Sociology in the

Anthropocene

ft
ra
D

Maria Isabel Guimarães, Sandra Coelho & Cláudia Amador

Porto, setembro de 2024

D
ra
ft
 Contents
Introduction 1
Planetary boundaries 5
1. The Anthropocene and planet boundaries 5
2. The Safe Operating Space for Humanity (SOSH) 8
The context of sociology 11
Émile Durkheim, the rst true sociologist 13
a. The establishment of sociology as a science 13
Division of labour in society 13
Dynamic density and the interconnected worlds 14
The anomic division of labour 15
Biological facts as “lower facts” 15
Georg Simmel, the sociologist in doubt 18
b. Society and social change 18
Metropolis 18
Money, consumption and nature 19
Max Weber and the Double-Edged Sword of Modernity 24
ft
c. Rationality and disenchantment 24
Modernity was about industrial capitalism 24
ra

The Protestant Ethic: Weber and the Critics 25

Modern Science, Technology and Capitalism 27
The Iron Cage revisited: a possible Weberian approach to Taylorism 31
D

Weber, economic action and the environment 33

Karl Marx and the Anthropocene 38
d. Exploitation: the operative word to decode capitalism. 38
Introducing Marx 39
Marx, the historian and sociologist 39
Modes of production: Primitive and Ancient 40
Modes of production: Feudal and Capitalist 41
Table 1 46
Natural instruments of production versus “civilised” instruments of production 46
Marx, the economist 48
Confronting Smith 48
fi
 Critique of political economy and alienation 50
Concrete Analysis and Worker Alienation 51
Alienation as a historical development 52
Alienation and Capitalism 52
Alienation within the act of labour 53
Exploitation 54
Irreconcilable interests 54
Marx's theory of exploitation: A deeper look 56
Marx and Ecology: A Revaluation 59
Misunderstood Green? 59
Science and Policy. 60
The Metabolic Rift 61
Marx and the e ect of scienti c discoveries on his Theories. 61
How Can Classical Insights Inform Current Discussions on Sustainability 65
Sustainability, development and Planetary Boundaries 68
Setting the Stage 68
Rethinking Economics: Beyond Traditional Growth 70
ft
From Progress to development and growth 71
Alternative Economic models 74
Table 2 78
ra

Contrasting the Spaceman and Cowboy economies 78

Degrowth 81
The economics of degrowth 83
D

Degrowth communism 85
The UN SDGs 88
Framework interactions 88
The SDGs and the Green Economy 88
The SDGs and Degrowth 89
SDGs and Degrowth critique of neoliberalism 90
Critical Analyses 91
Final Re ection 99
References 104
fl
ff
fi
Figures and Tables

Figure 1 06

Table 1 46

Table 2 78

ft
ra
D
 Sociology in the
Anthropocene

Introduction

Imagine a world where economic growth is boundless, prosperity is limitless, and

progress is measured solely by the expansion of wealth and consumption. In this
idealised world of unrestrained growth, skyscrapers pierce the clouds, factories hum
continuously, and markets over ow with abundance. It is a world of boundless
opportunity, where the pursuit of pro t reigns supreme and the promise of endless
prosperity entices all. But as we move deeper into this fantastical domain of enduring
growth and unrestrained development, a troubling realisation begins to dawn. Beneath
ft
the glowing appearance of progress lies a desolate truth - a truth that threatens to unravel
the very fabric of our existence. For in this world without limitations on economic growth,
ra

where wealth ows freely and resources are inexhaustible, we are rushing towards a
precipice of our own making. Scientists started to mention the planetary boundaries In
the Stockholm Resilience Centre a team of international researchers led by Rockström
purported the planetary boundaries framework. (Rockström et al., 2009). The concept
D

describes the invisible thresholds that de ne the safe operating space for humanity within
the limits of our planet. The researchers emphasise that the planetary boundaries are
critical Earth System processes that, if crossed, could lead to irreversible and potentially
disastrous environmental changes. In their view, it is essential to manage these processes
e ectively to avoid catastrophic tipping points.

The urgency of the science demands a new global deal for sustainable
development. As proposed by Rockström et al. (2009), the planetary boundary (PB)
framework necessitates a critical re-evaluation of traditional economic models,
particularly the assumptions of perpetual growth challenged by Kosoy (2012). This
interdisciplinary approach, advocated by Ste en et al. (2015) and Whiteman et al. (2012),

1
ff
fl
fl
fi
fi
ff
 highlights the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic systems,
requiring diverse perspectives to navigate sustainability challenges. The gravity of this
challenge necessitates an integrated approach. However, we can construct a
comprehensive understanding of this complexity if we draw on insights from the planetary
boundary framework, interdisciplinary perspectives, foundational views, and critiques of
neoclassical economics. In other words, the seriousness of the problem and the inherent
intricacies require an integrated approach that lays the groundwork for exploring
pathways towards a more sustainable and inclusive global economy that aligns with the
principles of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The planetary boundaries framework works as a harsh reminder of the nite nature
of our Earth's resources and the delicate balance that sustains life as we know it. Here
lies the essence of the dilemma: the clash between the relentless pursuit of economic
growth and the imperative of environmental sustainability. We now face the challenge of
deciding between prosperity and peril or less prosperity and keeping life going. This is
when sociology emerges as a guide (Scipes, 2023) providing insight and understanding,
o ering a particular perspective to make sense of the complex interplay of social
dynamics, economic systems, and environmental challenges. Sociology is a social
science established in the age of the Anthropocene, as a result of the impact of industrial
ft
capitalism in society. The speci city of the sociological enquiry can help, as Klinenberg et
al. (2020) assert, to understand and analyse the core problems emerging from the climate
ra

crisis. It can also help to identify conditions that may facilitate necessary social and
cultural transformations. Economic sociology is especially well-prepared for this task, as
it already focuses on economic institutions and has been concerned, since the very
beginning, with human economic behaviour (Fevre, 2003). Such concerns feature in the
D

work of the classical sociologists, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. In the
beginning, sociology was described as the science of social facts (Durkheim, 2004) many
de nitions of the subject matter of sociology followed. For example, Giddens (1986)
describes it as the study of institutions of advanced capitalist societies.
What the many de nitions have in common is that they bind the discipline to the
social and consecrate the separation between human societies and nature. However, the
destructive e ects of industrial capitalism preoccupied classical sociologists. We see how
Marx took a stand against the exploitation of nature, and how Durkheim, Simmel and
Weber also contemplated the changes in icted on nature as industrialism took over at the
beginning of the 20th century. However, the pressing social problems were indeed central
to the perspectives they developed. And until the late 1970s nature and the environment

2
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
fl
fi
 occupied a marginal position in mainstream sociology. From the 1980s onwards the
environmental crisis became prominent, and sociologists started to look at the natural
world. Sometimes they did it to ascertain the damage caused by economic activities
(REF). Other times they did it viewing society as an inseparable part of nature (REF). The
undeniable climate emergency is causing a major shift in the scienti c world. In the
natural sciences eld, scholars appeal there are appeals for interdisciplinarity, as
contributions from the social sciences will allow for the comprehensive and integrative
views deemed necessary to study climate challenges. In the social sciences, the same
message ows, perhaps in an even more radical tone to comprise appeals for crossing
discipline boundaries. The Doughnut framework, for example, is the outcome of
collaboration between both domains.

The Doughnut Framework is a visual representation of a sustainable economy.

Developed by British economist Kate Raworth (2017a, 2017b), it balances essential
human needs and planetary boundaries, consisting of two concentric circles. The Inner
Circle represents the social foundation, which includes the minimum standards of living
necessary for human well-being, such as access to food, water, health care, education,
and social equity. Falling below this circle indicates deprivation of basic human needs.
The Outer Circle represents the ecological ceiling, which includes the environmental limits
ft
that must not be exceeded to maintain a stable and healthy planet, such as climate
change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Exceeding this circle leads to environmental
ra

degradation. The space between the two circles is the "safe and just space for humanity,"
where social and environmental goals are met simultaneously. The framework encourages
policies and practices that promote sustainable development by ensuring that all people
D

can thrive without overshooting the planet's ecological limits. The doughnut framework
calls for an economy that revolves around human well-being and ecological sustainability.

When we think about society, nothing is separate or bounded. And our present
context forces us to think about society from a planetary perspective. Looking at the
planet, the same fact emerges: the natural and the human worlds are all part of the same
planet. And the safe operating space for humanity is in peril (Richardson et al., 2023). For
that reason, when we talk about sustainability the concern is no longer with ensuring a
good life for generations to come. The planet boundaries framework tells us that
sustainability has become an urgent problem for extant generations, and those to come.
Sustainability is a universal concern.

3
fl
fi
fi
 There are no scienti c monopolies to address it, and sociologists share the same
concern. In this publication, we seek to show how a sociological view resorts to all
available information to make sense of reality. Since the very beginning sociologists have
been using other disciplines as research and analytical tools. So, we start with the
classical sociologists to explore the intersection of economic sociology, sustainability, and
the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We seek to shed light on
ways towards a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable future for all by deconstructing
the complex web of relationships between economy, society, and environment. The next
section brie y describes the concept of planetary boundaries and accounts for its latest
assessment. It follows an outlook of how the classic sociologists addressed society, the
economy and the environment thus creating the basis for economic sociology, among
other specialised areas. The nal sections address the environmental consequences of
economic activity as seen through the speci c outlook of economic sociology and with a
special critical insight into economic rationality.
ft
ra
D

4
fl
fi
fi
fi
 Section1

Planetary boundaries

1. The Anthropocene and planet boundaries

The Earth's recent history can be divided into two distinct periods: the Holocene
and the Anthropocene. The Holocene, a stable and warm epoch that began roughly
11,700 years ago, witnessed the rise of human civilisations and ourishing
agriculture. During this time, the Earth's climate, biodiversity, and ecosystems functioned
in equilibrium, under minimal human in uence. However, this period of relative stability
came to an abrupt end with the dawn of the Anthropocene. The term "Anthropocene"
signi es a new geological epoch where human activities signi cantly a ect Earth's
systems (Kosoy et al., 2012; Richardson et al., 2023; Saunders, 2015). This era, triggered
ft
by the Industrial Revolution, is characterised by widespread environmental changes like
climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and habitat destruction. The development of
industrialisation, urbanisation, agriculture, and resource extraction all contributed to these
ra

environmental changes, marking a stark departure from the stable conditions of the
Holocene and ushering in an era of increasing uncertainty for Earth's systems.
D

Scientists concerned about the state of the planet developed the concept of
Planetary Boundaries (PB). This groundbreaking framework helps us understand and
manage the complex interactions between human activities and the Earth System. The
core idea revolves around "safe limits for human-induced environmental change,"
speci cally de ning a "safe operating space for humanity" within the Earth's biophysical
processes (Rockström, Ste en, et al., 2009, p.1). This framework allows humanity to
operate sustainably without pushing Earth's systems beyond their tipping points.
Researchers (Rockström, 2009; Rockström et al., 2009), identi ed nine planetary
boundaries, all crucial for maintaining Earth's stability and the well-being of human
societies. These boundaries include climate change, biodiversity loss, land-use
change, freshwater use, and ocean acidi cation, among others. Transgressing these

5
fi
fi
fi
ff
fl
fi
fi
fi
fl
ff
boundaries risks triggering abrupt and irreversible environmental changes with
catastrophic consequences for ecosystems and human societies.

The Planetary Boundaries (PB) framework proposes ve critical environmental

thresholds for human activity. These boundaries include climate change, measured by
atmospheric CO2 concentration; biodiversity loss, the rate of species extinction;
biogeochemical ows, focusing on nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; freshwater use; and
land-system change, encompassing deforestation and sustainable land use practices
(Rockström et al., 2009). Climate change, for instance, refers to the rising concentration
of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, in the atmosphere. Exceeding this boundary, as we
have, disrupts ecosystems and societies through rising temperatures, sea levels, and
extreme weather events (Richardson et al., 2023; Saunders, 2015). Similarly, exceeding
boundaries for biodiversity loss, biogeochemical ows, freshwater use, and land-system
change can have severe consequences. Biodiversity loss weakens ecosystems and their
ability to provide essential services. Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs disrupt
water quality and ecosystems. Overusing freshwater resources and unsustainable land
use practices threaten natural habitats. Fig. 1 compares the boundaries assessed and
crossed since 2009. Richardson et al. (2023) claim that transgressing these boundaries
ft
can trigger cascading e ects, tipping points, and potentially irreversible changes to
Earth's stability.
ra

FIGURE 1
Planet Boundaries assessed and crossed
D

Source: Stockholm Resilience Centre

6
fl
ff
fl
fi
 Two remaining global boundaries deserve detailed attention. Aerosol loading and
novel entities establish the limits on the amount or impact of aerosols and novel entities
that can be introduced into the Earth system without causing signi cant harm to
environmental processes. The boundary for novel entities

is now restricted to truly novel anthropogenic introductions to the Earth System.

These include synthetic chemicals and substances (e.g., microplastics, endocrine
disruptors, and organic pollutants); anthropogenically mobilised radioactive
materials, including nuclear waste and nuclear weapons; and human modi cation
of evolution, genetically modi ed organisms and other direct human interventions
in evolutionary processes (Richardson et al., 2023, p.6).

The researchers claim that these substances are so dangerous to the Earth System
that their planetary boundary should be set at Holocene-like conditions, and that means
zero release of synthetic chemical compounds unless their impacts have been minutely
assessed. That has not happened yet. Researchers showed that a vast percentage of
untested chemicals inundate the environment. As such, the “novel entities” boundary is
also transgressed. The last planetary boundary to consider is global aerosol loading.
Richardson et al., (2023) assert the increase in anthropogenic aerosol loading. However,
ft
they emphasise the di culties of assessing changes in natural aerosols such as desert
dust and soot from wild res due to model discrepancies. Observational evidence
suggests a global doubling of dust deposition since 1750, with the Sahara now being the
ra

largest dust source region. Historical changes in the Sahara's landscape, from a
vegetated area to a dust source, have been linked to shifts in monsoon rainfall patterns
and vegetation-climate interactions. This means that quantifying the aerosol-loading
D

planetary boundary is complex due to diverse natural and human sources, variations in
chemical composition, seasonality, and spatial distribution. Nonetheless, the current level
of anthropogenic aerosol loading, which includes both natural and human-caused
sources of aerosols in the atmosphere, is within the de ned safe operating space or limit
at the global scale. Richardson et al., (2023) acknowledge the possibility of regional
transgressions of aerosol loading, indicating variations in aerosol levels across di erent
geographical areas.

7
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
 2. The Safe Operating Space for Humanity (SOSH)

The "Safe Operating Space for Humanity" (SOSH) is A key concept within the PB
framework. This zone represents the environmental limits within which human societies
can thrive sustainably, without causing irreversible damage to Earth's systems. The
concept of SOSH describes the range of environmental conditions within the planetary
boundaries where human societies can thrive and maintain well-being. It means a
sustainable equilibrium between human activities and the Earth's capacity to support
them without causing irreversible harm to the planet's systems. Transgression of the
planetary boundaries entails the risk of irreversible damage to key Earth system
processes that could jeopardise human civilisation. Staying within the safe operating
space requires that human societies avoid crossing critical thresholds, namely
biodiversity loss, climate change, or disruptions to essential ecosystem services. The safe
operating space for humanity emphasises the importance of responsible management of
the planet's resources and acknowledging the interconnectedness between human well-
being and the health of the natural world. The PB framework includes two main indicators
of the safe operating space for humanity (Richardson et al., 2023): the net primary
production (NPP) and human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP). The latter
ft
refers to the amount of organic matter plants produce through photosynthesis and
represents the energy available for consumption by organisms in an ecosystem. It is a key
ra

indicator of ecosystem productivity and its role in sustaining life on Earth by supporting
food webs and carbon recycling is central.

The human appropriation of net primary production quanti es the impact of human
D

activities on the natural ecosystems‘ NPP. In other words, it shows how activities, such as
agriculture, forestry, and land use changes, alter or reduce the potential natural NPP. Its
importance is that it represents the foundation of life on Earth as it quanti es the rate at
which plants produce biomass, the base of the food chain. Consequently, high HANPP
disrupts natural ecosystems by exceeding their ability to regenerate biomass, potentially
leading to biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and disruptions in ecosystem services.
Quantifying HANPP allows researchers to assess the extent to which human activities
impact ecosystems (Richardson et al., 2023). Monitoring HANPP is essential for
sustainable resource management and ensuring that human demands do not exceed the
regenerative capacity of ecosystems. NPP and HANPP serve as important indicators that
can help assess the state of ecosystems, human impacts on natural productivity, and the

8
fi
fi
overall sustainability of human activities within the safe operating space for humanity. By
monitoring and managing NPP and HANPP levels, we can strive to ensure that human
societies operate within the boundaries of the Earth's capacity to support them without
causing irreversible harm to the planet's systems.

The interplay between NPP and HANPP brings back the notion of the
Anthropocene. It is the geological epoch characterised by a significant impact of human
activities on the Earth's ecosystems and environment. It is often considered a new
geological era, distinct from the Holocene, which preceded it. From about the Industrial
Revolution, human activities a ected ecosystem functioning and planetary boundaries.
Human appropriation of net primary production (NPP), as measured by human
appropriation of NPP, has increasingly revealed how human activities are exceeding the
Earth's capacity to provide resources and support life. That is to say that the interplay
between humanity and nature became disruptive causing the Earth systems to lose
resilience. Going back in Human history, we realise that the Anthropocene coincided with
some of the paramount changes that occurred rst in Europe but would rapidly a ect the
rest of the world. The 19th century witnessed rapid social change, and its complexity
seemed undeniable. Social theorists felt a pressing need to understand the meaning of
ft
this change, its causes, and its potential consequences. This urgency led to the birth of
sociology; a new discipline dedicated to studying these complex social phenomena. In
ra

the next section, we invite you to join us on a discovery journey of some contributions of
Marx, Durkheim, Simmel and Weber, four classical sociologists whose work explored the
impacts of human actions and thoughts on society. They looked at the in uence of
D

industrial capitalism, social divisions, and economic behaviour (economic rationality). In

contemporary society, addressing the destruction of the natural environment and
understanding the implications of human actions on nature remain challenging. This
highlights the importance of examining our relationship with the natural world and
recognising the long-term consequences of our behaviours, emphasising the urgent need
to address environmental issues that may seem like a recent problem if viewed in
isolation.

9
ff
fi
fl
ff
 Summary

The Stockholm Resilience Centre highlights two critical global boundaries: aerosol
loading and novel entities, which limit the introduction of aerosols and synthetic
substances into the Earth system to prevent environmental harm. Novel entities include
synthetic chemicals, radioactive materials, and genetically modi ed organisms, ideally
restricted to Holocene-like conditions, meaning no untested synthetic compounds should
be released. However, many untested chemicals currently pollute the environment,
breaching this boundary. Aerosol loading is increasing, complicating assessments due to
the variability of its sources. Data indicate that dust deposition has doubled since 1750,
especially from the Sahara, which has transformed from a vegetated area to a major dust
source due to climate interactions. The idea of “Safe Operating Space for Humanity"
(SOSH), represents the environmental limits for sustainable human thriving. It enhances
responsible resource management to avoid crossing critical thresholds that could cause
irreversible damage to Earth's systems, such as biodiversity loss and climate change. Key
indicators of SOSH include net primary production (NPP) and human appropriation of net
primary production (HANPP), which assess ecosystem productivity and human impact on
ft
resources. The interplay between NPP and HANPP illustrates the Anthropocene, marked
by signi cant human in uence on the Earth, highlighting the urgent need to understand
ra

the environmental consequences of human actions amid ongoing ecological and

sustainability challenges.
D

Self-assessment

- What are Planetary Boundaries?

- Can you de ne the concept of planetary boundaries and explain its signi cance in the
context of environmental sustainability?

- What are the Nine Planetary Boundaries?

- What are the speci c nine planetary boundaries identi ed by Rockström et al. (2009), and
what represents each boundary?

10
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
 Section 2
The context of sociology

Imagine the European society in the last decades of the 19th century. Everything
was changing. In the aftermath of the French and Industrial revolutions, change soared.
The old social order was shattered, with a new one underway, still unde ned, but already
disturbing. Money was becoming more important than birth, and the old aristocracy,
whose power and wealth depended upon land property, was going bankrupt. The
bourgeoisie had accumulated capital with merchant activities and dominated the
economy but craved. The ideals of liberty, equality and solidarity inherited from the
French Revolution were everywhere. Technical innovations transformed the world of work.
Fuming factories replaced the old artisanal shops, engulfed cities in smog, and polluted
rivers. Skilled artisans were forced into waged labour. Industrial workers lived in crowded
and unsanitary quarters that were rife with disease. Children populated factories and
mines doing hazardous work instead of going to school, creating outrage in certain social
ft
groups. Outraged by child labour, Robert Owen created an infant school for his workers’
children, fostering a unique and revolutionary educational system at New Lanark in 1816
ra

(Owen, 1824). In the next decade, for example, Charles Dickens published Oliver Twist
describing the travails of an orphan boy in a workhouse. Changes happened mostly in the
economic eld where unemployment and strikes threatened an increasingly shaken social
order.
D

Social theorists disagreed about the meaning of change in society. it was all a sign
of progress and scienti c development and the result would be inevitably positive. The
positivist optimism was not universal, however. Conservatives viewed the economic
change with nostalgic eyes and thought the manufactory industries were destroying the
traditional way of life (Fevre, 2003; R. Nisbet, 2017) Marx and Engels considered what
was happening just the inevitable course of history. Changes resulted from the
development of capitalism. Durkheim disagreed with Marx and Engels, and to some
extent, with the positivists. Progress and scienti c development were not necessarily
good things. However, the threats to social order were not intrinsically the result of
capitalism. The answer to this puzzle was somewhere and as Durkheim studied it, he

11
fi
fi
fi
fi
initiated the sociological enquiry and paved the way to establishing sociology as a social
science. He also de ned a unique subject matter for the discipline, the scienti c study of
social facts, and created the rules of sociological method. Social facts, he argued, were
actions external to individuals (constraining in nature and originating in society or the
physical world), and intangible (not physically apprehended) but should be studied as
things in themselves. Other academics made relevant contributions to sociology that
created the sub eld of economic sociology, which focused on human economic
behaviour.

Marx and Engels, Durkheim, Georg Simmel and Max Weber are among the most
important pioneers of this new discipline. In this text, they play the feature roles as their
work was more comprehensive than that conducted by post-World War II sociologists,
who tended to focus exclusively on society and overlooked their ecology (Gross, 2000).
Despite the historical di erences, climate emergency leads us to examine human
economic behaviour, as they did. Their concerns included the development of industrial
capitalism, urbanisation, social con icts (particularly class con icts), and the changing
nature of social institutions. They looked at changes in the family, religion, work and social
values and although all these are part of the human environment, they did not disregard
ft
the natural. Later sociologists took a long time to rediscover the interplay between society
and the natural world (Catton Jr., 2002). And so, Marx's analysis of the capitalist
exploitation of nature, Durkheim’s understanding of the relationship between natural
ra

factors and social phenomena, and Simmel’s naturalistic stance and continuous re ection
on nature, as invented by humans, lay waiting. Today we all understand that human
action, particularly instrumental action, results in environmental damage and endangers
D

all life forms. More importantly, we know that the environment must be at the heart of
every decision made in any context. The same happens with science; they all need to
give nature a voice.

Summary

In the late 19th century, European society underwent signi cant transformations
due to the French and Industrial revolutions, which disrupted the traditional social order.
The aristocracy lost power while the bourgeoisie rose to economic prominence,
accompanied by emerging ideals of liberty, equality, and solidarity. However,
industrialisation brought harsh working conditions, overcrowded living spaces, and child
labour, provoking social outrage. Innovators like Robert Owen aimed to address these

12
fi
fi
ff
fl
fl
fi
fi
fl
issues through new educational systems. Social theorists had di ering views on these
changes. Marx and Engels saw them as an inevitable outcome of capitalism, Durkheim
contended that progress was not inherently positive and that threats to social order were
not solely due to capitalism. Durkheim's work laid the foundation for sociology, focusing
on social facts—actions that originate in society and constrain individuals. Key gures in
classical sociology, including Marx, Engels, Durkheim, Simmel, and Weber, explored the
complexities of industrial capitalism, urbanisation, and social con icts, recognising the
interplay between social institutions and the natural environment. They also produced
valuable sociological insights into human economic behaviour. Although later sociologists
often overlooked ecological issues, the current climate emergency has prompted a
renewed focus on the relationship between human behaviour and environmental impact,
highlighting the necessity of integrating ecological considerations into social science and
decision-making.

