DOI: 10.5176/2251-2853_2.1.63
Authors: Peter Zabielskis
Abstract:
Multiple strains of China’s major philosophical / religious / cosmological ideologies variously emphasize harmony, respect, non-action, non-interference, or careful stewardship of human relationships to the natural world. Yet throughout most of its history, China’s land and resources have more often than not been subject to highly anthropogenic processes that are materially transformative: natural features have been rigorously controlled or shaped to suit human purposes. These material developments contrast sharply with a wide range of more gentle attitudes toward nature expressed in Taoist, Buddhist, and Confucian ideologies. This paper examines such contradictions, starting with early periods of Chinese political history, through to Mao’s “attack on nature” during The Great Leap Forward, but it concentrates on specifically Chinese characteristics regarding current environmental tensions, problems, policies, and imperatives it its current era of rapid development and economic growth. The primary questions asked are: Is there any relationship between current environmental problems and ways of thinking about or acting on them that facilitate the possibility of political change? Do newly emerging forms of environmental consciousness now replace other forms of political consciousness in China, such as class, given a new climate of prosperity and the rise of both capitalist enterprise and middle-class concerns about consumption and quality of life? Is environmental consciousness enough to tip the balance toward real political/social change? This paper makes the case that environmental management always reflects political structures and that the terms of engagements between social institutions and the natural world have always been significant. Whereas China has had a history of centralized authoritarianism, political isolation, and attempts to keep foreign influences at a distance, such stances are no longer viable given the global nature of environmental responsibility and concern. Current environmental political thought that recognizes that proper “governance” of environmental issues can not be left to governments alone. Also required are a wide range of localized, public / private, or government / community / individual partnerships. China seems to have recognized and affirmed such link-ups in the domain of economic development. Now the task seems to be to apply such partnerships toward the goal of environmental sustainability. In a political culture in which NGOs still need official recognition in the form of sponsorship by a government agency China still has a long way to go in realizing this widely recognized mode of environmental management success in which power is not just governmental but also popular. Given the scale of China’s global environmental impact, these are crucial questions for our time and they significantly affect China’s position within the world community.
Keywords: China, environment, governance, environmental activism, civil society
Updating...