Environmental Social Work

Mel Gray, John Coates, Tiani Hetherington, Mel Gray, John Coates, Tiani Hetherington

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136212819
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Medical Theory, Practice & Reference

Social work has been late to engage with the environmental movement. Often working with an exclusively social understanding of environment, much of the social work profession has overlooked the importance of environmental issues. However, recently, the impact of and worldwide attention to climate change, a string of natural disasters, and increased understanding of issues around environmental justice has put the environment, sustainability, and well-being in the spotlight.

Divided into three parts, this field-defining work explores what environmental social work is, and how it can be put into practice. The first section focuses on theory, discussing ecological and social justice, as well as sustainability, spirituality and human rights. The second section comprises case studies of evolving environmental social work practice. The case studies derive from a range of areas from urban gardens and community organizing to practice with those affected by climate change. The final section – relevant to students and lecturers – looks at learning about environmental issues in social work.

Environmental Social Work provides an integrated theoretical and practical overview of why and how social work might respond to environmental factors affecting the societies and people they work with at international, national, local and individual levels.

Part 1

Theory

Mapping the terrain of
environmental social work

1 Radical equalitarian ecological justice

A social work call to action

Fred H. Besthorn

Social work must eventually change the central philosophical ground of its conceptualization of justice. In a practical sense, no matter how social work languages its idea of justice, in the end all justice is ecological (Fred Besthorn)

In September 2008, the small South American country of Ecuador became the first nation in the world to ratify a radical new constitution recognizing the inalienable rights of nature and natural systems (Revkin, 2008). Article one of the constitution states:

Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the bodies.

(Margil, 2008: 1)

Similarly, in April 2011, the Bolivian National Congress passed historic legislation entitled the Law of Mother Nature. This regulatory decree insures that nature and all of its natural systems have the right to life, the right to their normal regenerative processes, and the right to maintain their naturally occurring biodiversity. It emphasizes that all human activities must align with the natural world in achieving ‘dynamic balance with the cycles and processes inherent in Mother Earth’ (Environmental News Services (ENS), 2011: 1). Introductions to the Bolivian statute affirm nature as ‘a living dynamic system made up of the undivided community of all living beings, who are all interconnected, interdependent and complementary, sharing a common destiny’ (Buxton, 2011).

The Ecuadorian constitution and Bolivian legislation presages a radical reorientation in the way institutions, communities, and societies understand conventional notions of justice in the context of environmental concerns. They highlight the emergence in many countries around the world of initiatives to reconceptualize conventional notions of justice which are historically anthropocentric, emphasizing the human side of justice questions to the minimization of the interests of nature (Besthorn, 2011; Cullinan, 2010; Dryzek and Schlosberg, 2005; Margil, 2011). They force attention to the fact that ‘human societies can only be viable and flourish if they regulate themselves as part of the wider Earth community and do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental laws and principles that govern how the universe functions’ (Cullinan, 2010: 144-145).

Social work’s emerging concern for environmental justice, particularly the impact of deteriorating ecological conditions on marginalized human populations, has grown precipitously in recent years (Besthorn, 2011; Miller, Hayward, and Shaw, 2011). Clearly, many in the profession are critically reflective with respect to social work’s environmental responsibilities. This has yielded a robust scholarly agenda seeking to sensitize the profession to its role in the context of increasingly deteriorating environmental conditions (Coates, 2005; Hawkins, 2010; Jones, 2010; Lysack, 2010; Shaw, 2006). The profession’s commitment to social justice provides a conceptual launch-point underpinning this new awareness. Unfortunately, social work’s notion of social justice is lodged within broader contexts of modernity and liberal democratic theories defining what constitutes ‘just action’ and who or what deserves ‘just treatment’ (Besthorn, 2011; McLaughlin, 2006; Solas, 2008).

