Start › Forums › Courses › Current Debates and Themes in Global Environmental History › Mon 3 March: Ecology, History and Unequal Exchange
- This topic has 36 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
Markus.
Author | Posts |
---|---|
Author | Posts |
March 4, 2014 at 13:13 #11802 | |
|
I took the liberty of creating a new topic for submitting our reflections. Hope it’s ok. Here are the instructions: |
March 4, 2014 at 13:13 #11803 | |
|
NISA DEDIC, REFLECTION ON THE SEMINAR “ECOLOGY, HISTORY AND UNEQUAL EXCHANGE” (3RD OF MARCH) |
March 4, 2014 at 13:23 #11804 | |
|
Reflection seminar – Alf Hornborg – 3/3/2014 Nick Hirschstein Define technology: Hornborg was during the seminar quite clear on what in his opinion technology stands for. What I found reoccurring with the book and his explanation on technology, ecology, and economy is that he seems point out that in all cases, it is not necessarily bad, if we use it consciously. As with our technology it has driven us to a globalized economy, and this is not sustainable. If we want to use technology sustainable we should use it more locally, and this will eventually result in a more equal exchange of goods than now is the case. However when I consider this, and everyone would trade locally, promoting equal exchange I would still think is that ‘the southern hemisphere’ on this planet would be in trouble. I would wonder if in countries with large populations would be able to sustain themselves like Europe would (obviously also because of the financial means in Europe and the already high standard of living). In short, if something like this would happen it would mean many people would have to die, in order to come to a ecological and economical sustainable world, which of course is not really optimistic, but that was the feeling I was left with. Hornborg does point out that something catastrophic needs to happen in order to force people (or rather the society/government/politics to a turning point. I would say that Hornborg has an interesting view on technology, however his sum-zero theory is not something I completely agree on. Using technology wisely has benefited many, and that can continue for ages to come, of course it has it’s downsides, but those are sides to work on, not to turn your back on. According to Hornborg the 1902 president of the American Chemical Association figured that by 1970 the US could be running on solar energy, and since it is now 2014, it is never going to happen according to Hornborg. I find this weak argumentation, especially with the knowledge now that we have about two world wars, which has not helped sustainability research. Even though he mentions these things shortly, I get this feeling on other parts of his argumentation as well. |
March 4, 2014 at 13:50 #11805 | |
|
Morag Ramsey Technology is a word that encompasses many dimensions to Alf Hornborg. In his book, Global Ecology and Unequal Exchange: Fetishism in a Zero-Sum World, he spends a great deal of time introducing his own ideas about technology and how they contrast with a more traditional understanding of the word’s definition. What seems to be one of Hornborg’s biggest grievances with ideas about technology is the way it is imagined as politically innocent (Hornborg, 35). For Hornborg, this idea of technology being politically innocent partly stems from the manner in which technology is separated from other cultural categories. As he stated in his first chapter, “’technology’, ‘economy’ and ‘ecology’ are cultural categories that train us to think about socio-ecological realities in particular ways.” (Hornborg, 8) This is problematic to Hornborg as it separates entities that he views as being completely intertwined, and allows people to disconnect actions and results occurring in one cultural category from the other. As Hornborg illustrated in his lecture, a brief examination of two global maps, one showing electricity at night and the other GDP per capita, illustrates very clearly that economics and technology are closely connected. As Hornborg simply stated, where there is money there is technology. This connection between economics, technology and ecology illustrates Hornborg’s bigger picture of technology. For Hornborg, the truest way to see technology is a result of a triangular exchange where someone gains the privilege of more time and space at the expense of someone else’s time and space. As Hornborg commented in chapter four of his book, “Technologies designed to solve one kind of problem will, ironically, tend to generate even more severe problems of another kind, for other groups of people.” (Hornborg, 67) To illustrate his point, Hornborg mentioned open pit copper mining in South America. This work dramatically underpays the miners for their work, and uses up a large swath of their land to extract the copper for exportation. There is a displacement of space and time from one area of the world to another in order to gain a technological advantage. (Which Hornborg would argue is not only a technological advantage, but an economic and an ecological one as well.) A process that leaves such economic, ecological and technological discrepancies between what can be seen as the global north and the global south is not politically innocent, which is what Hornborg stresses throughout his work. In addition to a looking at technology as a triangular exchange, Hornborg also points to how technology predisposes a global price difference, which only contributes to the inequality. He used the example of price difference between slave labour in Alabama versus labour in England to illustrate his point. While Hornborg’s treatment of technology is extremely interesting and thought provoking, I am slightly disappointed we were not able to hear his lecture on his local currency project as a way to implement a positive change. I was interested to hear how Hornborg’s idea of technology would develop if this triangular exchange disappeared, as he did not have time to expand on this idea. |