Émile Durkheim, the rst true sociologist

ft
a. The establishment of sociology as a science
ra

Division of labour in society

Durkheim’s doctoral thesis became the rst proper sociological work ever
produced. It was about the division of labour in society and addressed the relationship
D

between individuals and society. The Division of Labour in Society Durkheim (1933) talks
about a form of division of labour that has existed since the rst human gatherings. It
resulted in specialised activities and di erent groups. For example, some activities were
allocated according to gender as in the initial gathering and hunting societies. The result
is always particularism in that it creates particular occupations or groups. In modern
society, however, this division of labour had deep transformative and disturbing e ects. It
also seemed unstoppable and was complemented by the technical division of work. This
referred to the decomposing of work into increasingly smaller and simpler tasks. While
the technical division of work submitted workers to machines, the division of labour
subjected individuals to society. All the individualised activities and occupations were

13
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
fl
fi
ff
 imbricated in an exchange network. The tie that binds them was coercive, invisible, and
stems from society. It was also a moral principle with a name: solidarity. It meant that
individuals could not survive outside society. To live in it, they depended upon the
cooperation of the diverse existing individual organisms. Durkheim attributes the drive
towards labour specialisation and division to the population's growth and heightened
competition over ecological resources. This suggests that environmental factors play a
signi cant role in shaping social development and the division of labour. Durkheim's
inquiry into the impact of industrialisation led him to question how individuals could
become more individualistic yet simultaneously more connected to society (Catton Jr.,
2002). This paradoxical trend was explained by the increasing division of labour
transforming one form of social solidarity (mechanical) into another (organic).

Dynamic density and the interconnected worlds

Social solidarity is a central concept in Durkheim’s work. It re ects society’s complexity

and is a central concept in the Division of Labour (Durkheim, 1933). In the clans, the
simplest form of human society mechanical solidarity was the dominant type,
characterised by the homogeneity of beliefs, ways of thinking, feeling and acting. As
ft
clans evolved into tribes, their internal complexity increased, and mechanical solidarity
started to change. History became the evolutionary path of human societies and the
ra

corresponding changes in the dominant form of solidarity. In modern society, solidarity is

organic and grounded on the multiplicity of activities, occupations and social roles.
Dynamic density was the mechanism that forced evolution and adaptation and fostered
social di erentiation. This expression describes the natural increase in the population and
D

related challenges derived from limited space and natural resources. This is both a
sociological and environmental explanation. Humans depend upon the organism, society,
and the external world. The organism refers to an individual's biological and physiological
makeup, shaping their capabilities and well-being. Genes, physical health, and basic
needs, all play a role in how we interact with the world. Society encompasses social
structures, institutions, and cultural systems that surround us. These elements in uence
our beliefs, roles, and interactions with others. Social norms, laws, and shared values all
contribute to the social environment. Finally, the external world includes the physical
environment, nature, natural resources, and natural limitations that impact human activity.
The availability of food, and water, and the limitations of the natural world all in uence our
behaviour and forms of social organisation.

14
fi
ff
fl
fl
fl
 The anomic division of labour

The interplay between organisms, society and the external world creates social
di erentiation. That means people develop specialised skills and identities based on their
social roles. Durkheim was interested in analysing how changes in the economic eld
a ected contemporary society. He thought that organic solidarity was a source of
cooperation and that “cooperation also has its intrinsic morality” (Durkheim, 1933, p.
228), meaning that shared norms, values, and collective bonds were instrumental in
maintaining social order and cohesion (Gross, 2002). However, he suspected that
cooperation was not yet fully moral. The recurrent strikes, workers’ miserable conditions
of existence, low wages and exploitation, suggested that organic solidarity was feeble.
Thus, even if theoretically organic solidarity fosters cooperation, Durkheim acknowledges
its potential weaknesses. He identi es social problems like strikes and harsh working
conditions as signs of "imperfect morality" and weak social bonds. He then brings
anomie to his theory to account for situations where a rapid division of labour disrupts the
social regulation and moral integration that typically hold a society together. Imagine a
society where specialisation is so extreme that people feel isolated and disconnected
from the larger social purpose. Anomic division of labour (Durkheim, 1933, p. 353)
ft
describes “partial breaks in organic solidarity” and justi ed “con ict between capital and
labour” (p. 354). The compartmentalisation of sciences was another example of anomic
ra

division of labour, as it undermined scienti c solidarity and promoted individualisation and

competition between scientists (p. 357). Anomie resulted in harmful outcomes such as
exploitation, inequalities, delinquency, suicide, and environmental degradation. The
anomic division of labour competed with the social division of labour generating tensions
D

between cohesive social structures and disruptive forces that undermine collective values
and norms. Despite these challenges, Durkheim (1933) believes that a well-functioning
organic solidarity would ultimately strengthen social cohesion and mitigate anomic
behaviour. What was required was strong social institutions to address the challenges of
a highly specialised society.

Biological facts as “lower facts”

Although mainly interested in studying ongoing social change in his day and
society, Durkheim did not exclude the natural environment. Look around and you will see

15
ff
ff
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
that the natural world is part of what you call society. Even in urban contexts, such as
Porto, you nd nature. There are trees on sidewalks, there are parks and public gardens.
You might say this is all man-made nature, and you would be correct. It is, but in the
Anthropocene, nature is mostly all humanised. Su ce it to think that most European
forests are not original, they have been replanted. In Scotland, for example, reforestation
is underway. But there, it is not human action alone that threatens the Scottish pine
forests, the deer herds are also to blame. Conservation programmes have been choosing
tree species that are less palatable to deer, allowing them to grow without fear of deer
browsing. In the centre and north of Portugal, forests are mainly planted with eucalyptus
and maritime pines, for economic reasons. The consequence is the impoverishment of
the soil and the disappearance of native species like oaks, holm oaks and chestnuts, for
example. Humans and nature have interacted since the very beginning. Human societies
are not outside the natural world, although they have become unnatural to a certain
degree. So, although societies resulted from the interplay between humans and the
natural environment, the relevance of biological facts was secondary in Durkheim’s
methodology (Durkheim, 1938) . His views centred on societal changes originating from
population growth and industrialisation, and altering the ecological landscape.
ft
Durkheim did not see nature as opposed to society. He rejected a dualistic view of
society and nature (Rosa & Richter, 2008). Nature was simply less important than society.
He was not concerned with the damage humans in icted on the environment but
ra

considered the environment a part of society. In Durkheim’s day, environmental problems

were not as pressing as they are now, and scienti c progress was still commencing, and
he did not have the accumulated knowledge contemporary scientists have. Still, his views
D

regarding social solidarity could now apply to a di erent concept of society. For example,
we could invent another kind of solidarity binding individuals, society and nature and call
it sustainable solidarity. If we did that, we would draw on present-day concerns and
knowledge. That was what Durkheim did when he established sociology as the science
of social facts. Now, sociologists use other de nitions (e.g. (Giddens, 1986), and even do
without one. This suggests that the de nition of the subject matter of the di erent
sciences becomes less relevant at a time when scholars have been advocating for
multidisciplinary (e.g.,Carter, 2024; Clark & Szerszynski, 2022). At any rate, if Durkheim
did not think of human societies as part of a larger ecosystem, he recognised that the
natural environment a ected humans’ existence conditions. But in Germany, Georg

16
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
ff
ffi
fl
ff
 Simmel was in uenced by naturalistic perspectives and explored the idea of human
beings shaping and a ecting nature.

Summary

Durkheim's doctoral thesis, "The Division of Labour in Society," is recognised as

the rst signi cant sociological work, exploring how the division of labour shapes the
relationship between individuals and society. He outlines the historical evolution of labour
division, transitioning from early human gatherings to modern society, where
specialisation leads to distinct occupations and social roles. This evolution results in a
shift from mechanical solidarity, based on uniformity, to organic solidarity, founded on the
diversity of activities and interdependence among individuals. Durkheim introduces the
idea of "dynamic density," which addresses the challenges of a growing population and
the necessity for social di erentiation. He argues that individuals develop specialised
identities through their roles and that organic solidarity fosters cooperation via shared
norms and values. However, he also highlights the weaknesses in this solidarity, evident
in social issues like strikes and exploitation, which he attributes to "anomie," a
breakdown in social regulation due to excessive specialisation. Rejecting a dualistic
ft
perspective of nature and society, Durkheim emphasises their interconnectedness,
acknowledging the environment's crucial role in shaping social conditions. He suggests
that modern sociologists could create a concept of "sustainable solidarity" that merges
ra

social and environmental concerns, highlighting the importance of strong social

institutions to address the complexities of contemporary society and its ecological
challenges.
D

Self-assessment

- What is the main focus of Durkheim's doctoral thesis, "The Division of Labour in Society"?

- How does Durkheim di erentiate between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity?

- What does Durkheim mean by the term "dynamic density," and why is it signi cant in his
analysis?

- What is Durkheim's perspective on the relationship between society and the natural
environment?

17
fi
fi
fl
ff
ff
ff
fi
 Georg Simmel, the sociologist in doubt

b. Society and social change

Metropolis

Georg Simmel, a highly regarded sociologist and philosopher

(Nisbet, 2017, p. 19), challenged grand theories of society due to its inherent complexity
(Gross, 2000a). Instead, he focused on the fundamental structures of social interactions
(Simmel, 1909), the building blocks from which societies emerge. This focus on
interaction makes him a microsociologist (Nisbet, 2017, Mele, 2022). Simmel argued that
these interactions (Wechselwirkung) stem from individual motives and interests
(Gross, 2001). Socialization, the process of understanding these interactions, becomes a
core concept in his framework. Simmel's work transcended speci c historical contexts by
ft
focusing on underlying principles (Simmel, 1909). However, his central concern was
modern society and the new form of metropolitan culture it birthed (Mele, 2022). Simmel
ra

saw the "Metropolis" as a symbol of modernity, re ecting the dramatic changes in urban
landscapes (Mele, 2022). These changes, from grand avenues to the rise of glass and iron
structures, symbolised a shift towards a society dominated by formal
rules, contracts, and bureaucracies, replacing traditional customs and emotional ties.
D

Simmel was critical of utilitarianism's focus on self-interest (Nisbet, 2017), which he saw
as a de ning characteristic of modern individuals. Simmel thought this emphasis on self-
advancement within an autonomous framework encourages social
competition. Furthermore, modern society fosters specialised roles, statuses, and
identities, creating social richness and potential con ict. Finally, Simmel highlighted how
money, fashion, power, and communication shape the interactions, exchanges, and
interdependencies de ning modern society.

In his day, European societies were transitioning from a traditional towards a

modern form of society. This transition, fuelled by industrial capitalism and urbanisation
resulted in more complex, di erentiated, and interconnected societies (Simmel, 1909).

18
fi
fi
ff
fl
fl
fi
 Modernity entails individualism, specialisation, urbanisation, and the increasing
importance of formal institutions in regulating social life. In this, Simmel’s views about
modern society agreed with those of Durkheim. Their work provides comprehensive,
albeit distinct insights into the social changes brought about by industrial capitalism.
Nonetheless, they studied the shifts in social cohesion, solidarity, and organisation using
di erent methods. Durkheim emphasised the importance of social facts, which could only
be explained through sociological explanations, although he did acknowledge the role of
psychology (Durkheim, 1995). In turn, Simmel (1909) preferred a multidisciplinary
approach that emphasised the contributions of history and philosophy to sociological
understanding. Simmel's idea of sociology went beyond traditional objects, such as
society, community, or groups. Rather, he was interested in examining the forms of
'sociation' or 'societalization' (Gross, 2001) or socialisation, to use a friendlier word. In his
view, sociology should concentrate on understanding the processes and mechanisms
through which social interactions and relationships are formed and maintained.

Money, consumption and nature

Simmel explored the meaning and role of Money in society. However, his analysis
ft
went beyond its economic functions to include its cultural, philosophical, and aesthetical
implications. He explores how money in uences various aspects of society, including
consumption patterns, moral values, and even how humans relate to nature. the
ra

relationship of humans with nature. With such a broad sociological approach, Simmel
sought to uncover the underlying social processes and cultural meanings embedded in
everyday phenomena. Nisbet (2017) thinks that Simmel saw money as a “symbol of the
D

conversion of qualitative values to quantitative, but also the release of individuals from the
communal context” (p.100) of the pre-industrial era. And so we are invited to understand
the embeddedness of economic, social, and cultural phenomena, and the natural world
(Gross, 2001). Cultural changes throughout history, Simmel thought, in uenced the role of
money as a primary motivator. For instance, he noted the shift from primitive production
in pre-industrial societies to industrial enterprise, re ecting a change in human
interactions with nature (Simmel, 1990, p. 233). These evolving economic activities
stressed how cultural transformations a ect resource use and labour organisation. The
use of money increased with the development of industrial capitalism which in turn,
depersonalised economic activities. This means that economic exchanges became
increasingly detached from personal relationships and were increasingly mediated by

19
ff
ff
fl
fl
fl
 money and contracts. In modern society, with economic activities divested from their
human qualities, individuals might develop a deeper connection to the natural world
(Simmel, 1990, p. 233). In other words, as economic exchanges become more detached
from personal relationships, individuals may become more attuned to the broader
economic forces and natural processes that underpin economic activities. But urban life
fuelled by the money economy also shapes our connection with nature.

Urbanisation and industrial capitalism separated humans from nature. The result is
a shift in the way humans perceive nature. Instead of focusing on nature itself, individuals
tend to concentrate on cultural objects, re ecting a wider distance from the natural world.
However, Simmel also suggests that this separation can foster a deeper aesthetic
appreciation of nature. That is to say that the lack of direct contact may lead to a more
romantic and contemplative response, characterised by feelings of longing and a sense of
a lost paradise. Inaccessible and stylised natural settings, like the Alps or the North Sea
shore, become symbols of this idealised and unattainable aspect of nature, further
enhancing its mystique (Simmel, 1990, p. 484). This development of a romantic sense of
nature is connected to the rise of landscape painting and the abstraction from the natural
world. Artistic representations become a product of this separation, shaping our
perception of nature as a distant and spiritual entity. Although our connection to nature
ft
re ects the e ect of money and economic organisation, so does technology.
ra

Simmel challenges the idea that technological advancements translate into

absolute control over the natural world. This does not dismiss the ability of technology to
master the natural world, as we see in agriculture, mining, fossil fuel industries,
deforestation and the like. But all this, Simmel argues (1990 p. 488) comes at a cost. In
D

his view, the focus on external things – material possessions and technological
achievements – overshadows the essence of life and even humanity itself. Simmel
critiques the language used to describe this relationship. Terms like "conquer" or
"control" imply resistance from nature, which he views as indi erent and governed by its
own laws. He claimed we misunderstand natural processes if we interpret them as
responses to human actions. He also warned against anthropomorphism – attributing
human-like qualities to nature. Concepts like "freedom" or "coercion" concerning natural
events re ect mythological ways of thinking, not inherent aspects of nature. This
tendency to personify natural events can even in uence scienti c perspectives. At any
rate, industrial capitalism impacted all aspects of human societies, particularly the

20
fl
fl
ff
fl
fl
ff
fi
relationship between humans and the natural world. And in Simmel’s day, human control
over nature was a driver of economic and technological development.

In modern society, the relationship between humans and the natural world
changed. In the economic world, there was a strong belief in the ability to dominate
nature through technological advancements (Simmel, 1990 p. 489). Objectively, there
were signs that humans had gained control over natural forces. However, Simmel thought
that perspective does not consider the subjective or psychological implications of the
alleged dominance. He even warned against the self- attering delusion that arises from
the objective view of human control over nature. Instead, he emphasises the subjective
experience and psychological impact of this relationship. Technology might grant us
control over nature's resources, but it creates new dependencies. The tools meant to
liberate us can become burdens, highlighting the paradoxical nature of progress where
advancements both empower and constrain. Simmel argues that technology and the
economy have shifted the focus of meaning and intellectual potential away from individual
actions or social movements. Modern society nds signi cance and intellectual value in
the complexity and e ciency of machines, products, and organisations. This re ects a
change in how we attribute value in a technological age. Finally, Simmel warns that
excessive reliance on technology back res. While technology dominates nature, it also
ft
creates a barrier between individuals and their true selves. The abundance of gadgets
and distractions fosters super cial needs and leads to alienation and disconnection from
ra

one's core identity. This highlights the potential downsides of technological progress,
challenging the simplistic notion of human control over nature.

Urbanisation became a landmark of modern society and industrial capitalism. City

D

living disrupts the natural rhythms and patterns that historically governed human needs
(Simmel, 1990, p. 492). Unlike rural environments with predictable routines tied to
seasonal changes and daylight hours, urban environments are characterised by a fast-
paced and often chaotic nature. Work schedules, social obligations, and the constant
barrage of stimuli in cities disrupt the natural ebb and ow of human needs like hunger,
sleep, and social interaction. This disruption can create a sense of irregularity and
unpredictability in daily life, leading to stress, fatigue, and a disconnect from one's natural
rhythms. However advanced Simmel’s works and ideas may be, his perception of women
seemed on par with his day’s social perceptions. Admitting the possibility that women
were closer to nature as they “represent a less highly di erentiated stage of human
development. This stereotype attributes women to qualities like nurturing, intuition, and a

21
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
ff
fi
fl
 deeper connection to natural cycles. These qualities contrast with the rational and
analytical traits traditionally attributed to men. Simmel speci cally references the
periodicity of women's physiological life, likely alluding to menstrual cycles, as a
biological process that reinforces the notion of a closer connection to nature. The cyclical
nature of this biological process aligns with natural rhythms like the lunar cycle, further
supporting the idea of women embodying a deeper connection to nature compared to
men. This connection is contrasted with the perceived distancing from natural rhythms
that urban living and modern societal structures have imposed on individuals in general.
Starting with the idea of money in society, Simmel established a series of connections
leading us from its economic manifestations to the cultural and moral consequences of its
use and meaning in society. The Philosophy of Money (1990) emphasises how Simmel
borrowed from other disciplines, such as philosophy and exempli es Simmel's
multidisciplinary approach to sociology and his originality. Overall, he was interested in
the impact of modernity on society and individuals, an interest he shared with Max Weber.

Summary
ft
Simmel critiques utilitarianism for its emphasis on self-interest, which he sees as a
de ning characteristic of modern individuals that promotes social competition. He argues
that industrial capitalism and urbanisation produced specialised roles and identities,
ra

resulting in both social richness and potential con ict. Simmel highlights the impact of
money, fashion, power, and communication on social interactions, marking a shift from
traditional to modern societies characterised by individualism and formal institutions.
D

While Simmel and Durkheim examine the social changes brought about by industrial
capitalism, their methodologies di er. Durkheim focuses on social facts that can be
explained sociologically, whereas Simmel employs a multidisciplinary approach,
investigating social processes and interactions. Simmel's analysis of money transcends
economic considerations, delving into its cultural and philosophical implications,
suggesting that money represents a shift from qualitative to quantitative values and
detaches individuals from communal contexts.

Simmel observes that urbanisation and industrial capitalism have distanced

humans from nature, leading to a romanticised view of it often depicted in art. He
critiques the idea of technological dominance over nature, arguing that while technology
provides control, it also fosters new dependencies and alienation from one's true self.

22
fi
ff
fl
fi
fi
 Urban living disrupts natural rhythms, resulting in stress and disconnection from essential
human needs. Simmel's perspectives on women re ect contemporary stereotypes,
linking them to a closer connection to nature due to their biological cycles. His work,
particularly in "The Philosophy of Money," exempli es his multidisciplinary approach and
interest in the broader e ects of modernity on society and individuals, resonating with
themes explored by contemporaries like Max Weber.

Self-assessment

- How does Simmel's critique of utilitarianism reflect his views on modern society and
individualism?

- In what ways does Simmel's multidisciplinary approach enhance our understanding of

social processes and interactions?

- What are Simmel's views on the relationship between money, consumption, and
nature, and how do they relate to the effects of industrial capitalism?
ft
ra
D

23
ff
fi
fl
Max Weber and the Double-Edged Sword of Modernity

c. Rationality and disenchantment

Forget quaint villages and close-knit communities as a new social order is rising.
When still a rising star in social sciences, Max Weber crossed paths with Ferdinand
Tönnies a few years after Tönnies (1957) published his seminal work on the shift from
Gemeinschaft (community) to Gesellschaft (society). This idea is likely to have in uenced
Durkheim's notions of social solidarity and became the basis for Weber and his
contemporary Georg Simmel. Weber, however, wasn't happy with simply observing and
elaborating on this transition. He explored deeper, examining the continuing march of
rationality in European society. This "instrumental rationality," (Weber, 2019a) as he called
it, highlighted e ciency and calculation, pushing aside traditional values and beliefs. The
consequence? A world stripped of magic and wonder, replaced by cold, scienti c logic.
Weber argued that this "disenchantment" was a de ning feature of modernity (Weber,
ft
2013). Intrigued? Read on to discover how Weber's work exposes the dark side of
instrumental rationality, a force unleashed by industrial capitalism that continues to shape
ra

our world today.

Modernity was about industrial capitalism

D

Picture society as a convoluted structure, not a linear equation. This is how Weber
viewed social phenomena. He believed that to clarify the causes behind social
phenomena it was necessary to unravel probable causes, such as religion, economics,
and culture, rather than a single cause-and-e ect explanation. That explains why he
thought there was more to the origin of capitalism than plain economic facts. In The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (2013) Weber argues that the speci c set of
beliefs that emerged during the Protestant Reformation challenged the established
Catholic doctrines of the time and favoured the process of capital accumulation. Imagine
a society where Catholicism held sway, emphasising good works, otherworldly rewards
and the possibility of buying indulgences (pardons for sins) (Weber, 2013). The Protestant
Reformation, led by religious gures such as Martin Luther, rejected these ideas and

24
ffi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fl
emphasised, the belief that God has already chosen who will be saved. This created
uncertainty amongst believers – how could they know if they were among the chosen?
Success in this life and world was the answer. Calvin was the one to state that success
might be a sign of divine choice.

Calvin was arguably the most in uential among all Protestant theologians, and he
inspired many sects, some of which were very strict and called Puritans. What struck
Weber (2013) as peculiar in Calvinism, he would tell us, was the coexistence within the
Protestant ethic of two antagonistic principles, which together favoured actions that
allowed for capital accumulation. Indeed, Weber mentions the compulsion to accumulate
wealth, considered a possible divine sign of favour reserved for sincere believers who saw
work as a vocation or Beruf (in a religious sense). Simultaneously, Calvinist ethics
imposed the duty of frugality, preventing the enjoyment of wealth and any form of
ostentation. This, Weber tells us (2013), was the ethos of capitalism. The ethos of
capitalism encouraged believers to work hard, become wealthy, and accumulate wealth
they could not enjoy. The only option remaining was to use the accumulated wealth to
generate even more wealth. This was the process that predisposed Protestants,
especially Calvinists, to economic activity and the accumulation of wealth. That would
account for the coincidence between Protestantism and the development of the Industrial
ft
Revolution, for example. Protestantism also legitimised the practice of usury as a
legitimate economic activity. And, perhaps smirking, Weber would remind us,
ra

triumphantly, that usury was prohibited by Catholicism, which also advocated for poverty
and redemption after death. Protestants used usury and favoured life on earth. The
important thing was actions in life, the demonstration of faith, potentially rewarded with
D

eternal salvation. Work became a religious imperative, a demonstration of the believer's

faith, among Calvinists. The ground was prepared for the consecration of work as a moral
and social value.

The Protestant Ethic: Weber and the Critics

Weber introduces Beruf (“calling”) as a s central idea in Protestant ethics, particularly in

Calvinism. Beruf meant that God called believers to ful l their worldly duties and
vocations diligently and conscientiously. As a result, everyday work (secular or profane
activities) transformed into a religious duty. By viewing their work as a calling from God,

25
fl
fi
 individuals were motivated to engage in their occupations with purpose, discipline, and
responsibility. Weber also thought that this led to the rationalisation of economic activities
and the development of a work ethic characterised by diligence, frugality, and the
reinvestment of pro ts. This Protestant ethic, with its emphasis on the calling and worldly
asceticism, played a signi cant role in developing the spirit of capitalism. The
transformation of work into a calling contributed to the rationalisation and organisation of
economic life in Western societies. While Weber's interpretation of the calling and its
impact on the development of capitalism has been in uential, it has also faced criticism
and debate. Some scholars (e.g. Samuelsson, 1993) argue that Weber may have
overstated the causal link between Protestantism and the rise of capitalism, pointing to
other historical, social, and economic factors at play.