This chapter reviews social work’s historic commitment to social justice and the profession’s evolving interest in environmental justice. It traces the philosophical linkage between social and environmental justice and suggests that both are deeply embedded in utilitarian and anthropocentric worldviews. It examines ecological justice and its critique of modern systems of environmental justice which, according to proponents, have accomplished very little to actually protect the environment or to sustain ecological systems for future generations. Finally, it offers a call to action for social work to reevaluate and radically reconceptualize its notions of social and environmental justice to make them more consistent with core principles of a radical equalitarian ecological justice.

Social justice in social work: An organizing framework

Advocating for social justice is a longstanding tradition of Western social work (Healy, 2008; Ife, 2008a; Lundy and Van Wormer, 2007; Reichert, 2003; Schriver, 2010). The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2004) declared that ‘principles of ... social justice are fundamental to social work’ (p. 3). Social work has variously defined social justice as ‘an ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same basic rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits ... social justice entails advocacy to confront discrimination, oppression, and institutional inequities’ (Barker, 2003: 404). Concomitantly, human rights dovetail with social justice with respect to ‘the struggle for dignity and fundamental freedoms which allow the full development of human potential’ (IFSW, 1996).

Social justice is so intricately interwoven with social work that several have suggested the future of the profession depends upon the degree to which it is able to integrate social justice into an overarching conceptual framework unifying all social work theory and practice (Mohan, 1999; Wakefield, 1988, 1998). Undoubtedly, the combined focus on social justice and human rights is one of the profession’s most important conceptual orientations, even surpassing one of its most cherished orientations: the person-in-environment perspective (McLaughlin, 2006; Swenson, 1998).

Environmental justice and social work: An emerging synthesis

In recent years, a new generation of social workers, many from North America, Europe, and Australia, has spoken forcefully concerning the importance of incorporating environmental awareness into the profession’s theoretical formulations and practice modalities (Besthorn, 2008, 2011; Coates, 2003; Coates, Gray, and Hetherington, 2006; Hoff, 1998; Hoff and McNutt, 1994; Mary, 2008; McKinnon, 2008; Muldoon, 2006; Van Wormer and Besthorn, 2011; Zapf, 2009). This is a welcome development for a profession for too long unengaged in the emerging international consensus that Earth’s carrying capacity and its ability to support life are in deep trouble.

During this same period, social work has expanded its traditional emphasis on social justice to include a more dedicated focus to issues of environmental justice (Coates, 2004; Keefe, 2003; Hawkins, 2010; Jones, 2006; Miller et al., 2011; Rogge, 2008; Shaw, 2006). A spontaneous reading of social work’s national and international policy statements and ethical codes clearly illustrates the profession’s growing interest in linking social and environmental justice (Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW), 2010; British Association of Social Workers (BASW), 2002; Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW), 2005; International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), 2005; US National Association of Social Workers (NASW), 2008). Discerning this trend, Coates (2004) observes that ‘issues of well-being, participation and equality - longstanding concerns of radical and structural social work - rise in importance as social justice incorporates environmental justice’ (p. 6). Keefe (2003), in his review of the bio-psycho-social-spiritual dimension of social justice, notes that social work’s conventional notion of social justice is not complete ‘unless environmental justice and its temporal perspective and sustainability criteria are added’ (p. 6). Similarly, Hawkins (2010) submits that ‘social work must extend its mission to include environmental justice’ (p. 68).

While commendable, efforts to integrate environmental justice into social work’s core mission raise several important questions. First, what does environmental justice mean, both historically and philosophically, and how is it related to social work’s commitment to social justice? Second, does environmental justice provide a sound basis for social work action in the context of deteriorating environmental threats?

Environmental justice: Environment in service to humanity

The environmental justice movement, particularly in the United States, gathered momentum in the early 1980s (Agyeman, 2005; Bullard, 2005; Melosi, 2004; Page, 2006). Several studies, such as the 1983 United States General Accounting Office (USGAO, 1983) report on the state of hazardous waste landfills and the 1987 United Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice (Chavis and Lee, 1987) report entitled Toxic Wastes and Race, demonstrated that poor communities and communities of colour were saddled with highly inequitable shares of environmental harms. Thereafter, racism and the distribution of environmental ills became inextricably connected (Bullard, 2005). Chavis (1993) compellingly outlined the issue with the assertion that ‘People of color bear the brunt of the nation’s pollution problem’ (p. 3). From a broader frame, Dowie (1995) points out that while all Americans were ostensibly created equal ‘all Americans were not, as things turned out, being poisoned equally’ (p. 141). Over time, environmental justice became increasingly linked with and often an extension of social justice (Taylor, 2000). The environmental justice discourse offered promise in bridging a number of complicated social, ethical, political, and environmental issues into one overarching framework.