March 4, 2014 at 14:02 #11806 | |
|
A reflection of “technology” by Yongliang Gao Hornborg’s perception towards technology reminds me the legitimacy of rethinking technology in three facets. First of all, Hornborg and many others (including me) believe, technology is in close relation to money (in other words, ‘economy’ in Hornborg’s book). Since money can invest and innovate new technology and in turn, the new technology will become a powerful medium to make money. As a result, technology directly or indirectly causes or widens the gap between the rich and poor. Speaking on a global scale, technology, thus could be a good reason in explaining the lag-out of the developing countries and the ahead position of the developed nations. Hornborg interpreted this view in yesterday’s discussion by describing why the industrial revolution initiated in England not in China in the 19th century. Second, Horborg reveals that technology is meaningful in certain manners considering the fact that it saves space and time. However, during yesterday’s discussion, many of us refuted this idea because when technology saves us time, we naturally expect to do more things, or say to do things more efficiently. Therefore, the time that technology saves is merely a physiological feeling, not the real time. As a consequence, technology on one hand is undeniably able to compress the time of doing things (think of the time differential using email and mail). On the other hand, nevertheless, technology is ‘evil’ in a degree as it triggers social problems. For instance, technology makes human beings increasingly inertia and inpatient. Despite the truth, in my opinion, it is of necessity to categorize technology before blaming its drawbacks. From my perspective, the social problems created by technology are generally unnecessarily required technology (i.e. the technology that fulfills entertaining purposes). A few technologies bring more benefits to us such as medical devices and transportation. Last but most important, many scholars attribute technology to environmental degradation in an unreflective way. What I believe, however, it is not technology, but the insufficient technology that causes environmental problems. To exemplify, some argue that electronic companies cause electronic garbage as computers, phones and other electronic devices are buried in soil, which causes several environmental problems. My opinion is that if we possess advanced technology that is capable of recycling and reusing those metals, electronic components, wires, or whatever technology builds upon it, those environmental problems would never occur. Hence, instead of blaming technology for environmental problems, I would say, it is the inferior technology that we are currently using produces the environmental problems. |
March 4, 2014 at 14:07 #11807 | |
|
What is wrong with the nation-state as a unit of analysis for environmental history? Reading through Hornborg’s book there was hardly a point I did not agree with. I thought he put forward a well substantiated argument and methodology on how to study environmental history and environmental impacts that was not just theoretical but also included many anthropological examples. I was in the group talking about the nation-state and if it is a useful concept in the analysis of environmental history. While our discussion took us away from the above question, we did talk about the nation-state as a concept that should/should not be present in the study of environmental history. To reiterate my thoughts on yesterday’s discussion, I think that the concept of a nation-state should be part of any environmental historical research. The nation-state is the centre of political power nowadays, and it is also a place/space where the general public should (theoretically) have the power to propose new laws, enforce economic change, express their mind etc. Through their actions they should be able to change their countries’ economic outlook. It is also in the nation-state that politicians have the power to make economically irrational decisions and go against a dominant economic thought or the dominant economic system, like neoliberalism. Each nation-state should be seen as a living and changing entity within an economic system that is different from the other, and operates differently. So, in the current global capitalist system, the US does not operate like Sweden, which does not operate like China. This is because each nation-state is trying to do what is best economically and best for its people in the situation that it is at that point, and because the politicians leading the nation-states and their populations have different ideological outlooks. There are huge global corporations, which transcend the boundaries of the nation-state and which have the power to affect their economy and laws through lobbying. However, the nation-state would hardly allow the corporation to touch its sovereignty and the corporation would have to comply