Weber never established a causal link between the Protestant ethic and capitalism.
He used it as an example of non-economic phenomena that contributed to the
development of European rational capitalism (Weber 2013). If you are a Catholic, you are
aware of the term “profession”. It means an occupation, but it is the same word Catholics
use when entering a religious order: individuals profess their faith and devote their lives to
God. Historically, that is the original meaning of the noun profession, answering to a
religious calling, and only later did it become a synonym for answering a secular, calling,
ft
and entering an occupation or career. In Weber’s account of the Protestant ethic, there is
a shift in the understanding of work as a calling from God to ful l one's duties diligently
ra

and responsibly. The calling is not otherworldly, it a ects life in this world. This is a
departure from the traditional Catholic understanding of "profession" primarily within the
religious context of entering religious orders. It was a transformation that played a crucial
D

role in shaping the attitudes and behaviours towards labour, productivity, and economic
activities in the context of the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

Weber used Baxter’s writings as evidence in his argument on the Protestant ethic.
Richard Baxter was, Weber tells us (2013, p. 103) a writer “on Puritan ethics”, and a
Presbyterian” who “grew away from the dogmas of pure Calvinism”. Weber considered
him as a representative of “English Puritanism which was derived from Calvinism.” (p.
102). Weber credits Puritan sects derived from Calvinism with shaping the religious ethics
at the root of the capitalist ethos. Samuelsson (1993) draws on other critics of Weber and
nds dubious the idea that an ethical-religious motivation acted as a signi cant factor in
economic activity. Di erences between Catholic and Calvinist asceticism regarding
economic activity should not be exaggerated as Weber might have done. In general,

26
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fl
fi
fi
Samuelsson (1993) did not nd evidence to support Weber’s theory. Going through
Wesley’s sermons, “one of the great agitators of the rst generation of Methodists”,
(Weber, 2013, p. 103) and one of Weber’s sources, Samuelsson (1993, p. 35) found
Wesley condemning wealth accumulation; in the Quakers and Methodists (Puritan sects)’s
documents, he encountered censure of the use of credit (usury, therefore capital
accumulation). Samuelsson (1993) goes on to argue that Weber used Baxter’s writings
selectively (p. 37) and failed to nd support for Weber’s interpretation of the “calling” in
the writings of Calvin (p.45). He argued that the idea of a double calling had its
predecessors in pre-reformation Catholicism. Furthermore, he also found that capitalism
preceded the Puritans. Almost all the evidence Samuelsson veri ed contradicts Weber’s
arguments. Contradictions notwithstanding, Weber’s work on the Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism still o ers a valuable perspective on the complex interplay between
religion, culture, and economic systems (Swedberg, 2000). The fact remains that the
Protestant Ethic played a role in shaping the development of capitalism, particularly in
certain parts of Europe. And perhaps, while you think about this, you could also imagine
if, without the Protestant Reformation work would still be at the centre of social and
individual life organisation, if it would still be a moral value and a human right.
ft
Modern Science, Technology and Capitalism
ra

Protestant asceticism created a speci c form of rationality that made Western

capitalism unique in history. This type of rationality was economic and instrumental and,
according to Weber (2013), ensured the survival of Western capitalism. Previous forms of
D

capitalism emerged elsewhere, but history e aced them. So, the next step for Weber’s
research was to clarify the role ascetic Protestantism played in modern science and
technology history (Swedberg, 2000). In his work, Weber found out that in China, for
example, capitalism had existed in Imperial times but did not survive because “there was
little rational technology, science, or accounting (…) and its economic organisations were
poorly developed in comparison with the ones that could be found in the city-states
around the Mediterranean in the late Middle Ages” (Swedberg, 2000, p. 137). Rationality
seemed key to all enduring economic changes, including capitalism, science and
technology. The 17th-century scienti c revolution marked the emergence of modern
rational science, characterised, by mainly natural sciences grounded in empirical
observation, experimentation, and mathematical principles. In the 18th century, rational

27
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
 science joined capitalism to start the production of goods rationally. Hence, in a way,
modern science provided the technical basis for rational, Western capitalism. Instead of
falling for the trap of technological determinism, popular in his day, Weber claimed that
economic concerns and purposes boosted technological development. In Weber’s view,
economic motives have been the most important factor in technological evolution
throughout history. However, only in modern capitalism were the economic motives pro t-
oriented. This does exclude, as Weber noted, other forces that also in uenced the
development of technology throughout history.

Addressing basic sociological concepts, Weber analysed in detail human social

action. In Economy and Society (2019, ch.1), he established the study of social action as
the subject matter of sociology and action as “human behaviour linked to subjective
meaning on the part of the actor or actors concerned (2019, p. 79). He introduced a
typology with four main types of action, traditional (automatic), a ective, instrumentally-
oriented rational action and value-oriented rational action. Rational instrumental action
includes economic and technic action, and they are oriented to the means of action,
albeit in di erent ways. In economic action, the basic orientation is to the scarcity of
means, and there is also a choice between di erent ends. Technical action, in turn, is
exclusively guided towards the means. The goal is the starting point, and the available
ft
means are the conditions dictating the possibility of action. Weber provides several
examples to illustrate the di erence between the two types of instrumental action.
ra

In the 17th century, the English forests were depleted, and industrial development
halted. It was necessary to nd a substitute for wood and charcoal. The problem
D

remained unsolved until the discovery of coking coal at the beginning of the 18th
century(Weber, 2023). Weber argues that the lack of this discovery might have ended the
development of capitalism. Technology, however, can in uence politics and the economy
but does not determine it, because it is the means to achieving a goal. Imagine that your
goal is to tackle climate change, and you think about electric cars. They are the means
towards your goal: they help to reduce CO2 emissions and improve the air quality in
crowded cities. They also raise serious environmental problems, though, given the
polluting nature of batteries, and the mining activity required to manufacture them. Your
goal is still tackling climate change, and now you need a new technical advancement:
how to reduce the pollution caused by the batteries? This is what Weber was talking
about. Both electric cars and batteries are means to achieving a balanced environment,

28
ff
fi
ff
ff
fl
ff
fl
fi
 not economic goals. The latter are pro t-driven and may encourage technological
change, like the electric car, whose invention was doomed from the start. In the 19th
century, combustion motors were cheaper, and it took two centuries and a desperate
situation to bring them back.
Weber challenged the prevailing optimistic outlook towards science typical of the
19th century. In his view, science was not a path to universal progress because it lacked
inherent normative or ethical guidance. While science provided factual knowledge based
on empirical evidence, it didn't answer fundamental questions about meaning, purpose,
or how individuals should live their lives (Maley, 2004). Weber acknowledged the dynamic
nature of science, and its endless pursuit of new knowledge through discovery and
reformulation. Unlike art, which may exist outside the realm of progress, scienti c work
was inherently tied to the advancement of understanding. However, he questioned its
ability to address fundamental human concerns. Science couldn't provide answers to
existential questions or ethical dilemmas. Besides, the increasing complexity of
technology created a gap between public understanding and its complexity.

People became increasingly reliant on systems they didn't comprehend.

Contemporary scholars viewed science (and technology) as motors of progress, but Max
Weber o ered a critical perspective on science and technology. They were, he thought, a
ft
double-edged sword as science and technology might encourage progress and
e ciency, but they also created a "disenchanted world" (Weber, 2013). This
ra

disenchantment stemmed from the rise of rationalisation and scienti c thinking, which
replaced the old world permeated with magic and religion with one focused on cold logic
and utility (Maley, 2004; Swedberg, 2000). Weber considered that modern science and
D

technology had fractured social values, leaving a disarray of con icting ideals. Science
dismantled religious and philosophical frameworks, leaving individuals with a sense of
perpetual questioning and evolution. As Maley (2004) claims, this constant pursuit of
knowledge meant established systems were constantly challenged, with no de nitive
answers or ultimate truths.

At its onset capitalism was fostered by Protestant ethics. As it developed, religion

became an inconvenience and risked hindering the further development of capitalism.
modern society was left in a chaotic situation, and Weber echoes Durkheim’s description
of anomie. Signi cant changes rede ned the economic world, and work in particular. In
the last paragraph of The Protestant Ethic (2013, p. 123), Weber writes “The Puritan
wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so”. Work was no longer a calling or a

29
ffi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
 vocation but a lay duty and a necessary obligation. Swedberg (2000) notes that Weber
expresses the hardness of economic life under modern capitalism to a point where it
encloses the individual into an iron cage. This metaphor, which still mysti es and inspires
scholars to this day represents Weber’s view of progress and its threatening
consequences, particularly those involving restrictions on individual freedom. Progress
throws a “cloak” over us, and “fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage”
(Weber, 2013, p. 123). This is the sentence and the metaphor that still haunts us all. The
iron cage represents rationality as it shows in di erent settings, from the economy to
scienti c and state institutions in close association with power. In Economy and Society
(2019) Weber dwells on types of domination, and it is in this context that he developed
the rst study on bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy was not an invention of modern society. This form of organisation

started to develop during the Renaissance and Reformation eras, when European states
began to consolidate power and establish centralised authority. This process required
more e cient administrative structures to manage increasingly complex governmental
functions, such as taxation, law enforcement, and military organisation. Bureaucracy
achieved its highest level of e ciency under modern capitalism, where it became also a
form of organising business administration. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy is an abstract
ft
model which emphasises a civil service separated from politics, organised hierarchically
and focused on objective and legal principles. Because it is an ideal type it is not always
ra

re ected in reality (Cochrane, 2017). Bureaucracies have a set of key features: 1) clear
hierarchy; 2) precisely de ned spheres of competence lled through a free contractual
relationship; 3) personal freedom within the scope of o cial duties; 4) xed salaries; 5)
D

clear career paths, based on seniority and achievement; 6) separation of o ce from

ownership, and 7) strict discipline and control (Weber, 2019). Weber envisioned
bureaucracy as a rational and indispensable form of administration, essential for mass
administration in industrialised countries. In Weber’s (2019, pp. 351-2) words, :

Capitalism in its current developmental stage furthers bureaucracy, even though they
have both grown out of very di erent historical roots, and bureaucracy provides the
most rational economic foundation on which capitalism can exist in its most rational
form because bureaucracy is also capable of providing it with the ne essary funds.

He believed bureaucracy could surpass capitalism in e ciency. However,

bureaucracies also had the potential to suppress creativity and individual agency due to
their rigid hierarchies, rules, procedures, and emphasis on e ciency. Gerth and Mills

30
fl
fi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
ff
ff
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
c­
fi
fi
ffi
 (Weber, 1958) say that Weber saw bureaucratic rationality as "the process of
rationalisation with mechanisation, depersonalisation, and oppressive routine" (p. 50);
Swedberg (2000) notes that “when Weber speaks of bureaucracy, he is thinking not only
of the administration of a state but also of the way that large capitalist rms and other,
similar organisations are administered (p.62).” Besides, the spirit of bureaucracy ts
modern capitalism because the more it develops the more it becomes dehumanised
(Swedberg, 2000, Maley, 2004, Cochrane, 2018). In this context, dehumanisation re ects
the removal of feelings and sentiments from businesses as emotions can escape
calculation. Such an e cient and impersonal form of organisation and domination,
bureaucracy can be described as the perfect iron cage.

The Iron Cage revisited: a possible Weberian approach to Taylorism

Imagine a factory oor transformed into a scene in Charlie Chaplin’s silent lm

Modern Times. Every twist, turn, and lift is meticulously timed and measured by a
watchful eye with a clipboard. This wasn't a comedic exaggeration, but the harsh reality
of "Scienti c Management,” (SM) the creation of engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor
(1947). Blinded by the attraction of super-e cient factories turning out products at record
speeds, Taylor proposed a radical approach: applying scienti c principles to human
ft
movements. Skilled labourers were once valued for their experience and craftsmanship,
but under Taylor’s SM they became a nuisance (Coriat, 1982). Having worked as a worker,
ra

before graduating in engineering, Taylor experienced labour organisation. In Taylor’s view,

workers undermined management goals and prevented managers from achieving them.
Managers should gain full control of production, including labour methods along with the
tools and the pace of labour. Taylorism started with time and motion studies that aimed to
D

determine all the simple movements a task required and their optimum time. Although
Taylor called his management principles scienti c, they lacked a scienti c method and
instead took advantage of migrant labour at odds with survival. These studies, like the
infamous "Schmidt" case at Bethlehem Steel, aimed to drain every scrap of productivity
out of each worker.

Manuals documented these optimised movements, transforming humans into

robots following a rigid script that dictated the most e cient way to shovel coal, tighten
bolts, or operate a machine. This wasn't just about short-term gains; Taylor envisioned a
future where machines replaced human labour entirely. This is because jobs were broken
down into tiny, repetitive tasks, stripping away any sense of satisfaction or craftsmanship

31
fi
fl
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
that workers might have found. Imagine a skilled bricklayer, once proud of the structures
he helped build, reduced to simply laying a speci c number of bricks in a pre-de ned
way, hour after hour. Machines did most of the work, rendering skilled workers obsolete
and their knowledge useless. This fascination with technology re ected a broader societal
awe for its transformative potential. Taylor believed science and technology were
inherently good, ushering in a new era where they, not traditional faiths, reigned supreme.
Besides universalising tools and labour processes, potentially a good thing, Taylorism
also impacted how time was perceived. Factories adopted "chronometric time," a rigid,
standardised measure that prioritised productivity and control over the more human-
centred understanding of time where tasks owed according to individual needs and
rhythms. Taylor’s workers were as cogs in a meticulously designed machine, their every
action dictated by time and motion studies conducted with chronometers and precise
calculations.

When in the United States, Weber visited Ford’s car manufacturing plant. There,
Taylorism had been adapted to mass production and the conveyor belt. This vision of
progress left Weber apprehensive (Sca , 2011). Weber was not positively impressed
when he saw in practice much of what he had found disturbing in modernity, especially
economic rationality. Within a Weberian analytical framework, Taylorism and Fordism
ft
would emerge as perfect consequences of economic rationality—the quest for pro t and
productivity maximisation trapped workers in a system that killed creativity and
ra

individuality. Workers were no longer masters of their craft, but simply replaceable parts in
a giant machine. This loss of autonomy over even the most basic tasks resonated with
Weber's broader concerns about the impact of rationalisation on society. Weber believed
D

that while e ciency was important, it shouldn't come at the cost of human dignity and
the ability to nd meaning in one's work. Weber would identify Taylorism with:

1) dehumanisation and alienation, already features of rationalisation and

bureaucratisation of modern society. Alienation was the result of extreme standardisation,
division of work and mechanistic processes, which eroded workers’ sense of agency; 2)
loss of individuality, as the focus on strict control, task specialisation, routinisation and
time-and-motion studies diminished the individuality and dignity of workers, as Weber
might have pointed out. We should recall that Weber valued the unique talents and
potential of individuals within organisations and that with Taylor, workers were reduced to
mere cogs in a machine-like system; 3) social Consequences: Weber was attentive to the
broader social implications of bureaucratic rationalisation. Visiting Ford's plant in Detroit,

32
ffi
fi
ff
fl
fi
fl
fi
fi
he would likely have been critical of the social inequalities and disruptions caused by
industrialisation and Taylorist management practices; 4) critique of Rationalisation: Weber
would certainly resume his critique of rationalisation in modern society and extend it to
Taylorism as a prime example of the instrumental rationality that prioritises e ciency and
calculability at the expense of human values and social relationships. He would likely
caution against the unchecked application of scienti c management principles without
considering the broader ethical and social implications. In conclusion, Max Weber would
likely view Taylorism as a manifestation of the "iron cage" of rationalisation, highlighting
its potential to dehumanise work, undermine individual autonomy, and contribute to social
dislocation and inequality. Weber's concerns about the impact of bureaucratic systems
on individuals and society would resonate with his critique of Taylorism and its
implications for the modern workplace.

Weber, economic action and the environment

None of the forefathers of sociology addressed nature as a prime subject. They

were more concerned about human and social phenomena. However, the environment
emerges as a disquieting issue coupled with the development of capitalism and, in
ft
Weber’s case, the spread of instrumental or economic rational action. You saw that
instrumental rationality was also embedded in technological development. Science could
ra

be applied to solving problems and making economic goals possible, which was one of
the reasons for the association of science and technology with the idea of progress. You
can see how this went because, in our days, there are a lot of discussions regarding AI. It
is not that AI is a recent invention, because we would not have computers and robots
D

without it. It is more that it turns realities previously considered utopian or simply
phantasies of a distant future close to our doorstep. Finally, we are close to having
Taylor’s dream of plants void of inconvenient workers. Furthermore, we are close to
having to stop thinking at all. Imagine how, in your middle ages, the world may look like.
AI will tell you everything you need to know, even what and how to feel (it already does).
Of course, this is a concern, and nowadays, philosophers are, perhaps, those who spend
more time re ecting on the durable consequences arti cial intelligence (AI) entails to
mankind (e.g. Kobes; Gordon), environmental and otherwise. That is exactly how the
19th-century sociologists faced when confronted with the bulk of change encapsulated in
capitalism. But Max Weber’s work was too complex, and it took a while until later
sociologists found his environmental concerns relevant.

33
fl
fi
fi
ffi
 Capitalism fosters instrumental rationality which in turn, threatens society with
dehumanisation. The magnitude of Weber’s work and his contribution to sociology go
beyond these simple ideas. He thought that capitalism and the rationalisation of society,
including the economy, were the main features of modern society. He also coupled
Western capitalism with the development of science and technology. Perhaps you recall
how in the 19th century the latter were considered the main drivers of social change and
progress. By now you also know that Weber was suspicious of the consequences of
progress, at least the way he saw it unfolding in his day. Along with the consequences of
capitalism and instrumental rationalisation condensed in bureaucracy, Weber addressed
the impact of capitalism on the environment. Although this was not Weber’s prime
concern, he nonetheless looked into it. He considered the destructive nature of
instrumental rationality and its e ects on natural resources and in some way, Antonio
(Antonio, 2005) notes, his work anticipated concerns about resource depletion and
environmental degradation.

Weber observed how instrumental rationalisation coupled with mechanisation led

to ecological irrationality. Weber warned of the consequences of the modern economy's
materialistic ethos, and the relentless consumption of fossil fuels, highlighting their
potential impact on the environment (Antonio, 2005). This warning, given after he visited
ft
the United States in 1904, evokes contemporary climate scientists' projections on the
severity of climate change impacts and the urgent need for mitigation and adaptation
ra

strategies (Antonio & Clark, 1015). The debate on whether we are already experiencing
the kind of rupture Weber envisioned remains central to discussions in scienti c, policy,
and social theory circles regarding climate change (Antonio, 2005). More precisely, his
D

understanding of the interaction between society and nature echoes current

environmental challenges. Jerolmack (2012) recalls how Weber observed the cold hard
rationality of science and economics enabled the domination of nature and drained it of
magic and mysticism. and “Industrialisation reduced the environment to a commodity” (p.
502). Urbanisation also depleted natural environments, forcing the disappearance of
animals from everyday life. Walker (2005) argues that Weber’s acknowledgement of the
role of geographical factors in shaping social phenomena provides a valuable framework
for analysing the environmental contexts of human societies.

Weber suggests that the crude instrumental rationality of modern societies has left
them “physically, culturally, and spiritually estranged from nature” (Jerolmack, 2012, p.
502). Weber's approach to nature and the environment has been re-evaluated of late.

34
ff
fi
 While Weber is often associated with his insights into capitalism, bureaucracy, and
rationalisation, his direct engagement with the relationship between society and nature
has been less emphasised in traditional interpretations. The re-evaluation of Weber's
work has revealed what Murphy (2002) terms ecological materialism, which
acknowledges the signi cance of non-social factors such as geography, climate, natural
resources, and technology in shaping historical social structures. Weber’s interest in
human social action led him to realise that intentions resulted in actions that have
consequences, some of which may be unintended. You have certainly experienced
situations where what you said or did had unexpected results: someone misunderstood
your words or actions and reacted accordingly, for example. Well, Weber told us that
some consequences of our actions may trigger uncontrollable processes that might trap
us in an “iron cage” (Murphy, 2002). Think about the environmental emergency we face,
and Weber’s wisdom comes to mind; the unintended consequences of economic agents,
guided by mistaken economic principles and beliefs, have now enclosed us in an iron
cage: the Safe Operating Space for Humanity (SOSH). It keeps diminishing as we cross
the planet's boundaries, but no one seems to care about it.

Human actions, mainly those motivated by instrumental rationality, unleashed

unintended natural processes. Still, human action seems centred on the pursuit of the
ft
means to dominate and explore nature instead of trying to step back and choose a
di erent course of action. By now you have realised that Weber understood the
ra

interconnectedness between society and the natural environment. Drawing Weber,

Murphy (2002) developed the concept of ecological materialism. As the name suggests, it
integrates ecological concepts with materialist analysis combining Weber's emphasis on
D

the role of material conditions in shaping social structures and behaviours with a focus on
ecological sustainability and the impact of human activities on the environment. In other
words, it seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship
between society, nature, and sustainability. But materialism is a philosophical perspective
that, as already stated, considers matter as the cause of all things, in the last instance.
That was how Karl Marx embraced materialism, but his insights into the environment
were ignored for too long.

35
ff
fi
 Summary

Max Weber argued that Protestant asceticism cultivated a distinct form of

rationality, foundational to Western capitalism, setting it apart from earlier capitalist forms
that did not endure. He examined how ascetic Protestantism contributed to advancing
modern science and technology. He also observed that, while capitalism existed in
regions like Imperial China, it did not survive due to insu cient rational technology and
economic organisation. The 17th-century scienti c revolution heralded the emergence of
modern rational science. When paired with capitalism in the 18th century, it enabled the
rational production of goods. Weber emphasised that economic motives, particularly
pro t-driven ones, were vital for technological progress, although he recognised other
factors in uencing technology's development. Weber de ned social action as human
behaviour connected to subjective meanings and categorised it into four types, including
instrumentally-oriented rational action, which focuses on the means to achieve speci c
ends. He illustrated this idea with historical examples, such as the change from wood to
coking coal in industrialisation. Critiquing the optimistic view of science as a way to
universal progress, Weber argued that it lacked ethical direction and could not resolve
ft
existential questions. He described modern science and technology as double-edged
swords that, while enhancing e ciency, also contributed to a "disenchanted world"
ra

devoid of traditional values.

Weber's metaphor of the "iron cage" encapsulates the constraints imposed by

rationality in modern capitalism, where individuals nd themselves trapped in a system
D

that prioritises e ciency over freedom and creativity. He also explored bureaucracy,
which arose as a rational administrative structure necessary for managing complex
governmental functions. While bureaucracy can improve e ciency, it risks sti ing
individual agency and creativity due to its rigid hierarchies and rules. Ultimately, Weber
viewed bureaucracy as an essential yet dehumanising element of modern capitalism,
reinforcing the iron cage metaphor that describes the tension between rationality and
individual freedom in contemporary society. Upon visiting Ford's plant, Max Weber,
expressed concerns about the dehumanising e ects of such systems, where workers
became mere cogs in a machine, losing their creativity and individuality. He critiqued the
rationalisation of society, emphasising that while e ciency is important, it should not
compromise human dignity or the meaningfulness of work. Weber identi ed several

36
fi
fl
ffi
ffi
ff
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fl
fi
consequences of this rationalisation: dehumanisation, loss of individuality, and social
inequalities stemming from bureaucratic practices. Taylorism and Fordism a ected
workers and society. Taylor’s management principles drew on transforming skilled into
specialised labourers engaged in repetitive tasks due to mechanisation, rendering their
expertise obsolete. This shift re ects a societal fascination with technology, which Taylor
viewed as inherently bene cial, leading to a new era dominated by scienti c
management. However, this approach also imposed a rigid perception of time, prioritising
productivity over individual needs.

Weber's broader analysis linked capitalism with environmental degradation, noting

that instrumental rationality and mechanisation led to ecological irrationality. He called
attention to the destructive nature of modern economies due to their materialistic ethos,
which parallels contemporary concerns about climate change and resource depletion. His
insights into the relationship between society and nature have gained renewed attention,
suggesting that human actions driven by economic rationality can lead to unintended
environmental consequences, trapping society in an "iron cage" of its own making. This
perspective has evolved into "ecological materialism," an expression integrating
ecological considerations with materialist analysis to facilitate the understanding of the
interplay between society and the environment.
ft
ra

Self-assessment

- How does Weber's concept of the Protestant ethic relate to the development of
capitalism, and what critiques exist regarding this relationship?
D

- In what ways does Weber address the impact of instrumental rationality and
bureaucracy on modern society, and what are the implications for social organisation?

- How does Weber's analysis of capitalism extend to environmental concerns, and what
insights does he provide regarding resource depletion?

37
fi
fl
fi
ff
 Karl Marx and the Anthropocene

d. Exploitation: the operative word to decode capitalism.

When Karl Marx died, in 1883, Durkheim and Simmel were 25 years old, and Max
Weber was still a teenager. Yet, they were all in uenced by Marx’s ideas, in one way or
another. They experienced a world that was already very di erent from that which inspired
Karl Marx’s views. It has been over 200 years since Marx’s birth, and the world seems
very di erent from that, which we perceive when reading his books. There are a lot of
misconceptions regarding Marx and his work, and we could start with the word that
spirals into your head when you hear his name: communism. If you think Marx created
the idea of communism, you would be wrong. To be sure, the idea is present in Plato’s
Republic (Brown, 2017). Plato wrote about an ideal society where the ruling class serves
the interests of the whole community, making it a communitarian society, to be precise. A
simple form of communism is also found among the early Christians. When Karl Marx
used the word, and even wrote, with Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Marx & Engels,
ft
1948), the term had already made its way into many books. Perhaps you have stumbled
across Thomas More’s Utopia, the early 16th-century work about a society without
ra

money where people shared everything, from goods to property. So, it is likely that Marx,
as a trained philosopher, was well-acquainted with the historical roots of communism.
Interestingly, a read of Marx and Engels will reveal that neither of them ever speci ed the
D

(ideal) of a communist society. Wol and Leopold ( 2021, n.p.) explain that

(…) Marx is famously reluctant to say much about the detailed arrangements of the
communist alternative that he sought to bring into being, arguing that it would arise
through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined plan
or blueprint.

Economic sociology emerged from the contributions of classical authors, such as

Durkheim, Simmel and Weber. To some extent, they all asked questions about economic
behaviour and the resulting consequences. Marx and Engels, however, were the rst to
include economic action in social institutions. Marx was keen to emphasise economic
relations as social relations making the study of economic behaviour the business of

38
ff
ff
fl
ff
fi
fi
sociology. Marx’s ideas were very in uential during the 19th century and throughout the
20th century, until 1989. When the Berlin Wall fell, it brought Marxism down with it.
However, in the 21st century, scholars are looking back at Marx’s work and nding what
had escaped his advocates and his critics: his views on the environment under
capitalism. Suddenly, Marx’s work started to help us make sense of the Anthropocene
and how to nd a way to a sustainable world.