The logic of environmental justice is comparatively simple. The central interrogative is: how do societies do justice within the human species and among human communities in the context of environmental issues? Shaw (2006) suggests that nested within this core concern is the notion of ‘the inherent right of humanity to a clean and safe environment’ (p. 19). Every human being and human community is entitled to a life unencumbered by deleterious environmental conditions. For environmental justice advocates, the natural environment is presumed a relatively stable resource upon which humans depend for survival. The task of individuals, societies, institutions, and governmental entities is to ensure this standing reserve is rationally managed and protected for the benefit of human populations. When environmental risks or, in some cases, environmental calamities do impact human populations, the mission of environmental justice is to ensure that these environmental harms are not disproportionally distributed to any specific person or group.

Environmental justice, although relatively new to the justice discourse, shares important likenesses with liberal notions of social justice. Solas (2008) suggests that several philosophical frameworks have tended to inform modern, Western thinking on social justice ranging ‘from traditions that stress the concept of desert or merit, through those based on rights, to others for which the notion of a social contract is central’ (p. 814). Each of these traditions has a central concern with how members of a society share and ultimately distribute the benefits and harms of living. As Dobson (1998) points out, ‘at its broadest sense, social justice is about the distribution of benefits and burdens’ (p. 73). Benefits and burdens are endemic to human existence. They are in one sense - intermittently transitory and abundant - resources which, by virtue of merit, right, or contract, must be distributed in such a manner so as to ensure the viability and right-ordering of human affairs (Dobson, 1998; Gudorf and Huchingson, 2010).

Solas (2008) asserts additionally that the most prominent philosophical basis of social justice is rooted in the Enlightenment idea of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy which, at its most basic, is a form of consequentialism. That is, the rightness or wrongness of an action is assessed based on the consequences of such action. Actions which bring more harm than benefit are judged wrong while those bringing greater net or aggregate benefit than harm are right. Social justice, based on utilitarian principles, emphasizes an equitable, although not necessarily equal, distribution of primary benefits or goods, such as property, opportunities, and wealth in such a manner that tends to bring about the most good for the greatest number of people.

Environmental justice is an extension of the distributional and utilitarian aspects of modern Western ideas of social justice (Dobson, 1998; Drengson and Devall, 2010; Dryzek and Schlosberg, 2005; Naess, 2008; Schlosberg, 2009). It emphasizes the minimization of environmental harms and an equitable distribution of environmental benefits or goods, such as protecting clean water, maintaining species integrity, ensuring climate stability, and guarding wilderness areas in such a manner as to bring about the most good for the greatest number of people. In a significant way, environment is the common denominator for both social and environmental justice, but is understood in different ways. Environmental justice’s first task is to preserve the integrity of the natural environment and its resource potential for the benefit of human welfare. In other words, the environment exists in service to humanity. Social justice is concerned with the negative consequences primary benefits, including Earth’s natural capital, are inequitably distributed among human populations (Schlosberg, 2009). Thus, social justice and environmental justice have historically always pulled in the same direction.

Ecological justice: Humanity in service to environment

Social and environmental justice share a common interest in human beings and the natural world. But, much like social work’s struggle to clearly balance its commitment to both person-and-environment, the preponderance of energy, activity, and rhetoric of environmental justice falls squarely on the person side of the justice equation. When environmental justice speaks of justice, as Schlosberg (2009) points out, ‘their concern is most often (though not exclusively) for people and communities facing environmental risks, rather than on doing justice to an external, nonhuman nature’ (p. 130 original emphasis).

In recent years, the justice discourse has gradually expanded to include an articulation of ecological just...