with the nation-state’s laws. While the nation-state is a necessary and useful concept in the analysis of environmental history, it is not useful as a unit of analysis, which is unchangeable and devoid of external contact. For one, the idea of a nation-state only started gaining ground some 300 years ago or less. Using the nation-state as a unit of analysis means that we lose some of the historical background of certain economic tendencies within the space now occupied by the nation state. Moreover, there are not many environmental histories just as there are not many environments in the world. The world’s environment operates in unity, so the non-appearance of El Nino can produce droughts in East Africa. So saying that the British Empire did not have any major environmental impacts in the 17th and 18th century because it did not deforest its own lands, but imported wood from East Europe would be a major historical fallacy. Nation-states, empires, regions, etc. have economic ties to other places. The economic ties do not stop at the boundary of that nation-state. That is why Hornborg thinks of the nation-state as not a useful unit of analysis of environmental history, but rather focuses on the economic ties themselves, as these are not bound by political entities, but are shaped by the dominant economic system and that system’s/people’s needs. |
March 4, 2014 at 15:02 #11808 | |
|
Karin Sillén, Reflection on the Alf Hornborg seminar 2014-03-03 What are the gains from applying a world-systems perspective on global environmental history and is anything lost in taking this approach? I think that a world-system perspective is a good way to analyze environmental issues. It gives a wider perspective. A world-system perspective shows the connections between local, regional, and global. By including the connections we are able to see how environmental problems “work” their way around the globe. For example, Hornborg (2012:11) writes about global terms of trade. In these terms we find unequal exchanges in many areas; labour, profit, and the distribution of resources in the world system. From this point of view I´m visualizing the world from a system that divides the world unequal. This unequal system needs to be recognized. I also believe that the local is important and must be included in analyzing environmental problems on a global scale. When I think about local I refer to, amongst many things, to the core and the periphery. Hornborg (2012:19) is taking up the problem with core vs. periphery. The core imports from the periphery, and the core imports more than it exports. The periphery works the other way around and exports more than they import.A consequence is that the periphery has less resources left to it´s citizens. Another problem is that the core exports polluting industries to the periphery. Here we see connections between rich and poor areas, and the unequal exchange in trade relations and industries. The core uses the periphery as a dumpster (Hornborg, 2012:55). A world-system perspective is highly useful when looking into these aspects, and the system of unequal change. The local is there, but the connection between different local areas and the exchanges between them are of much value in discussing the environment. All the above has to do with politics. Hornborg (2012:56) continues with that political issues are an important factor in a global society. When a nation is successful on the world arena, the nation has often relocated it´s own garbage somewhere else in the world. And the periphery has to take the downsides of political and capital success. This shows quite clearly the connections between areas in the world. World-system perspective is good; it reveals the connections that are important factors when dealing with environmental issues. But it also shows that it´s important to think about the local as well. |
March 4, 2014 at 15:05 #11809 | |
|
Kristina Berglund According to the instructions I will try to answer one of the questions discussed at the seminar, namely what in Hornborg’s perspective technology is. Hornborg rightfully argues that in modern society, we seem to have an unconditional faith in technology, a belief that technology is the answer to continued growth and development but also the solution to current climate change and environmental challenges. This view of technology is heard from politicians, economists as well as many ‘ordinary’ citizens. But in this view, technology is seen as detached from the social and physical realities that are prerequisites for the existence of the technology in the first place. In other words, we put an immense faith in technology without questioning the underlying factors that made it possible, namely unequal resource transfers causing environmental and social degradation in the areas where the resources are exploited from. Therefore, Hornborg question wheather the modern concept of technology isn’t just a ‘cultural illusion’, and a way of organizing society that turns the blind eye to the fact that technology is a zero-sum game where we in the rich part of the world “save time and space at the expense of humans and environments in the poorer parts”. |
March 4, 2014 at 15:19 #11810 | |
|
According to Hornborg, what is technology? |
March 4, 2014 at 15:24 #11811 | |
|