Introducing Marx

Karl Marx was born to a Jewish family in Germany. His father was a magistrate
who converted to Protestantism to keep his profession. He studied Philosophy at the
University, became a radical journalist after graduating and was expelled from Germany.
He lived in France and Belgium but was also expelled and only found a haven in Britain.
London was his refuge and the city where he wrote his masterpiece Das Kapital. Marx’s
ideas are usually conveyed through the interpretations of others, be they Marxists or
critics, making them usually a little accurate. Therefore, it is best to read his work, now
published online. Marxism was an ideology and many people, with very di erent visions
of the world would call themselves Marxists. So, when we address Marx’s original views
we call them Marxian instead of Marxist. Marxism refers to secondary readings of Marx’s
ft
ideas, usually from people who took on Marx’s ideological set-up but forgot the rest. We
will pick up the rest and forget the ideology for now.
ra

Marx, the historian and sociologist

D

Recall Durkheim’s concept of anomie. He applied it to emphasise the con icts

stemming from the economic world. We can almost see him deep in thought,
contemplating the new society taking shape right before his eyes and concluding that
there was nothing particularly wrong with it. People were just a little lost, as they made
their way from an old feudal order to an industrial one. Changes take time, Durkheim
might have thought, as he recalled the alarming views he had read in Karl Marx’s views.
No, Durkheim concluded, what happens has nothing to do with capitalism and Marx must
be wrong. But was he? What made Marx’s theories so enticing that millions followed in
his footsteps, and many attempted to interpret, correct prolong and even put into practice
his views? In the case of sociology, he inspired and in uenced, to some extent,

39
fi
fl
fl
fl
ff
fi
 generations of sociologists, even when they opposed and created alternative theories.
Without Marx’s contributions, sociology would developed di erently, particularly
economic sociology. Marx developed a materialist vision of history, in his view, the
material needs were the rst that motivated the rst human communities to nd ways to
satisfy them. Historical materialism departs from the history of real human beings. This
premise states that all human history is the existence of living individuals” (Marx & Engels,
1969, p.7). Human beings are essentially productive, and this means that they need to
produce their means of subsistence to meet their material needs: “The rst historical act
is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs [eating, drinking, housing,
clothing, and so forth], the production of material life itself (p. 16). Such productive
activities “a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a
certain mode of co-operation, or social stage (society), and this mode of co-operation is
itself a productive form” (p. 18), engender new needs, material and social and as a result
a correspondent form of society is created, meeting the state of development of human
productive forces. Material life determines, or at least constrains social life. If we want to
understand a given society, we must rst look at its material production and then move to
social forms, and afterwards, to forms of consciousness. As di erent modes of
production develop and replace one another, they originate diverse types of society with
ft
speci c class structures.

Modes of production: Primitive and Ancient

ra

The concept of mode of production describes the historical evolution of human

societies. The rst mode of production involved “primitive man” (Marx and Engels, 1969,
D

p. 9) and was later termed “primitive communism” by Engels (2010). In this mode of
production (gathering and hunting societies), the division of work was basic and mirrored
the natural roles within a family. The correspondent social hierarchy resembled an
enlarged family: patriarchal leaders at the top, followed by tribe members, and nally,
slaves. The concept of slavery, already present within the family system (though perhaps
implicit), gradually expands with population growth, increasing desires, and external
interactions, including war and trade. The second was the ancient mode of production,
developing from unifying tribes into a city through agreement or conquest. Notably,
slavery remains prevalent under this structure. While private ownership of movable goods
emerges alongside communal ownership, it is initially considered subordinate and less
common. Citizens' authority over their slaves is contingent upon their membership in the

40
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
fi
 community and tied to the communal ownership system. This communal private property
(Engels, 2010) incentivised active citizens to remain within this social structure due to
their control over enslaved labour. However, the development of private ownership,
particularly of immovable property (land), weakened this communal system and the
associated citizen power. In the ancient mode of production, the division of labour
became increasingly complex around a distinction between urban and rural populations
and corresponding classes, and even internal town divisions between industry and
maritime trade. Finally, the class relationship between citizens and slaves becomes fully
established under this system. The social structure becomes increasingly complicated
due to the complexity of the division of labour.

Modes of production: Feudal and Capitalist

Feudalism, you recall, developed from a unique historical context very distinct from
the origins of previous societies. As the Roman Empire crumbled, its previous conquests
left a vast and sparsely populated landscape and agricultural expansion, in contrast to
the urban beginnings of ancient societies. However, this landscape was far from being a
wilderness. The decline of the Roman Empire and barbarian invasions left a legacy of low
ft
agricultural and industrial production, sti ed trade, and a shrinking population. The feudal
property rose, in uenced by the military structure of the Germanic tribes. In some ways, it
resembled tribal ownership, but with a particular subjugated class: serfs, not slaves toiled
ra

for the landowning elite. The social hierarchy of feudalism developed around land
ownership. The nobility wielded power over the serfs by controlling the land and using
their armed retainers. This system functioned as an association against a subjugated
D

class. However, the methods of control and the nature of the subjugated class di ered
due to the speci cities of feudal production. “There was little division of labour in the
heyday of feudalism”, Marx (1969, p. 12) stated. in each feudal state, towns contrasted
with the countryside and very well-de ned social classes: nobility, both lay and religious,
peasants (serfs) in the country and “masters, journeymen and apprentices” (p. 12) in
towns where crafts developed. Soon, casual labourers would also invade the towns,
especially after the famine caused by the black plague. In agriculture, the strip system
(land divided into strips, some remaining fallow and rotation of crops) did not allow much
di erentiation. Even so, a cottage industry emerged around peasant work (e.g., spinning,
weaving, cloth making, leather, shoe making).

41
ff
fi
fl
fi
fl
ff
 Towns provided a counterpoint to the rural feudal system. Here, guilds emerged as
a response to various pressures: the need for protection from the greedy nobility,
communal markets, competition from escaping serfs, and the overall feudal structure
itself. Mirroring the rural hierarchy, guilds developed a speci c social structure with
masters, journeymen, and apprentices. Initially, the division of labour within these towns
was rudimentary, and guild members had a comprehensive. understanding of their craft,
taking pride in their mastery. The capital used by these guilds was also unique, consisting
of tools, workshops, and a clientele base passed down through generations. Unlike
modern, readily transferable capital, it was inextricably linked to a speci c craft.
Feudalism saw the increase of the merchant class. The merchant represented the
“separation of production and commerce” (Marx and Engels, p. 47), which enabled trade
to extend beyond a town's immediate vicinity. The success of this trade hinged on factors
like communication networks, political stability (illustrated by the need for armed caravans
during the Middle Ages), and the level of development (needs) in the surrounding regions.
Merchants introduced a new form of division of labour. Towns began to specialise in
speci c industries, leading to a breakdown of earlier local restrictions on trade. The reach
of commerce was very important in spreading inventions. In isolated production areas,
discoveries could be lost due to con icts or population decline. Merchants were able to
ft
connect even distant regions and helped to preserve and disseminate knowledge across
world regions.
ra

During the feudalist mode of production, the division of labour between towns led
to the rise of manufactures, which surpassed the guild system in scale. This development
bene tted initially from commerce with foreign nations, although in England and France,
D

the manufacture initially catered to domestic markets. The development of manufacture

necessitated advanced concentration of population (especially rural) and capital
accumulation. Capital started accumulating in both guilds (despite regulations) and
among merchants. Weaving, initially a rural sideline, became the rst and primary industry
to bene t from expanded trade. Factors like population growth, increased capital
circulation, and demand for luxury goods stimulated its growth. The manufacture, in turn,
led to the emergence of a new class of urban weavers catering to wider markets. Unlike
guild-based crafts, weaving thrived outside guild restrictions, often in villages and market
centres that later became ourishing towns. This change also transformed property
relations. The manufacture o ered sanctuary to peasants excluded or underpaid by
guilds, similar to how guild towns o ered sanctuary from oppressive nobility earlier.

42
fi
fi
fi
fl
ff
ff
fl
fi
fi
fi
 Vagrancy caused by the disintegration of the feudal system also provided a labour
pool for these new industries. The manufacture allowed countries to enter a competitive
struggle for trade marked by wars, protective tari s, and bans. It replaced the earlier and
less volatile exchange between them. While the guilds fostered a paternalistic relationship
between masters and journeymen, the manufacture encouraged impersonal and
monetary relationships between workers and capitalists. This shift was more pronounced
in larger manufacturing towns. The discovery of America and the sea route to the East
Indies further stimulated the manufacture and trade. The in ux of gold and silver
reshaped class relations, impacting workers and feudal landowners. Exploration,
colonisation, and the formation of a global market ushered in a new historical era, under
the lead of capitalism.

In the expanding feudal towns, trade and manufacture allowed for the
accumulation of mobile capital. Unable to adapt to change, the guilds remained tied to
natural capital (“a house, the tools of the craft and the natural, hereditary customers” that
“descended from father to son” (Marx and Engels, 1969, p. 47), which stalled or declined.
As a result, guilds dwindled while a new class grew stronger and stronger: the
ft
bourgeoisie (merchants and manufacturers). Trade did not cease to increase because a
larger population meant more needs, more imported goods, and the rst protective
policies such as privileges for domestic industries against foreign competition. Customs
ra

duties emerged from tolls levied by feudal lords and later by towns, eventually becoming
a primary source of government revenue. Here, Weber would raise his indicator and tell
you: bureaucracy, you see? Bureaucracy was already in place in the Middle Ages. After
D

the 15th century, the in ux of gold and silver helped trade to expand and the initially
protective policies changed. The state was now reliant on money and held onto export
bans for scal reasons. The bourgeoisie bene tted from this in ux of wealth, and
established privileges became a source of income for governments. Customs duties
shifted towards export taxes, primarily for revenue generation. Later, by the mid-17th to
late 18th centuries a period of rapid trade and navigation growth followed. Colonies
emerged as signi cant consumers and nations began to compete for a share of the global
market, utilising tari s, bans, treaties, and ultimately wars (especially naval) to gain
dominance. England protected by its powerful navy emerged as the leader in trade and
manufacturing. You can see where this is going: nations shielded their industries through
various means, from protective tari s in the domestic market to monopolies in colonial

43
fi
fi
ff
fl
ff
fi
ff
fl
fl
fi
markets, and di erential duties abroad. Policies also encouraged the use of domestic raw
materials and discouraged the export of those materials. This concentration on domestic
production aimed to strengthen national dominance in trade and colonisation. In
hindsight, we realise how fragile the industries were because they still depended upon
protection as even the smaller changes in other countries could mean the loss of their
markets and ruin. Besides, the rural roots of the manufacturing industries involved many
people and governments hesitated to expose them to the risks of free competition.

In the 18th century, commerce played a foundational role in the development of modern
capitalism. Merchants increased their economic in uence, especially ship owners who
actively lobbied for state protection and monopolies. While manufacturers also sought
protection, they held less political in uence. In this period, society changed, and
commercial and maritime towns developed a more cosmopolitan worldview while factory
towns retained a more traditional, “small-bourgeois” (Marx and Engels, 1969, p. 55) small-
business mentality. But in this century nance also shifted. Bans on exporting gold and
silver were lifted, paving the way for the commodi cation of itself. Banks, national debts,
paper money, and speculation became commonplace, further severing capital from its
natural roots. Much later, Karl Polanyi (2001)would call money a ctitious commodity
England's dominance in trade and manufacturing throughout the 17th century helped to
ft
create a de facto global market for its manufactured goods, but existing production
methods could not cope with the corresponding growing demand. The “big industry”
ra

(Marx and Engels, 1969, p. 55) made its arrival: the pressure to meet demand spurred the
development of a di erent kind of industry, characterised by the use of natural forces (e.g.
machinery powered by water), large buildings and complex division of labour. This
D

marked the third major transformation in private ownership since the Middle Ages.

England was uniquely positioned for this shift due to factors like internal free
competition and advancements in mechanics. If initially competition stimulated protective
measures, it soon transcended these measures due to the e ciency of the mechanised
industry. This practical free trade fostered the development of communication networks
and a truly global market. The big industry revolutionised nance, making all capital
industrial capital and centralised control. It also imposed a relentless pursuit of e ciency
(economic rationality), undermining traditional ideologies and religions. Finally, by creating
a system where everyone relies on the global market to meet their needs, the new
industry shattered national isolation and made world history a reality. It even brought
science under capitalist control and fundamentally transformed the nature of labour

44
ff
ff
fl
fi
fi
fl
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
division. And so, Marx tells us (1969), the dark side of the industrial era began bringing
social and economic upheaval. Traditional ways of life started to disappear, as industrial
capitalism undermined natural growth and replaced it with a focus on monetary
relationships. The customary ways of life and naturally growing towns disappeared under
the spread of large industrial cities (e.g., think about Manchester, for example). But
existing crafts and the earlier industrial production subsided, and rural communities
became even more peripheral.

As industrial capitalism developed further, its contradictions became manifest.

Take the example of private property and recall that it previously operated as a growth
facilitator. Under industrial capitalism, it became a constraint in the same way as the
guilds had been for earlier forms of production. The industry generated great productive
forces, which could not be fully explored under a private property system. Why? is the
question you are now asking. Marx (1969) explained that the most pressing matter under
private was pro t for the owner. This led industrialists to produce mainly highly pro table
commodities even when the need for di erent goods was greater. Private property also
allowed that the wealthier industries created were often concentrated in the hands of a
few owners. The result was that most workers were not paid enough to a ord all the
goods that factories could produce, limiting overall demand. Marx also states that private
ft
property systems can be prone to boom-and-bust cycles. During booms, factories may
overproduce, generating surplus and crashes. During crashes, factories may lay o
ra

workers or shut down, jeopardising productive capacity. The overall result was
widespread destruction and underemployment. There is also the fact that industry led to
homogenised societies, eroding their unique national characteristics.
D

The rise of the proletariat is another e ect of industrial development. A global

class, the proletariat, expanded, united by their shared struggle against capitalist
exploitation. This new class surpassed national boundaries, as their working conditions
were similarly poor regardless of country. Even workers in other sectors were a ected
negatively, as they faced increased competition and a decline in their livelihoods. The
economic base, however, a ected the organisation of society and respective ideological
settings. The state, for example, developed and changed in close relationship to property.
Marx’s historical materialism is embedded in the idea that di erent forms of property
ownership necessitate di erent state structures. Industrialisation created purely private
property, which cut ties with communal ownership and obstructed the state’s ability to
regulate its development. The result was a situation where the state became bound to the

45
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
 propertied class (bourgeoisie), relying on taxation and commercial credit for its survival. In
Marx’s (1969) view, even then the United States was “the most perfect example of the
modern state” (p. 60), completely subservient to private property interests.

The di erent modes of production also reveal the relationship between human
beings and nature. As such, “the land” (water, etc.) (1969, p. 68) is synonymous with
“natural instruments of production”. History shows how the di erent modes of production
introduced changes to this “natural” relationship. The following table summarises the
alterations between “natural instruments of production” and industrialisation.

Table 1
Natural instruments of production versus “civilised” instruments of production

Natural Instruments of production Industrialisation

Subordination To nature to a product of labour

Type of property Appears as landed property (direct Appears as dominance of labourers,

natural domination) particularly of accumulated labour
(capital)

Community individuals united by family, tribe, land, Individualisation and held by

etc. exchange.
ft
Exchange Between individuals and nature: Between individuals (contracts and
labour is exchanged by the land wages)
products
ra

Dominant activity Physical and mental activity Division between mental and labour
inseparable (physical)

Domination of based on a personal relationship on a Based on money (a mediator)

property owners kind of community
over the
D

propertyless

Type of industry small industries using natural large industries that exist only in and
instruments of production without through the division of labour
specialisation of labour (distribution of
labour among various individuals)

Note: Adapted from Marx and Engels (1969, p. 64)

The historical process of division of labour resulted in many related changes. The
division of labour in uenced the distribution of resources and capital, leading to a division
between capital and labour, di erent forms of property ownership, and the concentration
of power and wealth in the hands of speci c groups within society. In the capitalist mode

46
ff
fl
ff
fi
ff
 of production, the Bourgeoisie was the class that retained the ownership of the means of
production and the wealth. The division of labour a ected the distribution of resources,
the ownership of capital and even the division between capital and labour in the context
of property relations. The division of work includes the specialisation of tasks and roles
among individuals in a production process or, as Durkheim’s (1933) perspective, in
society. The consequence of the division of labour was (still is) the di erentiation in the
types of work and the skills required for various tasks. Changes can be experienced
nowadays, as several jobs now require a university degree, whereas 40 years ago the 9th
grade was adequate. This happened, for example with banking, sales and even nursing.
When Marx talks about the division of the conditions of labour, he refers to the changes
that occur around labour: tools change, even the physical spaces where people work,
along with the materials and resources necessary for production. This division implies
that di erent individuals or groups may have access to speci c tools and resources
based on their roles within the division of labour.

The division of labour also entails the accumulation of capital. The expression
refers to the distribution of the stored value of past labour among di erent owners as the
division of labour advances. This distribution of accumulated capital among various
owners signi es the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of speci c
ft
individuals or groups. The division of labour and the distribution of accumulated capital
contribute to a clear division between those who own and control capital (capitalists or
ra

the bourgeois) and those who provide labour (workers). This division between capital and
labour forms the basis of class distinctions and power distribution within a capitalist
society. The evolving division of labour, distribution of resources, and ownership of capital
D

led to the development of various forms of property ownership. Property relations are
shaped by the unequal distribution of resources and capital among di erent social
groups, reinforcing the division between those who own property (capitalists or the
bourgeois) and those who do not (workers).

Private ownership of the means of production opposed essentially two classes: on

the one side, the capitalists who owned the means of production and on the other side,
the propertyless class, the proletarians, who were forced into work and to accept the
terms the capitalists imposed. This is the fundamental con ict, not a sign or the result of
anomie as Durkheim (1933) thought, but the expression of capitalism’s inner core. Under
capitalism, labour was a commodity and work became a simple means of survival. Class
struggle was the name of this primary con ict and according to Marx, con ict was at the

47
ff
fi
fl
ff
fl
fi
ff
ff
ff
fl
fi
 heart of every means of production. The Manifest of the Communist Party, a work
commissioned by the Communist League and published into Marx and Engels
(1948)opens with a widely divulged sentence: “The history of all hitherto existing society
is the history of class struggles”. The Bourgeoisie, the dominant class in a capitalist
society, was the revolutionary class that ended feudalism. However, the proletarians took
on the revolutionary role under capitalism, and it was their job to explore its inner
contradictions and replace it with the socialist mode of production, leading to a class and
stateless society, a communist society. As all Marxians know, Marx was rather evasive
when addressing communism, probably because he did not know what it would be like.
Had he a crystal ball perhaps that would have been possible. As it is, communism, that
ideal society where human beings might ful l their potential, remains an ideal.

Marx, the economist

Confronting Smith

The working class was the victim of 19th-century industrial capitalism. Its su ering
would motivate even capitalists, like Robert Owen, to mitigate its su ering and
depravation. Utilitarian concerns with the foundations of morality, governance, and
ft
economics were, grounded on unfounded premises about human nature. An individual's
pursuit of happiness did not, after all, include concerns about the consequences of their
ra

actions on others. Adam Smith, a representative of the Scottish Enlightenment, took a

di erent approach to morality. Believing that morality was part of human nature (Fevre,
2003), he wrote a book on morality (1976)and another about economics (1852). The
D

former did not attract as wide attention as the latter, as some of its ideas reappeared as
assumptions of neoclassical economics. You certainly have heard of Smith’s notion of
self-interest, but not that it should be understood within the limits of morality. You are
more likely to have learned that Smith thought about economic progress as he sought the
nature and causes of economic wealth. He found them in the division of labour, the
expansion of markets and the accumulation of capital (Gehrke et al., 2020, p. 175). Marx
challenges the fundamental concepts Smith used to analyse the workings of free market
forces, particularly focusing on the exchange value of products and its three components:
wages, pro ts, and rent.

The three components, Smith thought, originated from the three factors of
production necessary for product creation: labour, capital, and land. Smith detailed how

48
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
the value of a commodity breaks down into wages, pro t, and rent, along with the
distribution of wealth created in society among labourers, capitalists, and landlords. Marx
scrutinised this breakdown and asserted that there is no intrinsic characteristic in labour,
capital, and land to explain such a division of wealth. In Marx’s view, understanding the
return and composition of a single product requires that the commodity form of the
product be not taken for granted. In other words, we must study the social organisation of
the production process to discover the real determinants of the production process into
labour, capital, and land, which at the same time are the real determinants behind the
redistribution of wealth of nations: wages, pro ts and rent. Besides,

Wages are determined through the antagonistic struggle between capitalists and
workers. Victory goes necessarily to the capitalist. The capitalist can live longer
without the worker than can the worker without the capitalist. Combination among
the capitalists is customary and e ective; workers’ combination is prohibited and
painful in its consequences for them (1988, p.19).

Smith’s idea of a free market with free individuals realising their self-interest
conceals a relationship of power and domination of capitalists over workers, who
ft
represent the weakest link. The minimal wage-rate means a wage that allows for the
reproduction of the worker’s labour power and eventually supports their family. According
ra

to Smith, the standard wage is the lowest compatible with basic humanity and wages are
determined freely by the law of supply and demand, and that, Marx thought, equals
workers to a commodity, because it is impossible to separate labour from the workers.
When supply surpasses demand, a segment of workers falls into poverty or starvation.
D

The worker's survival is subject to the same conditions as any other product, dependent
on the whims of the wealthy and capitalists. If supply exceeds demand, one component
of the price—be it pro t, ground rent, or wages—drops below its standard rate, leading to
a withdrawal of these elements and causing market prices to gravitate towards the
natural price. However, in situations of extensive division of labour, it becomes
challenging for workers to transition to other sectors, and due to their subordinate
position to the capitalist, they are the rst to endure hardships. Marx went on to show
that even in the most advantageous social circumstances for the worker, the unavoidable
outcome is excessive labour leading to premature death, reducing the worker to a mere
cog in the machine, a servant bound to capital. This situation exacerbates competition,
creating an imbalance, resulting in starvation or poverty for a segment of the workforce. In

49
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
 The Manuscripts (1844/1988), Marx deconstructs Smith’s principles of political economy
and concludes that “In political economy labour occurs only in the form of wage-earning
activity” (p. 27). This is a principle that mainstream economics still maintains: only paid
work quali es as labour. The subordination of individuals to capital or, more speci cally,
to a job, makes them dependent on capital, and separated or estranged from their true
selves. That is one dimension of the broader phenomenon of alienation that Marx
connects to the capitalist mode of production.

Critique of political economy and alienation

Marx arrived at his theory of alienation after carefully examining the contributions
of Political Economy. He concentrated his critique on the failure of Political Economy to
account for contemporary social reality. Adam Smith’s main premises in The Wealth of
Nations (1852) deserved particular attention as they inspired most perspectives that
followed. Marx could not agree that the basis of human understanding of human beings,
as individuals or organised as a society, might reside in an abstract intellectual endeavour.
Instead, it needed to look at the empirical activity through which human beings shape
ft
their cultural, social, and physical environments. So, the obliteration of the idea of thinking
as a specialised and independent activity can only occur when the division of labour is
abolished, as it separates mental and manual activities. Alienation is a central category in
ra

Marx’s critique of the political economy (1982). It was a central concept in Hegel’s
description and analysis of the historical development of human knowledge.
D

Hegel conducted his intellectual activity independently of the historical reality in

which intellectuals exist. Marx took from Hegel the concept of alienation and reversed it
by grounding it within the labour process. This new meaning of alienation was central to
Marx’s analysis of the Political Economy. The study of social reality, whose study Marx
advocated was, of course, the capitalist mode of production (CMP). Smith wrote about a
changing reality. The CMP was starting, and the marks of feudalism were still visible.
Using the concept of alienation to study the exchangeable value of the product Marx
showed that if the social organisation of production is grounded on the exchange
between a wage-worker and the employer-capitalist, then workers are forced to give up
control of their productive activity and put it all at the disposal of their employers, who do

50
fi
fi
not labour. In this context, production will remain necessarily beyond the control of its
agents. The activity belongs to another, or to be precise is transferred to another.

Marx developed his concept of alienated labour to show that the relationship
between workers and employers is not free or voluntary. Employers buy labour and
thereby control the labour structures as, as already seen, they own the means of
production (factories, tools, raw materials and products). Workers did not work because
they wanted and enjoyed it, and work was not entirely for the bene t of workers: “The
worker need not necessarily gain when the capitalist does, but he necessarily loses when
the latter loses” (Marx, 1988, p 21). Workers, Marx asserted, were forced into work
because they lacked the ownership of the means of production and to avoid starvation.
They did not labour entirely for their bene t because capitalists used their privileged
position to exploit workers and appropriate the majority of the values they created.
However, Marx did not establish private property as the cause of alienated labour. It is the
other way; private property is the product of alienated work.

