The Role Of Distinction In Dialectical Analyses Of Socioecology

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.13.4.0449
• Pages: 449-475
• Published date: 20 October 2022
• Date: 20 October 2022
• Author: John Hedlund,Stefano B. Longo,Timothy P. Clark
• Subject Matter: social metabolism,ecology,environmental change,dialectics,materialism

World revieW of Political economy vol. 13 no. 4 Winter 2022

THE ROLE OF DISTINCTION IN DIALECTICAL

ANALYSES OF SOCIOECOLOGY

Metabolic Rift, World Ecology,

and Urban Political Ecology

John Hedlund, Stefano B. Longo and Timothy P. Clark

John Hedlund (left) is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology

and Anthropology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North

Carolina, USA. Email: jhedlun@ncsu.edu

Stefano B. Longo is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology

and Work Science at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Email:

stefano.longo@gu.se

Timothy P. Clark (right) is an Assistant Professor of Sociology,

specializing in environmental sociology and environmental studies, at

Catawba College, USA. Email: timothy.clark@ubc.ca

Abstract: The concept of metabolism, as applied to the interrelations between human

society and the rest of nature, has been one of the most fruitful iterations of socioecological

thought over the last few decades. Here we will examine specific orientations of metabolic

thought commonly employed in the social sciences, and their depiction of metabolism as

it relates to the “society–nature” problematic and elaborate on the role of the dialectical

method when analyzing socioecological processes and distinctions between society

and the rest of nature. We will review two overarching uses of metabolism: the theory

of metabolic rift and a hybridist metabolic approach to socio-nature. While the former

regards society as an emergent property of nature, the latter regards distinctions between

the two as undialectical and dualist. First, we review each of these approaches and how

they differ in their application of the dialectical method. Then we explore some of the

analytic implications of these differing approaches. We contend that a dialectical method

that allows for, and encourages, analytical distinction is essential, and that the metabolic

rift theory provides an important potential for advancing socioecological analysis in an

era of anthropogenic environmental change through its use of analytical distinction

between social and environmental phenomena.

Key words: social metabolism; ecology; environmental change; dialectics; materialism

DOI:10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.13.4.0449

450 JOHN HEDLUND, STEFANO B. LONGO AND TIMOTHY P. CLARK

WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/

Introduction

The concept of metabolism, as applied to the interrelations between human society

and the rest of nature, has been one of the most fruitful iterations of socioecologi-

cal thought over the last few decades. In what follows, we will examine specific

orientations of metabolic thought commonly employed in the social sciences, and

their depiction of metabolism as it relates to the “society–nature” problematic. In

doing so, we will elaborate on the role of the dialectical method when analyzing

socioecological processes and distinctions between society and the rest of nature.

We will review two overarching uses of metabolism: one as mediator of the

social within its larger ecological context, and one that removes the demarcations

between the two. In particular, we will analyze the theory of metabolic rift, as

representative of the former approach, and the use of metabolism in urban political

ecology (UPE) and world ecology, as representative of the latter. We combine the

last two frameworks—UPE and world ecology—into what we call hybridist

approaches to metabolism. While each of these approaches ultimately stem from

and maintain a foundation in Karl Marx’s analytical framework of historical and

dialectical materialism, as well as his conceptualization of social metabolism, they

diverge in their understanding of how such a framework is operationalized, and in

their orientation toward the metabolism of society and nature. Hybridist approaches

treat the analytical distinction between society, on the one hand, and the larger

worldly environment within which it is embedded, on the other, as undialectical

and dualist. The theory of metabolic rift instead posits that society is an emergent

property of nature, in which it is rooted.

Our analysis highlights the importance of dialectics, and particularly a materi-

alist dialectics, in understanding the different theoretical implications and analyti-

cal approaches that each of these frameworks represents. After introducing Marx’s

conceptualization of social metabolism, we discuss how each of the two

approaches, in turn, applies and theorizes Marx’s social metabolism. Then, we

will focus on how each approach differs with respect to their application of dialec-

tics to the relationship between society and nature, particularly focusing on the

role of distinction and its relation to unity in the dialectical method. Finally, we

discuss some of the implications of these differing approaches regarding an under-

standing of the social determinants of ecological harm.

Frameworks

Marx’s Social Metabolism

As Fischer-Kowalski puts it, “It was Marx and Engels who first applied the term

‘metabolism’ to society” (2002, 18). The context within which Marx developed