In the discussion group I joined we explored the gains of applying a world-systems perspective on global environmental history, and asked if anything is lost in taking this approach. The world-systems perspective necessitates that the principal unit of analysis is the earth in it’s core and periphery divisions. By identifying the fluid dynamics between core and periphery in global environmental history we are capable of moving beyond static taxonomies and conceptualizations of state, and trajectories and impediments of development. Using world systems perspectives, which was developed as a way of understanding the capitalist system in which we currently operate, we are capable of tracing the formation of contemporary macro-scale inequalities of access to labor, resources, land, and capital. Another aspect of world-systems theory is the emphasis on inter-disciplinary approaches specifically drawing on and trying to integrate research in social and natural sciences as well as humanities, which is all useful I think for accounts of global environmental history. |
March 4, 2014 at 15:34 #11812 | |
|
Current Themes and Debates in Global Environmental History What is wrong with the nation-state as a unit of analysis for environmental history? I was in the group talking about the nation-state and if it is a useful concept in the analysis of environmental history. I would like to explain my point of view from another perspective . I think the way to evaluate the ecological environment is not built on the basis of a fair evaluation , the evaluation results of this approach is to make the most backward developing countries bear the blame pollution of the environment , but did not take into account the globalization of trade as the historical background. Measure ecological status should not only be limited to who developed the resources, but also be clear who is the ultimate consumer of resources. |
March 4, 2014 at 15:34 #11813 | |
|
Current Themes and Debates in Global Environmental History What is wrong with the nation-state as a unit of analysis for environmental history? I was in the group talking about the nation-state and if it is a useful concept in the analysis of environmental history. I would like to explain my point of view from another perspective . I think the way to evaluate the ecological environment is not built on the basis of a fair evaluation , the evaluation results of this approach is to make the most backward developing countries bear the blame pollution of the environment , but did not take into account the globalization of trade as the historical background. Measure ecological status should not only be limited to who developed the resources, but also be clear who is the ultimate consumer of resources. |
March 4, 2014 at 16:32 #11814 | |
|
Seminar 3: Ecology, History and Unequal Exchange Ellen Lindblom |
March 4, 2014 at 17:03 #11815 | |
|
Reflection on Alf Hornborg (2011): Global Ecology and Unequal Exchange – Fetishism in a Zero-Sum World Question 3: What is technology? Alf Hornborg’s main argument relies on the interconnectedness of the world: social and environmental problems are the consequence of an unequal exchange of resources which is concealed by dominant ways of representing economic and technological progress (Hornborg 2011: 102). Thus, the very aim of Environmental History should not be to to conduct comparisons between social-environmental phenomena but to analyze the connections between them. As Hornborg specified in his lecture, the rationale modern technology is to save time and space. Labor is to be exercised and land used more efficiently – for those who can afford technology and on the cost of those who can not. This “social strategy” requires price differences in parts of the world. The steam engine in England could ony be developed to an industrial scale because the costs of labor and land were cheaper on US cotton plantages, the latter providing the resources and buying the end product of the early English textile industry. According to Hornborg, the reason why technology is perceived as a “cornucopia”, a gift of Western development, is fetishism: “The mystification of unequal relations of social exchange through the attribution of autonomous agency or productivity to certain kinds of material objects, for instance money” (definition given in the lecture). Furthermore, Hornborg distinguishes between two kinds of technology. The first one is based on prices and thus the appropriation of time and space of others. The second one is locally developed and thus can be beneficial for all members of a society. While the first one can be found among basically all modern technologies, the second one can only be achieved in a society which is organized in a radically different way. Hornborg’s approach is strongly compelling. Even more, it is almost impossible to disagree with his simple but critical explanation for environmental and social crises: the world as the reservoir of a vast zero-sum game which led to an unequal distribution of resources that is concealed through the fairy tale about technology by the global elites. To disagree with his perspective would be to disagree with the connectedness of the world, with the dominance of unequal exchanges, with technology as not inherently good, progressive and problem-solving. To not follow his line of thought would entail to leave out fundamental aspects of how the modern world is constituted and functioning. To do so might even contribute the vast “project” of concealing the unequal exchange of human, natural and financial resources. His logic, it seems, is water-proof. However, there is something that made me feel uneasy while I was reading