Alienated labour can be conceived in isolation from private property, and we have
seen that before while tracing the origins of the CMP. To develop, capitalism required
accumulated wealth and landless individuals in need of selling their labour power. In
ft
Marx’s words: "For when one speaks of private property, one thinks of being concerned
with something external to man. When one speaks of labour, one is directly concerned
ra

with man himself. This new formulation of the question already contains its solution”
(Marx, 1988, P. 83). Feeling bemused? Marx criticises political economy for its arrow
understanding of private property. He argues that political economists overlook the
historical development of private property and its connection to the division between
D

labour, capital, and land. This at view prevents them from grasping the fundamental
relationships within economic processes. They portray exchanges as arbitrary
occurrences driven by greed and competition, neglecting deeper historical and structural
forces. Conversely, Marx seeks to understand the relationship between private property,
the division of labour, and landed property, along with their in uence on exchange,
competition, value, and alienation.

Concrete Analysis and Worker Alienation

Marx emphasises concrete economic realities over abstract notions. He observes

the paradox of workers generating wealth while becoming increasingly impoverished.

51
fl
fi
fl
fi
 Their labour power becomes a commodity regardless of productivity, leading to a
devaluation of human worth as material wealth increases. Under capitalism, everything
becomes a commodity, including labour. Its commodi cation alienates workers from their
labour and its products. They are no longer connected to the goods they produce and
where their labour is embodied. Labour is not just a process; it manifests as a tangible
object, as Marx (1988, p.71 and following) says, an "objecti cation" of the worker's
essence.

Alienation as a historical development

Although alienation is equated with capitalism, its origins are not. This
estrangement, detachment or separation, is a byproduct of the division of labour and
attained its apex in the capitalist mode of production. In the earliest stages of human
society, the rst moment of alienation happens when humans are separated from nature.
Initially, they were completely dependent on natural resources. Think about the hunter
and gathering societies. As the modes of production and social organisations evolved,
the division of labour expanded, and various forms of alienation accompanied the
ft
di erent stages of production. This historical perspective highlights how alienation is not
unique to capitalist society and has deeper roots in the social relations of production
throughout history. Why then, did Marx think alienation was extreme in the CMP? There
ra

are several reasons, all rooted in the characteristics of capitalist relations, such as private
ownership of the means of production, wage labour and the commodity exchange. The
capitalist mode of production intensi es and exacerbates alienation by commodifying
D

labour, reducing workers to mere factors of production, and detaching them from the
products of their labour.

Alienation and Capitalism

The capitalist mode of production underlined Marx's critique of alienation. He

argues that alienation is not a personal issue but a systemic problem. It is also a historical
phenomenon, taking shape as the division of work develops. However, capitalist
production commodi es labour and treats workers as means to an end: to maximise
pro t and the result is a multi-dimensional alienation:

52
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 • Alienation from the product as workers are separated from the products they create,
which belong to the capitalist.

• Alienation from the labour process, because Workers perform repetitive, pre-
determined tasks, robbing them of control and creativity.

• Alienation from their human essence since the focus on e ciency and pro t reduces
workers to mere cogs in the machine, neglecting their human needs and potential
(creativity, innovation).

• Alienation from other individuals in society, because workers are pushed into
competition for jobs and for keeping the. In the process, they are separated from
their sense of community.

Marx thought that the political economy framework should highlight how capitalist
relations of production, driven by pro t maximisation, lead to worker alienation. The
commodi cation of labour and the concentration of power in the hands of capitalists
contribute to a sense of estrangement and subjugation. Marx's analysis exposes the
limitations of traditional political economy and shows how it perpetuates alienation within
capitalist societies.
ft
Alienation within the act of labour
ra

Work, Marx thought, is central to human life. It allows humans to unleash their
creativity in response to their needs. It also provided them with a sense of community,
and only under capitalism did labour become individualised. In the CMP the worker
D

experiences labour as external. Labour exists outside the worker and is separated from
their being. The result is the negation of their identity and a sense of discontent. Workers
experience work as physical su ering, mental deterioration, and a feeling of being out of
place. Work becomes a forced obligation, devoid of personal ful lment. Wage labour
emerged with the downfall of the feudal mode of production. Under capitalism, labour
became someone’s property, not the worker's. This causes a loss of self, as workers can
no longer nd self-expression in their labour. Because it is impossible to separate labour
from the worker, they belong to someone else. To a certain extent, workers become
slaves of their wages. If work is equal to su ering, and causes a loss of self, then the
experience of work is dehumanised. This translates into the reduction of humanness in

53
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
ffi
fi
fi
 basic functions like eating, drinking, and procreating. Work becomes animalistic, blurring
the lines between human and animal characteristics.

Exploitation

One of the famous political economists whose work Marx critiqued was David
Ricardo. He created the economic principle of the inverse relationship between wages
and pro ts (Gehrke et al., 2020), which Marx considered a human tragedy and the
potential for class struggle. Like Smith, Ricardo was a brilliant economist whose ideas
about wages and pro ts were marked by ongoing events. In the early 1800s, returns on
land steadily decreased, while the price of bread increased and challenged people and
politicians alike. If you watched period novels from the BBC, usually set in the 1800s, you
have seen this re ected in the bankrupt landowners seeking rich American brides to
recapitalise their properties. Ricardo participated in the discussions about the import of
grain and argued that to lower food prices, there should be free imports of grain
(Spangler, 2024). Rising food prices, he explained, resulted in an increase in wages and a
decrease in pro ts and accumulation. As a political economist, Ricardo saw labour as the
only constant price of goods. Marx (1948 p. 26) contended that the price of labour was
ft
“contingent” and “exposed to greater uctuations”.

Political economists also justi ed the division of work because it increased

ra

productivity and “the wealth and re nement of society”. In turn, Marx said the division of
work impoverishes workers and dehumanises them. Marx (1988, p. 26) emphasised that
“While labour brings about the accumulation of capitals and with this the increasing
D

prosperity of society” it also leaves workers dependent on a wage (increase i.e. the
capitalist) and enhanced productivity creating over-production, followed by a
corresponding collapse, leading workers to misery. Political economists also asserted
that it was in the worker’s interest never to oppose the interest of society, however, Marx
(1988, p. 26) pointed out, “society always and necessarily stands opposed to the interest
of the worker”. Note how Marx is answering the political economists using the same
rei ed notion of society, as an abstraction. Using the category “society” in the same way
as political economists excludes workers, who do not enjoy wealth and therefore,
“society’s interest” cannot be their interest.

Irreconcilable interests

54
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fl
 The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (Marx, 1988) denounces
exploitation and presents a critique of the political economists' views on labour,
productivity, and society’s interests. The basis of Marx’s argument is the premise of
exploitation as the core of the CMP, given that labour is a commodity, workers are
alienated and subordinated to the pursuit of pro t. Marx thought political economists
deliberately overlooked or justi ed the exploitation ingrained in capitalist systems. They
saw labour as a commodity with a uctuating price, failing to address the fundamental
imbalance between power and value extraction involving capitalists and workers. These
economists viewed labour as just another commodity to be bought and sold in a market,
failing to recognise the inherent exploitation in the system. They also assumed a harmony
of interests between workers and society, suggesting that increased productivity bene ts
everyone. Marx, however, saw this as a façade that masked the unequal distribution of
wealth. He claimed that as productivity increased capitalists might pay slightly higher
wages, but the surplus value they capture grows even larger, widening the gap between
the rich and the poor. Part of the argument is familiar: when labour is driven solely by the
pursuit of pro t and wealth accumulation, it leads to the alienation and subjugation of the
worker.
ft
Marx also thought that the division of labour while increasing productivity and
some social classes’ wealth, ultimately impoverished the workers reducing them to mere
ra

instruments of production. The political economists, Marx wrote (Manuscripts), failed to

acknowledge the destructive consequences of the use of labour with the sole purpose of
attaining pro t. Nowadays we might see this as a critique of economists for failing to see
D

and address the destructive consequences of economic rationality. But when labour is an
instrument of the pursuit of pro t, exploitation becomes the result and, Marx thought,
there could not be capitalism without the exploitation of workers. Exploitation is what
allows the capitalist to extract the surplus value from the workers’ labour. Marx's critique
challenges the political economists' assumptions about the harmony of interests between
workers and “society”, and exposes the exploitative processes at the core of capitalist
economies. Later, in The German Ideology (. ), Marx and Engels would recap the topic,
and Marx elaborated it further in Capital (. ). The fundamental idea, however, is that there
cannot be pro t without exploiting labour.

55
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
 Marx's theory of exploitation: A deeper look

In his critique of capitalism, Karl Marx argued that workers are fundamentally
exploited because they are paid less than the full value of what they produce. This
concept is central to his theory and revolves around two main ideas: the Labour Theory of
Value and Surplus Value. The Labour Theory of Value proposes that the value of a good or
service is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour required to produce it.
Here, "socially necessary" refers to the average amount of time and e ort a skilled
worker, considering the prevailing technology of the time, would need to create that good
or service. For example, imagine a pair of shoes takes a skilled cobbler 8 hours to make
by hand in a domestic business. According to the Labour Theory of Value, the value of
those shoes is directly tied to those 8 hours of labour. Now, if someone invents a machine
that can make the same pair of shoes in 4 hours, the value of the shoes wouldn't
necessarily decrease by half. The value would still re ect the average amount of socially
necessary labour, which, in this case, might remain 8 hours. So far, this is the classical
principle. Marx noted, however, that while the worker would double the value he created,
his wages were not tied to it. This means that, while the business owner doubles their
earnings (selling two pairs of shoes instead of one on the same day), the cobbler would
ft
still earn the same for 8 hours of work. Accordingly, the rst 4 hours of the working days
spent on producing value equivalent to the value of wages the worker will be paid (for
ra

producing 1 pair of shoes). The work the cobbler does during the next four hours to
produce another pair of shoes is known as surplus labour, producing surplus value for the
capitalist. Surplus value is the source of all pro t, and of labour’s exploitation.
D

Labour is not your common commodity, because it is inseparable from the

individual. When labour power is commodi ed and treated as a mere factor of production
to be bought and sold in the market, it entails the exploitation of the individual worker as
a person. Unlike other commodities that can be produced and exchanged without
a ecting the seller directly, labour power involves the person's time, e ort, and well-
being. When selling their labour power, workers involve themselves in the production
process and employ their physical and mental capacities to create value for the capitalist.
Therefore, when labour power is commodi ed and exploited for surplus value under
capitalism, it is not just the abstract concept of labour that is being exploited, as the
political economists reckoned. It is the individual worker. Extracting surplus value from

56
ff
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
ff
ff
 labour involves the exploitation of the worker's time, energy, and well-being. Besides,
workers are compelled to sell their labour power to survive.

In Capital, Marx draws a comparison between the Ancient and capitalist modes of
production. In societies based on slave labour, the surplus labour is extracted through
direct coercion and ownership of the labourer by the slave owner. The labourer is
compelled to work and produce surplus value for the owner, who appropriates the surplus
product of labour. You can think about the Roman Empire or Ancient Greece as
examples. However, a similar situation occurs in capitalist societies based on wage
labour. The extraction of surplus labour happens through the labourer’s contractual
relationship with the capitalist. The labourer sells their labour power to the capitalist in
exchange for a wage, but the capitalist extracts surplus value by paying the worker less
than the value they produce during the working day. This surplus value is the source of
pro t for the capitalist and the source of exploitation. Marx (1982) revealed the structural
processes of exploitation that persist across various modes of production, despite the
speci c historical and social contexts in which they operate. They shared a common
feature: those controlling the means of production extracted a surplus value from the
labour of labourers. Marx examined the implications of the introduction or expansion of
machinery in the production process for the relationship between capital and labour.
ft
When machinery is introduced, it tends to replace labour with constant capital (machinery
and other xed assets), transforming variable capital (capital invested in labour-power)
ra

into constant capital. However, Marx argues that this apparent liberation of capital for
labourers is illusory.

In the factory, the machinery works as a means of exploitation and subjection of

D

labour. Machines can increase the surplus labour extracted from workers by enhancing
productivity, it also leads to a decrease in the number of workers employed for a given
amount of capital. This reduction in the workforce can result in intensi ed exploitation of
the remaining workers, as they are required to produce more surplus value to
compensate for the decreased number of labourers. Furthermore, applying machinery to
the production process implies a contradiction inherent in capitalism. While machinery
can increase surplus value by heightening productivity, it does not per se produce surplus
value. This contradiction underscores the exploitative nature of the capitalist system,
where the drive for pro t leads to the use of technology to extract more surplus labour
from workers, ultimately bene ting capital at the expense of labour. In essence, Marx's
analysis highlights how the introduction of machinery, while appearing to bene t

57
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 labourers by freeing up capital, ultimately serves to further the exploitation and
subordinate labour within the capitalist mode of production. Additionally, Marx criticises
the exploitation in domestic (small) industries compared to manufacturing (big industry),
attributing it to various factors: 1) the decreased power of resistance in labourers; 2)
competition with factory systems; 3) irregular employment and 4) poverty robbing
essential conditions for labour (Marx,1976, p. 304). Marx suggests that labourers in
domestic industries have little ability to resist exploitation compared to those in
manufacturing.

The diminished power of resistance may stem from factors such as isolation, lack
of collective organisation, and limited access to support networks, making domestic
workers more susceptible to exploitation. Moreover, domestic industries often compete
with factory systems or manufacturing in the same branch. This competitive pressure can
lead to cost-cutting measures, including lower wages, longer hours, and poor working
conditions, exacerbating the exploitation of labourers in domestic settings. In domestic
industries, labourers may face irregular employment patterns, including seasonal work or
uctuating labour demand. This instability can make workers more dependent on
employers and less able to negotiate fair wages and working conditions, increasing their
vulnerability to exploitation. Finally, Marx emphasises how poverty in domestic industries
ft
can deprive workers of essential conditions for labour, such as adequate space, light, and
ventilation. Such substandard working conditions a ect labourers’ well-being and
ra

contribute to their exploitation by employers seeking to maximise pro ts at the expense

of worker’s welfare.

It is now clear why Marx and Engels could only ever disagree with the idea of a free
D

market setting individuals free. They thought it was a fallacy that entailed harsh
consequences for the weakest agents in the economic eld, the workers. Marx considers
that the political economists themselves err fundamentally when they assume that
individuals are set free in and by the marke place: 'It is not the individuals who are set free
by free competition; it is, rather, capital which is set free' (Marx, 1973, p. 650). This belief
encouraged Marx and Engels to critically scrutinise the ideas that dominated their
economic world because 'The analysis of what free competition really is the only rational

reply to the middle-class prophets who laud it to the skies or to the socialists who damn it
to hell' (1973, p. 652). What they found was that freedom was the prerogative of
capitalists. Workers were faced with alienation and exploitation, the two main conditions

58
fi
fl
t­
ff
fi
for capital formation and accumulation. This made up for much of the social environment
of their time. What about the natural environment?

Marx and Ecology: A Revaluation

While Marx's writings predate many modern environmental concerns, his ideas
have sparked ongoing debate. Some scholars, like Grundmann, (1991, 2001), argue Marx
wasn't an ecologist. Others reinterpret or seek to expand on his work (Breen, 2014).
Recently, Kohei Saito, a philosopher and ecologist from the University of Tokyo re-
examined Marx's writings, revealing a long-overlooked ecological dimension (Saito, 2017,
2022). For many, Marx's focus on technological advancement seemed to come "at the
expense of ecological considerations"(Giddens, 1995). This "Promethean" image was
reinforced by Marxists who dismissed environmentalism as a middle-class concern, and
incompatible with the working class. On the other side, disasters like the Aral Sea and
Chornobyl encouraged the idea that socialist systems were inherently unsustainable. This
created a stark divide between "Greens" and "Reds" in the second half of the 20th
century. Saito (2022) argues this misses the mark. He shows how Marx's critique of
capitalism, with its inherent exploitation of resources, o ers valuable insights into today's
ft
environmental crisis. Saito's work suggests that true sustainability clashes with our
current system built on endless growth and consumption. It's time to rethink our
ra

relationship with the planet, and Saito urges us to reimagine production, consumption,
and waste patterns to achieve a harmonious coexistence. Saito's research o ers an
alternative perspective. He argues for a more "ecological Marx," providing insights into
"ecosocialism," a sustainable alternative economic system. But was Marx ever an
D

ecologist?

Misunderstood Green?

Marxists and antagonists overshadowed Marx’s concerns about the natural

environment. Marx has been criticised for having said “Nature is man’s inorganic body”
(1988, p.76) a phrase that according to Foster (2000), the critics saw as encouraging the
domination of nature. However, the critics were mistaken and paid little attention to
Marx’s work. In uenced by Hegel's dialectics and materialist philosophers like Epicurus
(Foster & Burkett, 2008; Saito, 2022) Marx developed an original concept of the

59
fl
ff
ff
relationship between humans and nature. He viewed humans as "organic creatures"
dependent on the "inorganic" natural world. Throughout his work, Marx saw nature as an
extension of the human body, particularly in its role in production. This relationship
transcended individual physical organs. Human labour and the tools created from
transforming nature enabled broader and deeper interactions with the environment.
Nature became our inorganic boy, an external yet essential and interconnected
constituent for our survival. Marx's concept of the organic/inorganic distinction allows for
a particular understanding of the relationship between humans and nature. The distinction
may now be outdated, but it was state-of-the-art science in his day, where "organic"
referred to living things and "inorganic" to non-living elements. To gure this out, you only
need to recall what you have learned about the initial complete dependence of humanity
on nature for sustenance and existence. It follows that when Marx calls nature our
"inorganic body," he emphasises the inseparable link between humans and the
environment (Foster & Burkett, 2000, 2008). We are not separate entities but rather
intertwined parts of a larger system. This symbiotic relationship extends beyond physical
dependence to encompass a deeper, and fundamental connection. If our inorganic body
disappears, the organic ceases to exist.
ft
Science and Policy.
ra

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and other issues all highlight the
interdependence of organic and inorganic elements in ecosystems. Sustainable solutions
demand a holistic approach that acknowledges this complex web of interactions. Organic
D

and inorganic elements are not separate entities rather, they are intertwined components
of a functioning system. Scienti c advancements in ecology, nutrient cycling, and
pollution impacts all point to the need to move beyond simplistic views. Interdisciplinary
research is crucial for understanding the intricate connections within the environment
(Barry, 2021; N. Clark & Szerszynski, 2022) Policymakers, businesses, communities and
individuals, all have a role to play. Politicians’ role is vital because if they know the
interplay between organic and inorganic elements, they may develop relevant policies
promoting sustainable practices, biodiversity preservation, climate change mitigation, and
overall environmental conservation. In Marx’s work, however, this dialectic relationship led
him to develop another important concept, the metabolic rift.

60
fi
fi
 The Metabolic Rift

Marx and the effect of scientific discoveries on his Theories.

Scienti c advancements, particularly Justus von Liebig's research on nutrient

cycles in soil, in uenced Karl Marx's later writings (e.g. 1982, vol I). Why was that?
According to Foster (2002), the soil's natural fertility was lost, due to the loss of nutrients
in Europe and North America, between 1830 and 1870. This ecological concern of the
19th century set countries scrubbing the globe for natural fertilisers, namely guano. Do
you know what this is? Countries started to import bird poo. What happened next?
Modern soil science developed alongside synthetic fertilisers that slowly made their way
into the soil to increase its productivity. In Germany, a chemist named Justus von Liebig
led this soil fertility crisis. Marx participated in the debate analysing the implications of
these developments in society from his corner in London. The discussion involved other
intellectuals and it a ected and changed Marx’s views. His interest shifted from the
dialectic of organic/inorganic relations to the concept of "metabolic" relationships
between humanity and nature (Saito, 2022, Foster, 2002, 2008). This change was driven
by Liebig's notion of a "metabolic rift” (Beck, 2003), a disruption in the natural cycle
ft
caused by industrial agriculture. Marx (1982) observed a fundamental disconnect or
"metabolic rift” between human society and the natural environment under capitalist
ra

production. Capitalist agriculture and urbanisation exacerbate this rift, or disconnection

and disrupt the natural metabolic processes that sustain ecological balance (Foster, 2008,
2002). Capitalist agriculture is, like industry, driven by pro t and short-term gains over
long-term sustainability.
D

Monoculture, excessive use of chemical fertilisers, and exploitation of land for

maximum output deplete soil nutrients and disrupt natural cycles. Agricultural production
in rural areas often depletes the soil of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium without
su cient replenishment (Foster, 2002). This is how the disruption of the natural nutrient
cycling processes happens, leading to soil degradation and pollution. There is also the
expansion of urban areas concentrating people and resources in large cities and, the
result is a growing extraction of resources from rural areas to support urban centres,
creating imbalances in the distribution and use of natural resources. And even at that
time, this had global implications. The search for fertilisers and resources to sustain
capitalist agriculture on a large scale, that is, worldwide trade of fertilisers such as guano,

61
ffi
fi
fl
ff
fi
and the development of arti cial fertilisers, contributed to ecological contradictions and
exacerbated the metabolic rift between nature and society. And, as Foster (2002) points
out, Marx proposed an idea of sustainability based on the rational organisation of
society's metabolic relation to nature. In his mind was a society of associated producers
who would organise their production processes around ecological balance and long-term
sustainability, moving away from the exploitative practices of capitalist agriculture and
urbanisation.

Marx's critique highlights how capitalism's pro t motive and resource exploitation
degrade both the environment and human well-being. Focusing on the destructive
consequences of these practices on soil, workers, and the ecosystem, Marx (1982)
argues that capitalism undermines the very foundation of wealth: fertile soil and human
labour. This analysis re ects Marx's growing ecological awareness and his recognition of
the interconnectedness between society and nature under capitalism. So much so that
recently, Papadopoulus(2022) drew on Marx to address the complex relationship between
human-made chemicals, which he calls anthropochemicals, and ecological systems. The
production and use of these chemicals at various scales have deep implications for the
environment, health, and social structures. Papadopoulos (2022) argues that the
pervasive presence of anthropochemicals in our ecosystems demands a re-evaluation of
ft
human chemical practices and a move towards more sustainable and ecologically
conscious approaches. Despite the two hundred years or so between Marx's and
ra

Papadopoulos’s works, the discussions are very similar, and so is the absence of results.
While Marx's concept of the "metabolic rift" focused on the disruption caused by
capitalism, the underlying idea of interconnectedness between humans and nature
D

remains crucial. Today's environmental challenges elevate the urgency of this concept in
the search for sustainability.

Summary

Marx (1969) argues that industrial capitalism fundamentally transformed labour

division, leading to signi cant social and economic upheaval. Traditional lifestyles and
naturally growing towns were replaced by large industrial cities, causing rural
communities to become marginalised. As industrial capitalism progressed, contradictions
emerged, particularly regarding private property, which went from being a facilitator of

62
fl
fi
fi
fi
 growth to a constraint, like the guilds of earlier production forms. The focus on pro t led
industrialists to favour highly pro table goods over diverse needs, concentrating wealth
among a few owners and limiting workers' purchasing power, which, in turn, restricted
overall demand. Marx also highlights the cyclical nature of private property systems,
which can lead to boom-and-bust cycles, resulting in overproduction during booms and
layo s during crashes. This industrial development fostered a homogenised society,
eroding unique cultural characteristics and giving rise to a global proletariat united in their
struggle against capitalist exploitation. The state evolved in close relation to property
ownership, becoming subservient to the bourgeoisie, which relied on taxation and credit
for survival.

The division of labour in uenced resource distribution and capital ownership,

creating a clear divide between the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production,
and the proletariat, who provided labour. This division underpins class distinctions and
power dynamics within capitalist society. Marx posits that labour became a commodity,
and class struggle is central to capitalism's nature. He asserts that the history of society
is marked by class struggles, with the proletariat destined to challenge capitalism's
ft
contradictions and ultimately establish a communist society, however, Marx was vague
about what that would entail. Karl Marx's critique of capitalism focuses on workers’
exploitation because they were paid less than the full value of their production. Two key
ra

concepts explain exploitation: 1) the Labour Theory of Value and 2) Surplus Value. The
Labour Theory of Value posits that the value of goods is determined by the socially
necessary labour time required for their production. For instance, if a cobbler takes 8
D

hours to make a pair of shoes, that time de nes the shoes' value. However, if a machine
reduces production time to 4 hours, the value remains tied to the original 8 hours of
labour, illustrating that workers do not bene t from increased productivity.

Marx argues that the capitalist system inherently exploits workers by extracting
surplus value—the di erence between what the workers are paid and the value they
produce. This exploitation is not merely an abstract concept; it directly a ects individual
workers who must sell their labour power to survive. In ancient slave societies and
modern capitalist economies, surplus labour is extracted, but the mechanisms di er. In

63
ff
ff
fl
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
capitalism, workers enter a contractual relationship with capitalists, who pay them less
than the value they generate.

The introduction of machinery in production can enhance productivity and increase

surplus value. However, it also leads to a reduction in the workforce and intensi es the
remaining workers’ exploitation. Marx highlights a contradiction in capitalism: while
technology can boost productivity, it does not inherently create surplus value. This
contradiction underscores the exploitative nature of capitalism, where pro t motives drive
the use of technology to extract more labour from workers. Marx also critiques domestic
industries, noting that workers in these settings face greater exploitation due to several
factors such as isolation, competition with larger factories, irregular employment, and
poverty. These conditions diminish workers' ability to resist exploitation and negotiate fair
wages. Ultimately, Marx and Engels argue against the notion of a free market liberating
individuals, asserting that the free market frees capital, never workers. They contend that
the freedom of capitalists comes at the expense of workers, who experience alienation
and exploitation, which are fundamental to capital accumulation. This analysis reveals the
hard reality of the social and economic environment then but suggests the need to
continue to analyse contemporary capitalist structures critically.
ft
Self-assessment
ra

- How Did Marx View the Relationship Between Labour and Capital?

