Radical social ecology and the interpretation of modern U.S. history. (Volumes I and II)

The dissertation examines radical social ecology, pioneered to a great extent by Murray Bookchin, as a perspective for the interpretation of modern U.S. history. The Introduction specifies basic features of ecological theory which are incorporated into a radical social-ecological framework. In Part I, the project of developing the social-theoretic dimension of radical social ecology is carried forward by discussing the relationship between radical social ecology and various social-theoretic frameworks--liberalism, Marxism, feminism, critiques of racism and imperialism, and anarchism. The relationship of radical social ecology to each of these is articulated, with the purpose being to establish a basic body of critical tools which can be used in the interpretation of modern U.S. history.In Part II, the ecological and social-theoretic tools examined in Part I are put to use in the examination of U.S. history from 1880 to the present. The political economic aspects of environmental destruction are investigated, as are the aspects of social life which have historically been critical to the maintenance of a capitalist economy. It is argued that capitalist development in the United States is the immediate cause of environmental degradation, but that capitalist development is itself sustained in various important ways by sexism, racism, and organizational hierarchy. Part II also illustrates how radical social ecology itself historically arose as a response to the social-ecological problems of the modern United States.An overarching objective of the dissertation is to illustrate that various radical social-theoretics can be integrated effectively without undermining important contributions of each, and without demanding that one or another be seen as more fundamental in some general sense. As such, the dissertation attempts to use environmental problems as a locus around which radical theory and praxis can find a certain degree of unity which does not entail homogeneity. In addition, by tying theoretical work closely to a specific issue, the dissertation attempts to illustrate how debilitating debates about the general validity of particular interpretive strategies can be circumvented.