and listening to him. I do not think it was the insight that the whole Western world, including me and everyone else in the classroom, is sitting in the boat of the global conquerors. The idea of an unequal access and use of resources among the world’s citizens is not new for me: I think everyone who feels convicted to environmentalist ideas knows the internal struggle when buying or using something that is not locally produced or served. The same applies to a critical stance towards the world healing and saving effects of technology. In this sense, Hornborg offers everyone who feels that “something is going wrong out there” with a global framework, a connection of all dots of unease, or in other words, an ontology for environmentalists. Nevertheless, my strange feeling did not come from a disagreement with Hornborg, but from the way he presented his arguments. Although he is disguising the ideological character of technology, economic growth and sustainable development, he is not clear about his own normative assumptions. Problematizing any unequal exchange of resources (whatever they might be) makes only sense from a strong egalitarian point of view. It is based on the assumption that the world’s resources had been distributed equally in a distant past or that it is possible and desirable to achieve such a situation in the future. Of course such a perspective is shared by the large majority of Hornborg’s readers – or as Anneli called it yesterday, 80% of the audience – but at least I missed a clear positioning of Hornborg. That is not to say that he has to label himself as a (Post)Marxist or something else but to clarify why asymmetrical accumulations and machine fetishes are undesirable phenomenas of the modern world. It would make his arguments more practical and accessable for people who want to engage in a struggle for a more equally and sustainable globe but miss a scholarly base for their endeavor. Of course, one can argue that Hornborg would be criticized for losing his objectivity as a professor of a Swedish university which should be maintained more than anything else. But I am sure that he would be more satisfied about a group of young people holding up his book – in a David Graeber way – while protesting than a couple of righteous scholars. |
March 4, 2014 at 17:11 #11816 | |
|
Archie Davies Reflection: According to Hornborg, what is Technology? This was a fascinating part of the discussion and lecture. Hornborg’s approach to technology is a provocative one. His understanding of technology is multiple. He understands it firstly as the result of price differentials between different parts of the world, based on different valuations of human labour time and natural space. He therefore understands technology as an appropriation of time and space by those who can afford it, at the expense of those who cannot. This leads him to understand technology as an objective consequence of global ecological unequal exchange. I find this a very useful way of reconsidering technology, and assigning it new ontological roles. It allows us to incorporate technology as an active part of analysis, and as a feature of criticism within a consideration of world systems. To this extent I think Hornborg’s analysis is extremely perspicacious and compelling. However, I do find there to be limitations to Hornborg’s understanding of technology. The first of these is the universality with which he treates technology. His consideration is extremely useful for thinking about the steam enging in 19th century Britain, but is perhaps less helpful for thinking about a new technology for water purification, or the invention of mobile money information technology. It does not seem to me that these are examples of appropriations of time and space by some at the expense of others, and nor do they necessarily fulfil the criterias of being fetishised, which is another key feature of Hornborg’s consideration of technology. Renewable energy technology was the subject of significant criticism from Hornborg during the lecture. Much of his analysis about the over-stating of the case for some types of renewable technology is absolutely vital to a realistic assessment of how far the current system is from being sustainable, and his clarion call that we must be honest about the causes of ecological disruption is critical. However, I do not subscribe to his ultimate conclusion that there is nothing to be gained from seeking new technological solutions to human/ecological problems. This is key to his argument that about a ‘zero-sum world’. I do not think that it is the same thing to be sceptical, realistic and scrupulous about which types of technologies can be useful for a transition to a less ecologically disastrous global system, as to say that all technology is fetish and therefore all technological optimism is misguided. This may be an overstatement of Hornborg’s case, but not much of one! (He is willing to craft out exceptions for medical and information technologies, but this does not go very far.) In conclusion, Hornborg’s lesson that we must be analytical, critical and suspicious of technology, what it means, how it is produced and its role in the global system is hugely important. However, I would argue that his approach should be applied not to all ‘Technology’, but rather to to some technologies and to ideas of ‘Technology’ which have been historically, socially and ecologically contextualised. |
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.