- What was Karl Marx's perspective on the relationship between labour and capital, and how
D

does this inform our understanding of economic behaviour?

- How is the Anthropocene de ned, and what connections can be drawn between this concept
and Karl Marx's theories on capitalism and society?

64
fi
fi
fi
How Can Classical Insights Inform Current Discussions on Sustainability

Classical sociologists established sociology as a distinct science. The new

discipline was primarily focused on societal structures and processes, treating nature as a
backdrop to modernity and industrial capitalism – a consequence of carving out their own
space distinct from natural sciences. Within this framework, under the in uence of
Darwinian evolution, Durkheim viewed societies as living organisms adapting to changing
natural world conditions. He proposed a competition-based model where societies, like
organisms, evolve through the creation and disappearance of institutions in response to
changing conditions (Turner & Abrutyn, 2017). Nevertheless, Durkheim (1933) emphasised
that this competition occurs within a framework of social institutions that shape its nature
(e.g., encouraging cooperation over ruthless competition). On the other hand, Weber
integrated human relationships with the natural world in his analysis of Western rationality,
particularly instrumental rationality. He aimed to bridge the gap between society and
nature. Unlike Durkheim, who embraced social evolutionism, Weber rejected biological
metaphors for understanding society (Antonio, 2005). However, Weber did recognise the
inherent tension between capitalist growth and ecological conditions.
ft
Weber’s work highlights the limitations that natural resources, particularly fossil
fuels like coal and ore, impose on industrial production. He argued that the discovery of
ra

coal processing fuelled the modern industrial revolution (2023). This perspective
describes capitalism as energy-intensive and resource-dependent, foreseeing potential
constraints on its future development (Foster & Holleman, 2012) Weber can be seen as a
pioneer in recognising the link between a speci c 'energy regime' (fossil fuels) and the
D

development of capitalism, highlighting how it both enabled and limited its growth. Weber
viewed capitalism as a signi cant driver of environmental change, with substantial
consequences for society's future. In his work, 'Economy and Society'(Weber, 2019b), he
suggests that environmental issues are integrated into cultural life once they enter human
history. However, due to his scattered references, Weber's insights on the connection
between economic activity and the environment have only recently gained wider
recognition.

Georg Simmel's approach to the relationship between human society and nature
contrasts with Durkheim's view of society as an organism (Gross, 2001). Simmel, instead,
saw society as a "web of reciprocal interactions" (Gross,2001, p. 397). Focusing on these

65
fi
fi
fl
 interactions, Simmel argued that sociology should study the forms of social association.
He extended the concept of interaction to explore the relationship between humans and
nature, proposing that sociological observation should encompass natural elements like
wind, storms, and plant growth, and how they interact with human society. Simmel's
unique perspective emphasised the emotional dimensions of this interaction. He
highlighted the feelings of surprise, admiration, and fascination evoked by landscapes,
cultivated gardens, or even buildings reclaimed by nature. These emotional responses
illustrate the interconnectedness of the natural and social realms. Humans alter nature
and create "nature-like entities” (e.g., fake grottos or city gardens), blurring the lines
between human creations and natural elements. In a way, Simmel advocated for nature's
perspective, anticipating the concept of re-wilding by acknowledging the potential for
natural processes to surpass human creations and even produce aesthetically pleasing
outcomes, such as a house overtaken by climbing vines, gradually disappearing into the
natural landscape.

Simmel distinguished between entirely wild nature and cultivated nature,

acknowledging the human role in shaping some environments. While his view of modern
society could be generically pessimistic, Simmel held a more positive outlook on the
environment. He recognised the impact humans have on shaping environments
ft
potentially leading to their objecti cation and impacting social processes. Simmel viewed
the growth of large cities not as a planned phenomenon but as an organic response to
ra

individual needs. Despite this organic development, he still saw cities as uni ed entities
with intrinsic meaning and self-contained structures. Finally, Simmel's concept of
Wechselwirkung (reciprocal interaction) suggests a complex relationship between the
D

economy, particularly money, and human-nature interaction. Economic activities can

a ect the natural environment, and vice versa. This further emphasises Simmel's point
about the interconnectedness of society and nature, highlighting the complex interplay
between economic systems and natural ecosystems.

All three classical sociologists o ered distinct perspectives on society, economy,

and nature, but Marx stands out for the enduring relevance of his ideas, particularly his
historical materialism, dialectical approach, and focus on human-nature relationships
(Nisbet, 2017). Marx's in uence transcended academic circles, fuelling revolutions, wars
of independence, and the Cold War division of the world (East vs. West). Following the fall
of the Iron Curtain, Marxist ideology in academia declined. However, this shift opened the
door to a new wave of scholarship – studying Marx himself, the philosopher, historian,

66
ff
fl
ff
fi
fi
and economist. This led to the rediscovery of "Marxian views" distinct from
interpretations by his followers. Notably, Marx's concerns about the environment came to
light, intrinsically linked to his critique of capitalist economic development. As Foster
(2000) points out, Marx's concept of alienation from labour is deeply connected to human
connection with nature. As the division of labour intensi ed, so did the humans’
estrangement from nature. Industrial capitalism further exacerbated this issue, leading to
complete alienation from nature within factory systems. Alienation, Marx thought, enabled
capitalist’s exploitation of humans and nature. In simpler terms, exploiting humanity and
the environment was essential for capitalists to succeed. Marx's materialism, unlike
mechanistic views, recognised the interconnectedness of life and organisms (Foster,
2000). His emphasis on dialectics is particularly valuable because it compels us to
acknowledge the two-way relationship between organisms and their environment.
Organisms don't just adapt, they actively in uence and change their surroundings. This
idea likely contributes to Saito's (2022) exploration of alternative solutions for
contemporary environmental challenges, particularly those related to achieving
sustainability.
ft
ra
D

67
fl
fi
Section 3
Sustainability, development and Planetary Boundaries

Setting the Stage

Sustainability is everywhere these days, from your co ee cups to your laundry

detergent. But what does it mean? Pioneering works such as Rachel Carson's "Silent
Spring" (1962), exposed the indiscriminate use of pesticides, at the time mainly DDT.
Carson highlighted the ecological damage caused by over-reliance on pesticides,
including animal population declines, water source and soil contamination, and the
emergence of pesticide-resistant insects. Carson challenged the belief that humans can
control nature for their bene t and emphasised the interconnectedness of all living
organisms and the fragile balance of all ecosystems. Carson advocated for a humble and
cautious approach to pest management. But Carson also pointed out, “… in nature,
nothing exists alone” (1962, p. 51) and by using pesticides, DDT one among many, we are
ft
disturbing nature’s balance, which is “… not a status quo; it is uid, ever-shifting, in a
constant state of adjustment” and reminds us that we “are part of that balance” (p. 246).
Her book documented the devastating e ects of pesticides on wildlife and ecosystems,
ra

sparking the modern environmental movement (Shabeco , 2003; Van Der Heijden et al.,
1992). It highlighted the fundamental idea that human actions have consequences for the
environment, a major principle of sustainability.
D

Before Silent Spring other scientists alerted to the damages caused by synthetic
substances like DDT. However, Shabeco (2003) points out, that she was the rst to
reach a wide public by communicating scienti c research in simple and moving ways. Ten
years later, "The Limits to Growth" (Meadows et al., 1972) challenged prevailing economic
assumptions. This in uential report explored the potential con ict between economic
growth and nite resources. The authors used computer modelling to illustrate potential
scenarios of resource depletion and environmental degradation under uncontrolled
growth conditions. The report emphasised long-term planning and a shift towards policies
focusing on environmental sustainability alongside economic prosperity (Meadows et al.,
1972). In essence, "The Limits to Growth" highlighted the importance of embracing

68
fi
fl
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fl
fl
fi
 sustainability, advocating for a shift towards sustainable practices and global balance to
secure a prosperous future within the Earth's capacity.

Fifteen years later, another publication stirred the universe of stability. The
Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987)
popularised the term "sustainable development." The report de nes sustainable
development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED), 1987). This de nition captured the essence of sustainability by
emphasising the need for intergenerational equity and responsible resource management.
The Brundtland Report also established the three pillars of sustainability: environmental,
social, and economic (Purvis et al., 2019). These pillars acknowledge the
interconnectedness of environmental well-being, social justice, and economic prosperity
– all crucial components of a sustainable future. Like The Limits to Growth, Our Common
World cautions against short-sighted policies that focus on immediate gains at the
expense of long-term sustainability. Of course, both publications took a global
perspective on sustainability and development, drawing attention to the shared
responsibility of all nations in addressing environmental challenges and promoting
equitable and inclusive development.
ft
However, sustainability's roots run deeper than the Brundtland Report. As Purvis et
ra

al. (2019) remark, it “has roots that predate the language of sustainability” (p. 682).
Concerns about resource depletion and environmental degradation shaped the idea in
various elds like forestry, agriculture, and environmental management (Warde, 2011).
Early forestry practices, such as those advocated for by Hanns Carl von Carlowitz in the
D

18th century following his concept of "Nachhaltigkeit" (sustainability), emphasised

balancing resource extraction with regeneration. These historical examples demonstrate
that the core principles of sustainability, like responsible resource management and long-
term planning, have been recognised for centuries. Achieving sustainability is challenging
and requires a coordinated global e ort. That is one of the reasons why the UN
established the SDGs in 2015. The fact that they are lagging suggests that the current
way of organising economic activities needs to change. While the concept of sustainable
development acknowledges economic growth to meet the needs of present generations,
achieving this goal can be challenging. The limitations of our planet and the urgency of
environmental problems (like climate change, biodiversity loss, and transgressing
planetary boundaries) force us to rethink traditional growth models. As discussed earlier,

69
fi
ff
fi
fi
publications like "The Limits to Growth" (Meadows et al., 1972) raised concerns about the
potential con ict between unrestrained economic growth and nite resources. The
Brundtland Report's (World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED),
1987) emphasis on intergenerational equity implies sustainable economic models that
ensure long-term well-being. The ever-growing human footprint (Richardson et al., 2023)
makes this rethinking even more critical.

Rethinking Economics: Beyond Traditional Growth

Sustainability highlights the Earth's limitations and the interdependency of

environmental well-being, social justice, and economic prosperity. While economic
growth remains fundamental, the expanding human footprint (Richardson et al., 2023)
exposes the lack of sustainability of growth-dependent models. The transgressed
planetary boundaries (Richardson et al., 2023; Rockström et al., 2009; Ste en et al., 2015)
call for a fundamental rethink of economic theory and practice for achieving sustainable
development.” Economic historian Karl Polanyi (2001) critiqued neoclassical economics
ft
decades ago. Opposing economic formalism, which views the market as independent of
social and environmental constraints, his concept of economic substantivism describes
the embeddedness of the economy in culture, social ties, and ecology. Polanyi's insights
ra

on the commodi cation of land, labour, and money, all ctitious commodities, are
particularly relevant for developing sustainable economic models. Treating land, labour
and money as commercial goods leads to all sorts of misuse and unsustainable practices
D

such as deforestation, soil degradation, habitat destruction, environmental degradation,

loss of biodiversity, and disruption of ecosystems. The nancialisation of nature fosters
the exploitation of natural resources for nancial gain, often disregarding ecosystems'
ecological value and sustainability. Polanyi's critique highlights a crucial gap in the
narrative of economic growth equating to development. While growth has historically
been seen as a key driver of progress, its current trajectory contradicts sustainability
principles. This disconnect justi es a critical re-evaluation of the meaning of
"development" in the 21st century. It also raises the question of how development
became closely tied to economic growth.

70
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
From Progress to development and growth

For 19th-century scientists, the concept of progress held the same allure that
sustainability does for us today. However, the idea of progress became signi cant during
the Enlightenment and increasingly in uenced social thought, particularly in the early 19th
century (De Benoist, 2008; Gudynas, 2023). The Enlightenment ignited a powerful belief in
reason, science, and humanity's potential. This intellectual movement laid the foundation
for the modern concept of progress. Thinkers of this era embraced the idea that
humankind could improve its condition through knowledge and rationality. This optimistic
outlook fuelled a growing belief in society’s advancement through scienti c discovery and
technological innovation. By the onset of the 19th century, this notion of progress had
evolved into various social theories, including those of Comte, who linked progress to
social order and scienti c understanding (R. Nisbet, 2017). The 19th century saw the rise
of industrialisation, positivism, and historicism, all of which further embedded the idea of
progress in social thought, suggesting that societies could advance through stages of
evolution (Nisbet, 1980). Looking at the history of the idea Benoist (2008, p.7) de nes
ft
progress as “a cumulative process in which the most recent stage is always considered
preferable and better, i.e., qualitatively superior, to what preceded it.”
ra

Progress is an ideal with two components. The idea entails a descriptive element
that indicates that change occurs in a speci c direction. The second element is
axiological (Benoist, 2008) as there is a value judgement about change towards a better
D

or morally desirable situation (Gudynas, 2023). In a nutshell, progress is an ideological

notion that plays well with that of evolution that became popular in the 19th century with
Darwin’s evolutionism, and with the idea of economic growth, which also emerged during
the Enlightenment, with scholars like Adam Smith(1852) and Thomas Malthus. The idea of
progress was ingrained in the work of 19th-century political economists, many of whom
along with philosophers and historians of the time, embraced a linear view of history that
aligned with the belief in progress seeing human society advancing toward greater
knowledge, freedom, and moral improvement. The political economists contributed to
this narrative by framing economic development as a key driver of society’s progress,
suggesting that economic growth and improvement were essential ingredients of human
advancement.

71
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Development is a synonym of progress. While "progress" as a term became less
prominent, its core ideas of advancement and improvement continued under the banner
of "development. This replacement can be attributed to its association with economics,
the e orts set up after World War II, and the American President Truman’s Point Four
Programme in the context of the Cold War (Press et al., 1952; Winterhalt, 2018). However,
the story of development has a dark side. Colonialism, which thrived in the 19th century,
exempli es how Western nations’ gave precedence to economic growth and resource
extraction at the expense of colonised territories (Giddens 1986). In the process,
European countries took hold of other territories and created colonies. Colonialism
became e ective in the 19th century when Western colonial empires were established,
and proper exploitation of colonies’ wealth happened. According to Frank (1967) that was
when the “development of underdevelopment” started. The expression designates a
thesis stating that underdevelopment of regions like Latin America (and elsewhere),
resulted, not merely from external factors or a lack of development. Rather, it resulted
from the structure and exploitative nature of capitalism. Speci cally, Frank argues that the
internal contradictions of capitalism, such as the appropriation of economic surplus from
the many by the few and the polarity between metropolitan centres and peripheral
ft
satellites, are fundamental to understanding underdevelopment.
ra

The internal contradictions of capitalism originated a world divided into two main
parts, the rich centre and the impoverished and dependent periphery. In this context,
economic growth in the central (Wealthy) countries was achieved at the expense of the
peripheral (impoverished) countries. Of course, this occurred along the historical
D

development of capitalism over centuries and generated and perpetuated

underdevelopment in peripheral regions. The systematic appropriation of resources and
wealth from these areas led to their economic stagnation and dependency. Frank (1967,
1978) argues that the “development of underdevelopment” is a chain-like process where
the contradictions of capitalism penetrate deeply into the social and economic structures
of the underdeveloped world, creating an "internal" structure of underdevelopment
sustained by the global capitalist system. Underdevelopment signals the cultural,
economic and political disintegration experienced in former colonial countries. Although
the word underdevelopment has been replaced by “developing”, less judgemental,
Giddens (1986)asserts that development means a market economy and following the

72
ff
fi
ff
fi
 guidance of dominant economic principles namely that of economic growth. But at the
root of development, we nd the belief in economic growth.

The concept of development has evolved signi cantly in the post-World War II era.
Arndt (1987) humorously notes how development literature often portrays humanity as
having discovered the solution to all problems, despite all the turmoil it created. The term
"development" was rarely used before the late 1940s and the discourse on development
coincided with the elevation of economic growth as a primary goal in developed countries
(Arndt, 1987). When the colonial empires disaggregated soon after World War II
disparities in development levels among countries. While the Portuguese colonial empire
lasted until the mid-1970s, a signi cant wave of decolonisation occurred in the late 1950s
originating new countries mainly in the Global South. This historical event led Western
countries to promote economic development in less developed nations. From the 1950s
onwards, development came to signify economic growth. It also became the primary goal
of European economic policy, to enhance material well-being, as evidenced by an
increased abundance of goods and services and rising per capita income. In the
mid-1960s, modern environmental concerns emerged, coinciding with the awareness that
economic growth was exacerbating social inequalities rather than contributing to overall
development. This understanding was articulated in a book on the social limits of
ft
economic growth by F. Hirsch (1976). Economists' analytical models at the time primarily
focused on material variables related to the production and distribution of goods, with
ra

economic growth limitations stemming from potential constraints on raw materials and
production facilities alone.
D

Development and economic growth have been seen as interdependent. Uses of

economic development and growth became interchangeable, treated as if they were
synonymous (Lewis, 1955). More recently, Hamamoto (2023, p.87) identi ed a “growthist
ideology” to describe the almost religious faith in economic growth as the key to
improving societies. Like development, economic growth stems from the belief that the
things it helps to achieve (e.g., wealth accumulation, consumerism, waste) are good.
There is, however, a bulk of literature assessing critically economic growth and “denied
direct association of growth with development” (Gudynas, 2023, p. 31). This led to a
rede nition of development to incorporate other dimensions, namely social and
environmental. The UN SDGs, established in 2015, re ect the rede ned and
multidimensional version of development coupling it with sustainability. Planetary

73
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
boundaries are among the contributions that denounced the incompatibility with the
planet’s life support systems and the idea of economic growth. The problem is its
“ecological impossibility” (Gudynas, 2023, p. 32). Growth is an everlasting concept, an
impossibility, given that natural resources (think about oil or minerals) are nite. The
capacity of ecosystems to cope with sustained growth is also limited. Gudynas
concludes that “in a nite world in nite growth is an impossibility” (p. 32). Yet, economic
growth still prevails in the discourse and policies of major international bodies, such as the
European Union or the OECD. It is also a primary concept in economic theory and economics
research.

Alternative Economic models

Despite the persistence of traditional economic approaches to development and

growth, alternatives are bountiful. Jervis (2024) is among those who challenge the
customary emphasis on continuous growth. Similarly, Paulsson et al. (2024), argue that
alternative models must revolve around sustainability, well-being and social equity. In
other words, the dominance of large-scale and pro t-driven development models is over.
Criticisms of mainstream economics renew the relevance of Schumacher’s (1989) work. In
Small is Beautiful Schumacher discusses the limitations and insu ciencies of mainstream
ft
economics, particularly its tendency towards abstraction and formalism. He critiques how
conventional economic theories favour quantitative measures—such as growth rates and
ra

national income—over qualitative aspects of human life, such as dignity, ful lment, and
community well-being. Schumacher argues that this focus on abstraction leads to a
dehumanising economic system that neglects the real needs and experiences of
individuals, especially the poor and marginalised. He believes human needs and values
D

should guide economic decision-making, rather than pro t and e ciency. In his view,
humanity would bene t from a more human-centric approach to economics, that
enhanced small-scale, sustainable practices thus respecting human values, fostering
genuine relationships and respecting ecological limits. Schumacher's call for a human-
centric approach to economics resonates with the core values of the green economy, which
includes social equity and human well-being alongside environmental sustainability

The UN Conference on Human Environment took place in Stockholm, in 1972.

There, sustainability entered the global political agenda. The Declaration highlights
humans’ responsibility for their environment, and their duty to protect it for current and
future generations (United Nations, 1972). The importance of this Conference to

74
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
fi
fi
 economics is that it sparked a re ection on integrated economic strategies revolving
around the environment and the planet. The UN Rio+20 Conference held in 1992 created
the expression green economy (Loiseau et al., 2016). International bodies besides the UN,
such as the World Bank adopted the concept to address nance and climate change
crises and achieve the targets set at the Paris meeting. Since then, governments have
adopted green economy strategies, and the European Union has also incorporated green
economy measures into strategic initiatives like Europe 2020 and the Resource E ciency
Roadmap (Loiseau et al., 2016). However, the concept of a green economy was coined in
1989 by Pearce et al., (Loiseau et al., 2016; Newton & Cantarello, 2014). The term "green
economy" became prominent following the 2007–2008 global nancial crisis, which
caused recessions, rising national debt, job losses, and business failures. It also
exacerbated food crises in developing countries raising concerns about climate change
linked to human activities and fossil fuel dependence (Newton & Cantarello, 2014). The
development of the green economy was generally considered a potential solution to the
integrated crises. The weakest aspect of the green economy seems to be its de nition.

There are multiple de nitions of the term “green economy”. The rst explicit
de nition is from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and dates from
ft
2011. It de nes a green economy as enhancing human well-being and social equity while
signi cantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. Its characteristics are
ra

low-carbon, resource-e cient, and socially inclusive. Economic growth and job creation
are driven by investments that lower carbon emissions, improve energy and resource
e ciency, and protect biodiversity and ecosystem services (UNEP, 2011). Other
de nitions stem mainly from di erent organisations and re ect their internal interests
D

(Newton & Cantarello, 2014). Thus, some link the green economy primarily with “clean
energy”, others stress human well-being, social equity and acknowledging environmental
limits.
The expression “green growth” is sometimes used interchangeably. That is the
case with Acar & Yeldan (2019) or Loiseau et al. (2016), although it initially described the
“growth of in eco-industry” (Loiseau et al., 2016, p. 362) its meaning has been stabilised
by the OECD (2011): Green growth “is about fostering economic growth and development
while ensuring that the natural assets continue to provide the resources and the
environmental services on which our well-being relies. To achieve this, it must catalyse
investment and innovation which will underpin sustained growth and give rise to new
economic opportunities” (p.9). It is, nonetheless, the green economy that concerns us in

75
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ff
fl
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
ffi
 the present discussion. It works as an umbrella for di erent strategies that share the
common goal of ensuring sustainable societies. Merino-Saum et al. (2020) analysed 140
di erent de nitions of the concept; this variety, however, opens the concept to
misinterpretations and diminishes its e ciency in guiding policy de nition and practice.
The multiple meanings also complicate the operationalisation of the green economy
(Kosoy et al., 2012; Loiseau et al., 2016; Merino-Saum et al., 2020). Thus, de nition
ambiguity Is a problem that has yet to be solved.

While the green economy framework emphasises sustainability and ecological

limits, the continued use of "growth" within its discourse, often interchangeably with
"green growth," presents an inherent inconsistency. The OECD (2011) de ned green
growth as “fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that natural
assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-
being relies. It is also about fostering investment and innovation which will underpin
sustained growth and give rise to new economic opportunities.” (p.18). As already seen,
the UNEP does not talk about “growth”, but economy. In the OECD terms, green growth
is economic growth, bringing the assumptions of neoclassical economics to a framework
envisaging sustainable development hindering its e ectiveness and embedding it in
ft
uncertainty. Following the Rio+20 Conference, Kosoy et al. (2012) expressed their
concern, especially regarding the concept of the green economy. In their view, the
economic frameworks were inadequate to address the di culties of the Anthropocene,
ra

particularly those derived from neoclassical economics.

Traditional economic frameworks failed to recognise the interdependence of

economic systems and Earth's biogeochemical constraints, which is essential for
D

achieving sustainability. Solutions presented relied heavily on technological advancement,

instead of focusing on social values and practices, namely those associated with
consumerism and waste. Most of all, Kosoy and his colleagues pointed out that
traditional measures of economic success, like GDP, do not adequately capture well-
being or environmental health. Also, persistence in using the idea of growth indicated a
lack of conviction to reshape economic and social systems for sustainability. In a nutshell,
they called for a new economic paradigm and likely a clari cation of the measure of
economic growth. This critique of traditional economic metrics and the limitations of
growth-centric models within the green economy paves the way for exploring alternative
economic frameworks that rethink resource use and product lifecycles, such as the
circular economy.

76
ff
fi
ffi
ff
ff
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 The history of the circular economy (CE) is closely linked to that of the green
economy. In their 1990 work, Pearce and Turner introduced key ideas that laid the
groundwork for the circular economy, such as the need to transition from linear
production models—where resources are extracted, used, and disposed of—to circular
production models that are primarily concerned with resource e ciency, waste reduction,
and sustainability (Ekins et al., 2019). The circular economy builds on these fundamental
principles by supporting systems that minimise waste and promote the continual use of
resources, thereby enhancing environmental sustainability. This connection highlights
how the evolution of the circular economy can be seen as a progression from the broader
goals of the green economy, focusing speci cally on the cyclical nature of resource use
and the economic implications of such a shift. Ekins et al. (2019) identify two dimensions
in the idea of circular economy, “the rst relating to the ow of materials through an
economy, and the second concerned with thinking about the economic conditions that
might bring about such a ow” (p. 4). Its origin is traced back to the environmental
movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It also draws on earlier contributions of “industrial
ecology” and “industrial symbiosis” that developed in the 1940s. The expressions were
used in economic geography to describe where to locate industries and create systems
where the waste of one became a usable resource for another, enhancing resource
ft
e ciency and sustainability. The work of the economist Kenneth Boulding helped create
awareness of environmental problems, which are at the root of the circular economy. In
ra

the mid-1960s, his idea of the “spaceman economy” (Boulding, 1966/2011) was as
creative and relevant as it is now.

