traditional approaches (Smith, 1998, p.113-121).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the modern approach, ecological citizenship, is better than the traditional frameworks, liberal citizenship, and civic republicanism, given that, among other things, the contemporary approach employs promising strategies regarding globalization and sustainability. It is regarded as the framework through which both the need for individual accountability and responsibility are evident. Even so, there is a need that the ecological citizenship to be nurtured and constructed away from the governmental and public institutions, that is, at grassroots levels by like-minded groups whose main aim is to champion for sustainability. The traditional approaches have been in use for a relatively long period despite the inherent challenges and drawbacks that characterize their application. However, the contemporary transitions in energy consumption and waste production necessitate the adoption of a new and more holistic model that considers all environmental issues and emphasizes on sustainability. In that respect, while the ecological citizenship approach received criticism from various quarters, it remains better than the traditional approaches.