The "spaceman" economy alludes to a conceptual framework contrasting with the

D

"cowboy" economy. The former is a model that emphasises sustainability, even if in 1966,
the concept was yet to become a buzzword. It also values resource conservation and
ethical responsibility. Boulding urged a shift away from exploitative practices towards a
more balanced and cyclical approach to economic activity.

77
ffi
fl
fi
fi
fl
ffi
Table 2
Contrasting the Spaceman and Cowboy economies

Spaceman Economy Cowboy Economy

Cyclical Ecological System: Unlimited Resources: operates under the
recognises that the Earth operates as a assumption that natural resources are
closed system with limited resources. abundant and can be used freely without
concern for depletion or environmental impact.
Stock Maintenance: the focus shifts Linear Production and Consumption: follows
from mere production and consumption a linear approach to production and
to the maintenance of stocks of consumption, where resources are extracted,
resources (sustainability of resources used, and then discarded as waste, with little
and minimizing waste) to no consideration for recycling or reuse
Ethical Considerations: incorporates Short-Term Focus: emphasises short-term
ethical concerns about the impact of gains and pro ts, often favouring immediate
current consumption patterns on future economic growth over long-term sustainability
generations. and ecological health.
Environmental Awareness: Lack of Regulation: often minimal regulation
importance of addressing or oversight regarding resource use and
ft
environmental issues, such as pollution environmental protection, leading to practices
and resource exhaustion, which are that can harm ecosystems and deplete
increasingly becoming pressing resources.
ra

concerns.

Note: Adapted from (Boulding, 1966/2011)

Boulding explores the circular economy by comparing the cowboy and spaceman
D

economies. The cowboy economy is the domain of reckless exploitation of resources,

likened to open societies with unlimited potential for extraction and pollution. In turn, the
spaceman economy recognises the Earth as a closed system with nite resources, and
the need for a cyclical ecological approach that maintains stocks of resources rather than
focusing solely on throughput and economic growth measured by GNP. Boulding
(1966/2011)argues that in the spaceman economy "stock maintenance" and ethical
considerations for future generations should take precedence over everything else. This is
an idea that aligns with the principles of sustainable development. He questions the
tendency to disregard the long-term implications of current consumption patterns, noting
that environmental issues, particularly pollution, were already pressing concerns that
required immediate attention rather than being viewed as distant problems. Ultimately,

78
fi
fi
Boulding's perspective enhanced the urgency of shifting economic thinking towards
sustainability and responsibility for the planet’s future.

The circular economy emphasises eliminating waste and pollution by keeping

products and materials in use for as long as possible. In this way, the CE aligns with
sustainability goals as it advances resource e ciency, reduces carbon emissions, and
fosters innovation in product design and manufacturing processes (Arruda et al., 2021;
Ekins et al., 2019). The CE involves design for disassembly, repair, and reuse, ultimately
aiming to close the loop on resource extraction and minimise environmental impact.
Circular economy principles can be applied across various sectors, from product
manufacturing and supply chains to consumption patterns and waste management. The
circular economy aims to minimise waste and maximise the value of resources (Arruda et
al., 2021). It encourages practices such as recycling, reusing, and remanufacturing, and
favours closing the loop on material ows to create a more sustainable and e cient
system.

The CE encourages a systemic approach to resource management, viewing

products and materials within interconnected cycles. It promotes a shift from a linear
ft
"take-make-dispose" model to a circular system that aims to keep resources in use for as
long as possible (Arruda et al., 2021; Dzhengiz et al., 2023; Ekins et al., 2019). The CE
ra

fosters regenerative practices to restore and replenish natural resources, reduce waste,
and minimise environmental impact. Ideally, achieving economic growth goes hand in
hand with minimising waste and maximising resource e ciency. The CE conceives
growth as sustainable, resilient and aligned with environmental and social goals. The
D

expectation is to create economic value but not to impact the environment and society.
However, the CE is far from a perfect model and criticisms are abundant. Dzhengiz et al.
(2023) reviewed a body of research on the CE and identi ed. They identi ed several
critical aspects, and the rst was the ever-present problem of concept de nition.

CE is often criticised for its broad and ambiguous de nitions, which can lead to
confusion and misinterpretation. It has become an umbrella term that encompasses
various circular processes, making it di cult to establish a clear and consistent
understanding of what CE entails; CE assumes continued economic growth, a
perspective that, as seen, overlooks the ecological limits and sustainability challenges
caused by the pursuit of growth and related unsustainable practices. There is also a

79
fi
fl
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
 tendency to fuse CE and corporate sustainability (CS), which blurs their distinct goals and
methods. Merging the CE and CS may result in a lack of critical examination of how CE
initiatives align with broader sustainability objectives. Critics also argue that CE often fails
to consider the physical limits of circularity, leading to an exaggerated perception of its
economic potential. This neglect can result in unrealistic expectations regarding the
bene ts of CE practices. Dzhengiz et al. (2023) claim that the prevailing narrative about
CE often takes it as a win-win solution for businesses and the environment. However, this
perspective can be misleading, as not all CE initiatives yield economic bene ts; some
may incur costs or create trade-o s that need to be critically assessed. The nal criticism
is the lack of critical approaches to CE within the business management and
organisational literature. The research is mostly apologetic conveying standardised views
of CE, thus obscuring the complexities of its implementation and its implications for
sustainability.

Sustainability, we have seen, includes social dimensions and the same applies to
the CE. One of its trademarks is the importance it awards to social, economic and
environmental issues. In their literature review, Padilla-Rivera et al. (2020) con rmed the
relevance of “the social” in CE. They provide insights into how strategies and actions
impact or bene t society and understanding these aspects enables the monitoring of
ft
circular economy initiatives and their social impact. In the research, employment, health
and safety, and participation are the socio-economic dimensions deserving more
ra

attention. However, other signi cant social issues such as poverty eradication, food
security, and gender equity despite being important, were less frequently addressed in
the literature. Another complication is the lack of consensus on a comprehensive
D

framework or approach to include all social issues within CE. The studies reviewed often
focused on narrow aspects, primarily employment, indicating a need for broader
consideration of diverse social impacts. However, the review disclosed that some social
impacts were associated with CE strategies, particularly concerning di erent stakeholder
groups, including workers, small enterprises, local communities, and end-users of
products and services.

The review shows the importance of integrating social dimensions into CE to

ensure an integrated approach to sustainability and better understand the potential
negative e ects of transitioning to a circular economy. However, the limitations of current
economic models, with their emphasis on perpetual growth and resource exploitation,
become evident when considering how challenging sustainability is. To address these

80
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
fi
limitations, alternative economic theories are emerging that o er frameworks more
aligned with environmental and social well-being. Ecological economics, for example,
emphasises the value of natural capital and its role in human well-being. Degrowth
theories challenge the traditional focus on economic growth and explore alternative
models for prosperity that promote social equity and ecological sustainability.

Degrowth

Degrowth challenges the very notion of economic growth as the primary driver of
progress. Proponents argue for a fundamental shift towards reducing consumption and
favouring social well-being and ecological balance over the accumulation of material
wealth. While some critics express concerns about potential negative impacts on
innovation and job creation, degrowth advocates believe in transitioning to a more
localised, low-consumption economy that fosters a better quality of life within
environmental limits. Reality seems to support the latter as the COVID-19 pandemic is
exposed. Spash (2020) pointed out how it revealed the inherent weaknesses and lack of
sustainability of growth-driven economic systems, which focus on nancial interests and
economic growth over human life and environmental health. In his view, this crisis
ft
presented a critical opportunity to rethink and transform our economic practices towards
a more just, ethical, and equitable social-ecological economy. Spash is among those who
ra

consider the traditional growth paradigm fundamentally awed.

There are many well-known reasons for considering growth economics inadequate.
It leads to environmental degradation, social inequities, and systemic vulnerabilities. It is
D

time to rethink economic values and practices, claims Spash (2020), who contends that
we need to move towards a model that recognises the limits of our planet and the
importance of human and ecological well-being. It was in the early 2000s that a
movement developed around the idea of décroissance in France. The term was translated
as Degrowth in English and decrescimento in Portuguese. Latouche (2010) warns that “it
is important to clarify that degrowth is not a concept, nor is it a symmetrical counterpart
to growth. Instead, it serves as a political slogan that carries theoretical implications”
(p.10). The term "décroissance" was used by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen in a collection
of essays that explored themes of entropy, ecology, and the economy. Still, settling on a
term that conveyed moving away from growth-centric paradigms proved di cult. The

81
fl
ff
fi
ffi
 same can be said about translating the idea into di erent languages. In his article,
Latouche (2010) addresses the linguistic and conceptual complexities of degrowth.

The degrowth movement is not an isolated phenomenon but a culmination of

decades of critical thought regarding development and growth. Besides the work of
economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, philosophers Ivan Illich, and André Gorz are
among those who contributed to the movement (Latouche, 2010). They all looked at the
prevailing notions of development and growth critically. They called attention to the
planet’s ecological limits and challenged the sustainability of continuous economic
expansion. The degrowth movement emerged as a response to the failures of traditional
development models, particularly in the Global South. Latouche (2010) discusses how the
promise of development often leads to environmental degradation, social inequality, and
cultural dislocation. His critique aligns with the broader post-development discourse,
which questions the very notion of development as a linear progression towards
modernity and prosperity. Thus, degrowth proponents posit the fair reduction of
production and consumption to environmental crises and social inequalities, while
rejecting the conventional growth-oriented economic policies (Khmara & Kronenberg, 2023;
Kronenberg et al., 2024). This strategy is vital for achieving sustainability on a planet with
ft
nite resources. Key principles of physics and ecology strengthen the argument for
degrowth as a more sustainable economic model (Research & Degrowth, 2010). Established
ra

principles of physics and ecology demonstrate that there are limits to the scale of global
production and consumption that can be sustained without imposing environmental and
social costs on others or future generations. This highlights the need for a more
sustainable approach to economic activity.
D

Scienti c evidence indicates that the global economy has exceeded ecologically
sustainable limits. This applies especially to the wealthiest countries (c.f. Richardson et
al., 2023; Ste en et al., 2015). The overconsumption of resources and imposition of
adverse environmental impacts urgently require the revaluation of economic growth
models. Global economic growth has led to increased extraction of natural resources,
waste production, and emissions, contributing to environmental degradation. Unchecked
growth entails grave environmental consequences and supports the argument for
transitioning to a more sustainable economic model (Kallis, 2011). The idea of perpetual
growth that informs the present development model generates inequities in global
economic systems due to unequal exchange in trade and nancial markets, has hindered

82
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
poverty reduction e orts and exacerbated disparities between countries. Addressing
global social inequalities is urgent and supports transitioning to a more sustainable and
equitable economic model. Degrowth is deemed to re-de ne the economy’s size and
achieve a relatively stable level of consumption. The 2008 Paris Degrowth Conference
(Research & Degrowth, 2010) shows how the concept aligns with ecological principles of
balance and sustainability and focuses on maintaining the equilibrium within ecological
systems.

The economics of degrowth

The economics of degrowth encompasses several key ideas that challenge

traditional economic paradigms centred on continuous growth. Degrowth is often
misunderstood as simply negative growth (recession). Instead, it refers to a deliberate
reduction in the throughput of resources (energy, materials, and waste) while aiming to
enhance welfare and well-being (Kallis, 2018). The idea is that decreasing economic
throughput can lead to improved social and environmental conditions. The main concepts
of degrowth economics are as follows: 1) GDP is a poor indicator of well-being and
society’s progress. It often con ates costs with bene ts (e.g., spending on healthcare or
ft
environmental cleanup increases GDP) and fails to account for unpaid work or
environmental degradation.
ra

There is a need for alternative measures that re ect true welfare and ecological
health. Kallis (2018, pp. 10-23) suggests, among others, 1) Well-being indicators
(measures of health, education, leisure time, and social connections); 2) Ecologic
D

footprint, a measure that assesses the environmental impact of human activities by

calculating the number of natural resources consumed and the waste produced. It helps
calculate whether economic activities are sustainable and within the planet's ecological
limits; 3) Human Development Index (HDI), an existing index that combines indicators of
life expectancy, education and per capita income to provide a broader view of human
development and well-being; 4) Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), another alternative that
attempts to account for the economic, social and environmental costs and bene ts of
economic activity. It adjusts the GDP by considering factors such as income distribution,
environmental degradation, and the value of household and volunteer work; 5) Social and
environmental metrics, that capture social equity and environmental sustainability. Kallis
(2018) also suggests the development of composite indices that integrate various

83
ff
fl
fl
fi
fi
fi
dimensions of well-being, including social justice, ecological health and economic
security.

Kallis suggests that measures of well-being should be developed through

participatory processes that involve communities in de ning what constitutes well-being
for them, thus re ecting cultural and value diversity. These alternative measures allow for
a more comprehensive understanding of progress and the health of societies and
ecosystems. Other features of degrowth economics include 1) Throughput reduction, a
concept that refers to the ow of energy, materials, and waste in an economy. A
sustainable economy should aim to reduce throughput while improving quality of life.
Degrowth posits that a sustainable economy should aim to reduce throughput while
improving quality of life. This means producing and consuming less, but doing so in a way
that advances social and environmental conditions; 2) Social transformation towards
equity and sustainability as the means to reducing the economic output, instead of
making the latter the primary end. The goal is to redistribute wealth, foster economies and
promote social cohesion; 3) Diversify economic practices including community-based
initiatives, sharing economies, and practices that favour human needs over pro t; 4)
Promote conviviality and autonomy to encourage a society based on cooperation and
ft
care rather than competition.
ra

An autonomous society that re ects on its values and makes decisions collectively,
leads to a more humane and sustainable way of living. Therefore, the fth feature of
degrowth economics is The Eight Rs Framework, Latouche’s degrowth framework
includes eight principles: reevaluating values, reconceptualising dualisms (like poverty/
D

wealth), restructuring social relations, redistributing resources, relocalising economies,

reducing consumption, reusing, and recycling. These principles guide the transition
towards a degrowth sustainable society; and 6) Ecological sustainability, a goal that
demands stopping continuous economic growth because it is incompatible with
ecological sustainability. It also means changing how we produce and consume and
adopting practices that protect the planet's life support systems. The economics of
degrowth calls for a radical rethinking of our economic systems, focusing on
sustainability, equity, and well-being rather than mere growth. It promotes a
comprehensive approach integrating social, environmental, and economic dimensions.
Saito (2022) brought about the latest proposal for degrowth, this time combining

84
fl
fl
fl
fi
fi
fi
Latouche’s and others’ proposals with a renewed interpretation of Marx in the
Anthropocene.

Degrowth communism

The transgression of planetary boundaries and the urgency in taking action have
inspired radical degrowth proposals. Saito (2022) is the latest example based and he
proposes a new and original interpretation of Marx’s critique of capitalism in the context
of the Anthropocene era. The signi cant impact of human activities on the Earth's
ecosystems led Saito to present the concept of degrowth communism as Marx's
alternative to capitalism. The expression may terrify those who still hold a mysti ed vision
of Marx’s work. However, it means a sustainable and equitable society organised around
ecological balance over endless growth. Analysing Marx's works through an ecological
lens, Saito o ers fresh views of the relationship between society and nature, envisioning a
post-capitalist world that learns from the shortcomings of past socialist experiments.
Saito's book challenges conventional Marxist perspectives and prompts us to rethink the
possibilities of a more harmonious coexistence between humanity and the environment.
Saito's main argument is that Marx's critique of capitalism can be reinterpreted through
ft
an updated framework of ecological sustainability in the Anthropocene era.
ra

Degrowth communism is the response to the ecological crises exacerbated by

capitalist modes of production. He argues that Marx's vision of a post-capitalist society
would emphasise degrowth, and the need to move away from the relentless pursuit of
economic expansion towards a more sustainable and equitable system that respects
D

ecological limits. Saito (2022) reframed Marx's ideas in the context of environmental
concerns, aiming to contribute to contemporary discussions on the intersection of
capitalism, ecology, and social justice, o ering a new perspective on the potential for a
future society that values ecological well-being alongside a thriving humanity. Kohei Saito
explains the idea of "degrowth communism" as a novel interpretation of Marx's
alternative to capitalism that prioritises ecological sustainability and social equality. He
argues that degrowth communism goes beyond traditional Marxist perspectives by
advocating for a society that rejects the notion of endless economic growth and instead
focuses on reducing consumption and production to ensure environmental balance.

85
ff
fi
ff
fi
 In this vision, communism is rede ned not as a system of unlimited expansion but
as a framework that promotes a harmonious relationship between humans and nature.
Degrowth communism enhances the principles of degrowth and ecological balance and
constitutes a radical reimagining of post-capitalist societies addressing the challenges of
the Anthropocene era. Degrowth communism can be seen as suggesting a green
revolution of sorts. While Marx envisioned communism as the ultimate result of a
revolutionary transformation of society, Saito reinterprets this vision in the context of the
Anthropocene era, where ecological concerns are paramount. By proposing degrowth
communism as an alternative to capitalism, Saito advocates for a radical change towards
a sustainable and equitable society that prioritises environmental balance. Saito’s vision
suggests the idea of a green revolution that involves transforming the economic system
and a fundamental reorientation of human values and practices towards a more
harmonious coexistence with the natural world.
In essence, Saito's proposal for a transitional economic system involves moving
away from the growth-oriented logic of capitalism towards a more sustainable,
egalitarian, and ecologically conscious model of degrowth communism. This approach
addresses the root causes of environmental degradation and social inequality by
reimagining the relationship between society and nature and fostering a more harmonious
ft
and balanced coexistence with the planet. Degrowth communism is another contribution
that draws on the already identi ed problems of the growth-oriented economy to suggest
ra

a degrowth-based approach aiming at a sustainable society and economy. Sustainability

is also at the heart of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which envisage a better
world, provided that 17 goals and 169 targets are achieved, which is still a distant goal.
Considering the planetary boundaries’ transgression this amounts to bad news for
D

humanity and Earth.

86
fi
fi
 Self-assessment

- How does Saito reinterpret Marx's critique of capitalism in the context of ecological
sustainability, and what implications does this have for contemporary environmental
challenges?

- What is the concept of "degrowth communism" as proposed by Saito, and how

does it di er from traditional Marxist perspectives on economic growth and
production?.

- In what ways does Saito argue that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the
weaknesses of growth-driven economic systems, and how does this relate to his call
for a reimagined economic framework?
ft
ra
D

87
ff
The UN SDGs

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) re ect the urgency of
achieving a more sustainable future is re ected in. These 17 interconnected goals and
169 targets aim to address global challenges like poverty, inequality, climate change, and
environmental degradation. This next section explores and discusses the UN SDGs and
related targets. The UN SDGs apply to developed and developing countries and have a
comprehensive and universal nature. Song & Jang (2023) note that the SDGs were adopted
by the United Nations in 2015 as a successor to the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), primarily focused on poverty reduction in developing nations. As Ste en et al.
(2015) point out, the global challenges they seek to address, such as poverty, inequality,
and environmental degradation, must be pursued within the limits de ned by the
planetary boundaries. That is the condition to ensure that human development does not
compromise the Earth's life-support systems otherwise achieving the goals will be
compromised. In their view, the approach to sustainability needs to be comprehensive to
meet the interrelationship between di erent SDGs and the environmental limits of the
Earth. That way, progress in one area (e.g., economic growth) would not come at the
ft
expense of another (e.g., environmental sustainability). Achieving the 17 goals and 169
targets requires global cooperation, and policies and actions grounded on scienti c
ra

research. Ste en et al. think these conditions are crucial to addressing the challenges of
the Anthropocene while trying to achieve the SDGs.
D

Framework interactions

The SDGs and the Green Economy

The urgency of addressing the Anthropocene's challenges requires all available

tools. The green economy framework is one to consider. Recall that the Green Economy
aims to improve human well-being and social equity and simultaneously, reduce
environmental risks and ecological scarcities. This aligns closely with the overarching
objectives of the SDGs, which aim to eradicate poverty, promote sustainable
development, and protect the planet. The SDGs stress the sustainable management of
natural resources, a key principle of a green economy. For example, SDG 12

88
ff
ff
fl
fl
fi
ff
fi
 (Responsible Consumption and Production) aims to ensure sustainable consumption and
production patterns, both essential for minimising waste and enhancing resource
e ciency in a green economy; SDG 13 (Climate Action), calls for urgent measures to
control climate change and directly supports the transition to a green economy. This is to
say an economy that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and builds resilience to climate-
related hazards; SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) is also relevant, as it
promotes sustainable economic growth and job creation in green sectors like renewable
energy and sustainable agriculture. This connection illustrates how a green economy can
address environmental challenges while fostering employment opportunities.

SDGs 15 (Life on Land) and 14 (Life Below Water) focus on protecting ecosystems
and biodiversity, vital for a green economy that values ecosystem services and integrates
environmental considerations into economic decision-making. The green economy also
values social equity, aligning with SDGs 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and 1 (No Poverty) by
ensuring that marginalised populations bene t from sustainable development initiatives.
Finally, SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) supports the development of
sustainable infrastructure and green technologies, fostering innovation that contributes to
multiple SDGs. This connection results from the UNEP’s adoption of the green economy
ft
framework (UNEP, 2011). In a nutshell, the green economy and the SDGs are
interconnected. They aim to promote sustainable development, environmental protection,
ra

and social equity. We can conclude that the green economy’s framework could help to
achieve the SDGs and tackle global challenges like climate change, resource depletion,
and inequality. However, we can also draw a somewhat surprising connection between
D

the UN SDGs and the degrowth proposal.

The SDGs and Degrowth

Although they originate from di erent frameworks and philosophies regarding

development and sustainability it is possible to connect Degrowth and the SDGs. The
common link is sustainability. Supporters of degrowth argue that the dominant economic
growth principle is unsustainable and contributes to environmental degradation, social
inequalities, and resource depletion. This critique aligns with several Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and
Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), which highlight the need to reduce

89
ffi
ff
fi
environmental impacts and promote sustainable practices. Degrowth backs human well-
being and ecological health over mere economic growth. This perspective resonates with
the SDGs' objectives of ensuring inclusive and equitable development, as re ected in
SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Both frameworks advocate for a
change from focusing on GDP growth to enhancing quality of life and social equity. The
SDGs call for the sustainable management of natural resources and urgent action to
combat climate change. This meets Degrowth support for reducing resource
consumption and rethinking production and consumption patterns to achieve ecological
sustainability. This is particularly relevant to SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 14 (Life
Below Water), which aim to protect ecosystems and biodiversity.

Degrowth promotes the development of local economies, community resilience,

and participatory governance, enhancing social cohesion and sustainability. This aligns
with the SDGs' emphasis on local action and community involvement, especially in SDG
11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong
Institutions). Finally, both degrowth and the SDGs critique neoliberal development
approaches based solely on market solutions and economic growth at the expense of
social and environmental justice. While the SDGs operate within a global economic
framework, they increasingly recognise the need for transformative change to address
ft
systemic inequalities and environmental challenges. In summary, despite their di erent
philosophical foundations, the SDGs and degrowth share common goals related to
ra

sustainability, social equity, and well-being. Establishing a connection between these

frameworks can promote a more comprehensive approach to addressing global
challenges, encouraging policies advancing ecological health and social justice over mere
economic growth.
D

SDGs and Degrowth critique of neoliberalism

Both proponents of degrowth and critics of the SDGs acknowledge that

neoliberalism—de ned by its emphasis on market-driven solutions and perpetual
economic growth—has notable aws, especially concerning social and environmental
justice. Degrowth directly contests the idea that in nite economic growth is desirable and
sustainable and stands for a framework that advances ecological well-being and human
welfare. Arora-Jonsson (2023)critiques the SDGs’ neoliberal formulation. This implies that,
although the SDGs aim to tackle global issues like poverty and climate change, they still
function within the limitations and assumptions of a neoliberal economic framework.

90
fi
fl
fi
fl
ff
 Critics suggest that this can lead to an emphasis on market-based solutions and
economic growth, potentially undermining the sustainability and equity objectives the
SDGs strive to achieve. Arora-Jonsson’s criticism, in line with Degrowth, stems from the
fact that, despite including common principles, (such as sustainability and social equity),
SDGs’ design and execution may still re ect neoliberal ideologies. For example, the focus
on partnerships with the private sector and market-oriented solutions can be interpreted
as a continuation of neoliberal practices, which some argue could weaken the
transformative potential of the SDGs. Supporters of degrowth may perceive the SDGs as
inadequate or awed due to failure to fully detach from neoliberal assumptions.
Conversely, supporters of the SDGs might contend that they signify progress in
addressing global challenges, even if they are not without shortcomings. While both
degrowth and the SDGs critique neoliberalism, they approach it from di erent
perspectives. Degrowth rejects the growth paradigm, whereas the SDGs, despite their
commendable goals, are critiqued for being rooted in a neoliberal context that may hinder
their e ectiveness. This complex relationship points to the importance of continuous
dialogue and critical analysis regarding the framing and pursuit of global objectives.
ft
Critical Analyses
ra

The SDGs have been criticised on many grounds. Ste en et al. (2015) fear for the
potential disregard for the planetary boundaries, although the framework contributed to
de ning the SDGs. They emphasise that pursuing SDGs should consider the safe
D

operating space and support an integrated, comprehensive approach that accounts for
the interconnections between human development and environmental sustainability. They
call for global cooperation and scienti c evidence-based decision-making to e ectively
address the challenges of the Anthropocene and achieve the SDGs. More recently, Arora-
Jonson (2013) contended that the SDGs framework is universal and tainted by Western
and neoliberal ideologies. Encompassing the Global North and South, the SDGs
framework does not address the di erences in culture, values, resources, infrastructure
and environmental problems. She suggests that the SDGs’ framework needs to be more
inclusive and equitable to address systemic inequalities and environmental challenges,
while also recognising the historical context of development. However, criticisms also
target SDGs monitoring and implementation. Referring to SDG 12 (Responsible

91
fi
ff
fl
ff
fi
fl
ff
ff
ff
 Consumption and Production), Mensah et al. (2024) argue that while sustainable food
consumption (SFC) is crucial for achieving the goal, current policies and indicators,
particularly within the European Union, are inadequate for e ectively promoting and
monitoring SFC. The authors support an integrated approach connecting strategies and
policies under the EU Green Deal. They also think a full understanding of the sociocultural
factors in uencing consumption patterns is lacking. They emphasise the need for a
comprehensive de nition of SFC that encompasses several aspects, including dietary
recommendations, environmental impacts and economic factors. Without addressing
these gaps, they state, signi cant progress towards sustainable food consumption will be
hindered, despite clear recommendations provided by the de nition of SFC in the
literature.

Criticisms also address speci c SDGs. That is the case of Kreinin and Aigner
(2022) who analysed SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth). They described the
SDG as awed because it focuses on economic growth and neglects its environmental
and social repercussions. The authors argue that this emphasis compromises
sustainability and overlooks critical issues related to the distribution of wealth and
resources. To remedy these de ciencies, the authors introduce an alternative framework
focused on "Sustainable Work and Economic Degrowth." This framework seeks to
ft
transition from a narrow focus on economic growth to a more comprehensive approach
that advances sustainability, well-being, and equitable distribution of resources. The
ra

authors propose new sub-goals, targets, and indicators that agree with strong
sustainability principles, intending to foster an equitable and sustainable future for
everyone. They also promote an integrated systems approach to achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It considers the interconnections between work,
D

welfare, the economy, and the environment. This strategy aspires to create a more
coherent and e ective pathway for sustainable development. There is also a suggestion
for a new indicator framework that focuses on sets of indicators instead of individuals,
enabling a comprehensive understanding of the relationships among various goals and
outcomes related to work and sustainability. Finally, Kreinin and Aigner (2022) o er a
critical analysis of economic growth, examining the ideology of economic growth and its
e ects on social and environmental sustainability. They contribute to the broader debate
about the transformative changes in our understanding of work and economic systems.

Another set of criticisms addresses the SDGs’ complexity. Song and Jang (2023)
argue for a more integrated and intersectoral approach to the Sustainable Development

92
ff
fl
fl
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
 Goals (SDGs), to ensure e ective implementation and achievement of sustainable
development. Their study claims that adhering to the existing 17-goal framework is
insu cient due to the complex interlinkages among various SDG targets. Song and Jan’s
research identi es distinct interconnected communities of SDG targets. This suggests
that these targets mutually reinforce one another. Understanding these interlinkages can
help policymakers focus on areas where integrated approaches can be particularly
e ective. Their ndings highlight that many of the most crucial targets have a social
nature, highlighting the signi cance of social sustainability in achieving overall sustainable
development. This indicates that addressing social issues is essential for progress across
multiple SDGs. The study calls for rigorous examination and coordination of
interdependent areas based on their actual interlinkages rather than the current goal
structure. This approach can lead to more e ective strategies for implementing the SDGs
at national and local levels. The research also points out that external factors, such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, have exacerbated challenges in achieving the SDGs, making it
critical to reassess and adapt strategies to address these challenges e ectively. Song and
Jan’s study suggests that the interdependencies among SDG targets may facilitate policy
e ectiveness and accelerate progress toward sustainable development if recognised and
controlled.
ft
Summary
ra

Sustainability. Sustainability has gained signi cant attention in contemporary

society, in uencing various products and practices. Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"
(1962) drew attention to the ecological damage caused by pesticides like DDT,
D

emphasising the interconnectedness of ecosystems and advocating for a cautious

approach to pest management. This work ignited the modern environmental movement
by illustrating the consequences of human actions on the environment. Following Carson,
"The Limits to Growth" (Meadows et al., 1972) questioned the viability of continuous
economic growth, using computer models to demonstrate potential resource depletion
and environmental degradation. It called for sustainable practices and long-term planning
to balance economic prosperity with environmental health. The Brundtland Report (1987)
further advanced the idea of sustainable development, de ning it as meeting current
needs without compromising future generations' ability to meet theirs. It established the
three pillars of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic—highlighting their
interconnectedness. Historically, sustainability principles have roots in responsible

93
ff
ff
ffi
fl
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
 resource management practices, such as forestry. The UN Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) set in 2015 represent a global initiative to tackle sustainability challenges.
However, the urgency of environmental issues and the limitations of traditional growth
models call for a revaluation of economic practices to achieve genuine sustainability.

Polanyi’s formal and substantive economy. Polanyi's concept of economic

substantivism emphasises the integration of the economy within cultural, social, and
ecological contexts, arguing against the commodi cation of land, labour, and money. He
critiques the treatment of these as mere commercial goods, which leads to unsustainable
practices like deforestation and environmental degradation. This commodi cation fosters
the nancial exploitation of nature, neglecting its ecological value and sustainability.
Polanyi's insights reveal a disconnect between economic growth and true development,
prompting a revaluation of what development means in the 21st century. The notion of
progress, historically linked to the Enlightenment and 19th-century thought, has evolved
into the modern concept of development, which often equates to economic growth. This
shift has roots in colonialism, where Western nations favoured resource extraction over
the well-being of colonised regions, leading to a cycle of underdevelopment.

The internal contradictions of capitalism have perpetuated this underdevelopment,

creating a divide between wealthy and impoverished nations. Post-World War II, the term
ft
"development" gained prominence, often framed as synonymous with economic growth.
However, as environmental concerns grew, it became clear that economic growth could
ra

exacerbate social inequalities rather than foster genuine development. Recent literature
has begun challenging the direct association between growth and development,
advocating for a multidimensional approach that includes social and environmental
D

factors, as re ected in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The concept of

in nite economic growth is increasingly seen as incompatible with the planet's ecological
limits, highlighting the need for sustainable practices that respect these boundaries.

Alternative economic models. The text discusses the emergence of alternative

economic models that challenge traditional growth-centric approaches. Jervis (2024) and
Paulsson et al. (2024) advocate for models focused on sustainability, well-being, and
social equity, signalling a move away from pro t-driven development. Schumacher's
work, particularly in "Small is Beautiful," critiques mainstream economics for privileging
quantitative measures over qualitative human needs, arguing for a human-centric
economic approach that respects ecological limits. The UN's 1972 Stockholm
Conference marked a signi cant moment in integrating sustainability into economic

94
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
 strategies, leading to the concept of a green economy, which gained prominence after the
2007-2008 nancial crisis. However, the term lacks a clear de nition, with various
interpretations complicating its implementation.

The OECD's de nition of "green growth" as fostering economic growth while

ensuring natural resource sustainability re ects a tension between traditional growth
models and sustainable practices. Critics like Kosoy et al. (2012) argue that existing
economic frameworks fail to address the complexities of sustainability, often relying on
technological solutions rather than social values. They call for a new economic paradigm
that rethinks resource use. One alternative is the circular economy, which emphasises
resource e ciency and waste reduction. This model builds on earlier ideas from industrial
ecology and aims to create systems where waste is repurposed, promoting sustainability
and ethical responsibility in economic activities.
Roots of environmental-friendly economic models. Economist Boulding
contrasted two economic models: the "cowboy economy," characterised by reckless
resource exploitation and unlimited extraction, and the "spaceman economy," which
acknowledges Earth's nite resources and advocates for a cyclical ecological approach
focused on resource maintenance and sustainability. He drew attention to the importance
of ethical considerations for future generations and the need to address pressing
ft
environmental issues rather than viewing them as distant problems. The circular economy
(CE) aims to minimise waste and pollution by keeping products and materials in use for as
ra

long as possible, aligning with sustainability goals by enhancing resource e ciency and
reducing carbon emissions.

The circular economy promotes practices like recycling and reusing, shifting from a
D

linear "take-make-dispose" model to a circular system. However, the CE faces criticisms,

including vague de nitions that lead to confusion, assumptions of continued economic
growth that overlook ecological limits, and a tendency to merge CE with corporate
sustainability, which can obscure their distinct goals. Critics also highlight the unrealistic
expectations regarding CE's economic bene ts and the lack of critical examination in
business literature. Social dimensions are crucial in the CE because they include various
socio-economic issues, including employment and health. However, broader social
concerns like poverty and gender equity are often underrepresented in the literature.
Integrating social aspects into the CE is essential for a comprehensive approach to
sustainability. Alternative economic theories, such as ecological economics and
degrowth, are emerging to address the limitations of traditional models focused on

95
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
ffi
perpetual growth and resource exploitation, promoting frameworks that prioritize
environmental and social well-being.

Degrowth. The text discusses the need for a transition to a localised, low-
consumption economy that prioritises quality of life within environmental limits,
particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed the weaknesses of
growth-driven economic systems. Spash (2020) argues that this crisis o ers an
opportunity to rethink economic practices towards a more equitable and sustainable
model, challenging the traditional growth paradigm that leads to environmental
degradation and social inequities. The concept of "décroissance" or degrowth emerged in
the early 2000s in France, advocating for a deliberate reduction in resource throughput
while enhancing welfare. Latouche (2010) clari es that degrowth is not merely negative
growth but a political slogan with theoretical implications, rooted in the works of
economists and philosophers who critiqued continuous economic expansion and its
ecological limits.

Degrowth proponents argue for reducing production and consumption to address

environmental crises and social inequalities, rejecting conventional growth-oriented
policies. They emphasise the need for alternative measures of progress beyond GDP,
such as well-being indicators, ecological footprints, and the Human Development Index
ft
(HDI), which better re ect societal health and environmental sustainability. Key principles
of degrowth economics include throughput reduction, social transformation towards
ra

equity, diversi cation of economic practices, and promoting ecological sustainability. The
Eight Rs Framework proposed by Latouche guides the transition towards a degrowth
society, advocating for reevaluating values, redistributing resources, and fostering
D

cooperation over competition. Overall, degrowth calls for a radical rethinking of economic
systems to focus on sustainability, equity, and well-being rather than mere growth,
integrating social, environmental, and economic dimensions for a more humane and
sustainable future.

Degrowth communism. The urgency of addressing the transgression of planetary

boundaries has led to radical proposals for degrowth, with Kohei Saito (2022) o ering a
contemporary interpretation of Marx's critique of capitalism in the Anthropocene era.
Saito introduces the concept of "degrowth communism," which envisions a sustainable
and equitable society focused on ecological balance over continuous economic growth.
This reinterpretation challenges traditional Marxist views and emphasises the need for a
post-capitalist world that learns from past socialist failures, advocating for a harmonious

96
fi
fl
fi
ff
ff
 coexistence between humanity and nature. Saito argues that degrowth communism
represents a shift away from the relentless pursuit of economic expansion, focusing
instead on reducing consumption and production to respect ecological limits. This
approach addresses the root causes of environmental degradation and social inequality,
proposing a fundamental reorientation of human values and practices towards
sustainability. Saito's vision aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals,
highlighting the need for a transformative economic system that fosters a balanced
relationship with the planet, ultimately suggesting a green revolution that reimagines
society's relationship with nature.

UN SDGs. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) consist of 17

interconnected goals and 169 targets addressing critical global challenges such as
poverty, inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation. Adopted in 2015 as a
successor to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs apply universally to
developed and developing countries. They emphasise the need for sustainable
development within the limits of planetary boundaries to ensure that human progress
does not compromise the Earth's life-support systems.

A comprehensive approach is necessary to recognise the interrelationships among

di erent SDGs, ensuring that advancements in one area do not negatively impact another.
ft
Achieving these goals requires global cooperation and policies based on scienti c
research, which is essential for tackling the challenges of the Anthropocene while striving
ra

for sustainability. The SDGs are criticised because they may be ethnocentric. Their
universal vocation may overlook cultural and systemic di erences, and the inadequacy of
current policies for promoting sustainable practices, such as sustainable food
D

consumption (SDG 12). Speci c SDGs, like SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth),
are criticised for focusing too heavily on economic growth without considering
environmental and social repercussions. The complexity of the SDGs is addressed, with
calls for a more integrated approach to ensure e ective implementation. Research
suggests that understanding the interconnections among SDG targets can enhance
policy e ectiveness and accelerate progress toward sustainable development, especially
considering challenges exacerbated by external factors like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Overall, achieving ecological health and social justice requires a comprehensive
approach, to account for the complexity of the task.

97
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
 Self-assessment

- What are the key principles of alternative economic models that challenge traditional
growth-centric approaches, and how do they prioritise sustainability and social equity?

- How does Schumacher's critique of mainstream economics in "Small is Beautiful" inform

contemporary discussions about human-centric economic approaches?

- In what ways do the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) re ect a shift towards
multidimensional approaches to development, and what challenges do they face in
implementation?

- What is the concept of a circular economy, and how does it propose to address issues of
resource e ciency and waste reduction compared to traditional economic models?

- How do critics of traditional economic frameworks argue for a rethinking of resource use,
and what alternative paradigms do they propose to achieve sustainability?
ft
ra
D

98
ffi
fl
Final Reflection

In his article "Radicalizing Managers' Climate Education: Getting Beyond the

Bull**** Fairy Tale of Eternal Economic Growth", Oliver Laash (2024) explores the urgent
need for a radical change in responsible management learning and education to address
the pressing climate crisis. Laasch argues that traditional approaches to management
education perpetuate unsustainable practices by promoting the myth of eternal economic
growth. He supports anti-paradigmatic management and organisation research and
practice to challenge existing norms and embrace a more sustainable future. His vision
may be considered revolutionary. Yet, Laasch is a well-established academic and
consultant. He just has had enough. When Laasch talks about Anti-Paradigmatic
Management (p.1) he stresses how important it now is to move beyond traditional
management paradigms to tackle grand issues like climate change. Traditional
management paradigms are grounded in ideas of continuous economic growth, pro t
maximisation, and short-term thinking, which can contribute to environmental
degradation and exacerbate climate change.
ft
Generating a sense of urgency may be crucial and students should contemplate
disobedience in their prospective managerial roles, in very much the way climate activists
do. Collective action is now fundamental and Laasch could not be clearer about it. When
ra

Laasch calls for Radical Responsible Management Learning he means responsible

management learning that goes beyond climate change mitigation and encompasses
broader social transformation. Laasch knows that economic agents are powerful agents
D

because they can either improve the world or bury us all. In conclusion, Laasch's article is
a forceful reminder of the gravity of our time. Management (and economics) education
must address the climate crisis e ectively. To embrace sustainability and the UN SDGs
but simultaneously teach that in nite growth is not only possible but desirable, creates
cognitive dissonance and diminishes the seriousness of the climate crisis. Managers can
play a determinant role in driving sustainable change.

In the context of climate change, moving beyond traditional management

paradigms involves adopting a comprehensive and systemic approach that considers the
interdependence of environmental, social, and economic factors. This perspective change
can lead to innovative solutions, collaborative approaches and transformative actions

99
fi
ff
fi
 deemed essential for mitigating the impacts of climate change and building a more
sustainable future. Laasch uses examples from a degrowth context to illustrate the need
for radicalising responsible management learning and education. Degrowth emphasises a
planned reduction of economic production and consumption to achieve environmental
sustainability and social equity. Laash provides several examples as evidence for
incorporating degrowth principles into management education. First, he recalls, the belief
in endless economic growth, although this is not feasible on a nite planet. It is even
cause for discussing the limitations of growth-based theories and practices because
there is no way around the fact that perpetual growth is unsustainable. Second, managers
face pressure to ful l continuous salary growth aspirations, leading to unsustainable
consumption patterns and personal growth pursuits. This necessitates a revaluation of
traditional measures of success and progress in business and management. Finally,
teaching degrowth as part of business education is crucial for fostering a more
sustainable and responsible approach to management.

Management (and economics) education must address the contradictions between

traditional growth-oriented practices and the imperative for sustainability and social well-
being. Economists and sociologists are among those who make use of the old concept of
ft
the tragedy of the commons (Hardins, 1968). Hardin examines common resources, which
provide nite bene ts (like rewood, sh, and water) and whose access is free and
ra

di cult to restrict. Individual use of these resources decreases their availability for others,
leading to a perception of users as short-term, pro t-maximising actors. Hardin contends
that users are trapped in a cycle of overexploitation. While establishing rules for resource
use creates a public good for all, it also presents a second-level dilemma: if individuals
D

struggle with the initial social dilemma, it is inconsistent to expect them to e ectively self-
organize. Consequently, signi cant free-riding is anticipated in attempts to manage
common-pool resources collectively. Hardin's work started a discussion about why some
individuals can successfully manage resources sustainably while others face signi cant
threats to resource availability. This question has engaged scholars across various
disciplines for decades, leading to extensive research and the development of agent-
based models.

Over the years, researchers have found grounds to criticise Hardin’s argument.
One criticism comes from Ostrom (2008), a Nobel Prize in economics, who points out

100
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
 that research ndings show that the analysis of resources must consider the type of
property arrangement, as common-pool resources can exist under various ownership
structures, including government, private, and common property. Hardin, Ostrom claims,
mistakenly assumed that most common-pool resources were open-access with poorly
de ned property rights. As a result, Ostrom (2008) says that a new theory of the
commons is developing. Agrawal et al. (2023) state that Ostrom paved the way for an
alternative perspective to the traditional "tragedy of the commons" narrative. Ostrom’s
research showed that, instead of acting in their self-interest and inevitably overusing and
depleting shared resources, communities could successfully manage common-pool
resources through self-organised institutions and collective action. Ostrom also identi ed
key design principles that characterise a successful governance of commons. Among
these are 1) clearly de ned boundaries; collective decision-making; e ective monitoring
and enforcement mechanisms. Her work showed the potential for local communities to
cooperate and create sustainable management practices, challenging the notion that only
privatisation or government intervention could prevent resource depletion.

This alternative approach has signi cantly in uenced the commons research eld
and provided a foundation for understanding how decentralised governance can
effectively address resource management challenges. Although Ostrom and researchers
ft
who have followed in her footsteps, concentrate on the micro-level, researching
communities’ contributions to sustainability, it is possible to apply it to macro-level
ra

dimensions. Consider the planet is our commons. Combining insights from the
“Commons" and Planetary Boundaries we can reach a broader and more complex
understanding of resource management involving regulation and community
D

empowerment. This approach can help address the pressing challenges of sustainability
while fostering resilience and equity in local communities. Though centralised regulations,
such as those stemming from the European Environmental Agency, individual and
community action is deemed fundamental to halt boundary transgression and ensure a
safe operating space for humanity. The seriousness of the present situation cannot a ord
to postpone action, and economic agents play a particular role in assuring a sustainable
future for mankind. From the beginning, our main argument is that of an existing close
relationship between economic development, and environmental sustainability. This is
where economic sociologists and environmental sociologists meet. However, as
sociologists, the social dimensions imbricated in the relationship between economic
action and the state of the environment are paramount.

101
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
ff
fi
ff
fi
 Sociology has developed theoretical frameworks and methodologies to study how
societies come to be, how individuals construct their realities in everyday life, how
economic systems operate, and how all human actions interact with the environment. The
relationship between economic development and environmental sustainability is certainly
not straightforward. Sociology has developed theoretical frameworks and methodologies
to study how societies come to be, how individuals construct their realities in everyday
life, how economic systems operate, and how all human actions interact with the
environment. The relationship between economic development and environmental
sustainability is certainly not straightforward. Economic activities can lead to
environmental degradation, but humanity cannot survive without them. Recognising the
complex relationship between humans and the environment, it becomes evident that
economic growth must be balanced with ecological preservation to ensure the well-being
of both current and future generations. This view summarises the crucial role of sociology
in understanding the social dimensions of environmental issues and developing strategies
for sustainable development.

Sociology (and Economic sociology) is not a self-contained discipline. Its subject

ft
matter is vast and the present climate emergency is overwhelming. The complexity of all
the processes at stake calls for integrating sociological critical thinking with other
ra

disciplines, such as economics, environmental science, and political science, to name a

few. Multidisciplinary has been the business of sociology since the start (cf. Giddens,
1986). The forefathers of sociology were not trained sociologists, they brought into the
emerging discipline contributions from history (e.g. Max Weber, Marx), philosophy (e.g.
D

Durkheim, Marx, Simmel), statistics (e.g. Durkheim, Comte), economics (E.g., Marx,
Weber), anthropology (e.g. Durkheim), and so forth. If our world is messy and complex,
the reason is that it is a human-constructed world. Thus, making sense of how humans
go about constructing, destructing and reconstructing their reality, could not be the
business of sociology alone. All other sciences must be involved, and they all provide
important insights. However, sociology is well-equipped to encourage questioning
assumptions, analysing power relations, and understanding the complexities and oddities
of social interactions. This critical lens can help identify the root causes of environmental
degradation, inform more e ective policy responses, and single out the causes for the
slow progress towards achieving the SDGs’ targets.

102
ff
 Achieving the SDGs targets is everybody’s task. Sociologists believe in the power
of collective and individual action. The seriousness of the moment needs immediate
action. In Haugseth & Smeplass’s (2023) study about the Greta Thunberg E ect:”,
examined the impact of Greta Thunberg as a role model on young Norwegians' re exivity
regarding climate change. As a teenager, Greta Thunberg became signi cantly in uential
in the global climate movement, especially among young people. Her activism has
inspired collective action around the world. Even though she started to act on her own,
she managed to reach thousands around the world. Greta became a powerful symbol for
young people not only in Scandinavia but around the world. Hopefully, you will follow in
Greta’s footsteps and, in your own way, will be able to reevaluate your relationship with
the environment and your role in promoting sustainability and the SDGs. Climate change
is a pressing social issue and requires heightened awareness and concern for
environmental sustainability.
ft
ra
D

103
fi
ff
fl
fl
References

Acar, S., & Yeldan, E. (2019). Greening of Industry in a Resource- and Environment-
Constrained World. In A. Sevil & E. Yeldan (Eds.), Handbook of Green Economics
(pp. 53–68). Academic Press.

Agrawal, A., Erbaugh, J., & Pradhan, N. (2023). Annual Review of Environment and
Resources The Commons. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320

Antonio, R. J. (2005). Max Weber in the Post-World War II US and After. Etica & Politica /
Ethics & Politics, VII(2), 1–94. http://www.units.it/etica/2005_2/ANTONIO.htm

Antonio, R. J., & Clark, B. (1015). The Climate Change Divide in Social Theory. In Climate
Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 333–368). Oxford University
Press.

Arndt, H. W. (1987). Economic development: The History of an Idea. University of Chicago

Press.

Arora-Jonsson, S. (2023). The sustainable development goals: A universalist promise for

ft
the future. Futures, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103087

Arruda, E. H., Melatto, R. A. P. B., Levy, W., & Conti, D. de M. (2021). Circular economy: A
ra

brief literature review (2015–2020). Sustainable Operations and Computers, 2, 79–

86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2021.05.001

Barry, A. (2021). What Is an Environmental Problem? Theory, Culture and Society, 38(2),
D

93–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276420958043

Beck, W. (2003). The First Chemical Achievements and Publications by Justus von Liebig
(1803-1873) on Metal Fulminates and Some Further Developments in Metal
Fulminates and Related Areas of Chemistry. In European Journal of Inorganic
Chemistry (Issue 24, pp. 4275–4288). Wiley-VCH Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ejic.200300472

Boulding, K. (2011). The Economics of the Spaceship Earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.),

Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy Essays from the Sixth RFF Forum
(pp. 3–14). RFF Press.

104
Breen, S. D. (2014). Green Views of Marx. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401352060. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2158244013520609

Brown, E. (2017). Plato’s Ethics and Politics in The Republic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
fall2017/entries/plato-ethics-politics/

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Fawcett Crest. https://archive.org/details/

silentspring0000rach_w8l1/page/n7/mode/2up

Carter, C. E. (2024). Reconnecting with the social-political and ecological-economic

reality. Environmental Values, 33(2), 103–121. https://doi.org/
10.1177/09632719241231418

Catton Jr., W. R. (2002). Has the Durkheim Legacy Misled Sociology? In R. E. Dunlap, F.
H. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment:
Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights (pp. 99–117). Rowman & Little eld
Publishers, Inc.

Clark, N., & Szerszynski, B. (2022). Thinking through the Earth: Surviving and thriving at a
planetary threshold. In Dialogues in Human Geography (Vol. 12, Issue 3, pp. 488–
ft
491). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206221129204

Cochrane, G. (2017). Max Weber’s vision for bureaucracy: A casualty of World War I. In
ra

Max Weber’s Vision for Bureaucracy: A Casualty of World War I. https://doi.org/

10.1007/978-3-319-62289-7

Coriat, B. (1982). El Taller y el Cronómetro. Siglo XXI editores.

D

De Benoist, A. (2008). A Brief History of the Idea of Progress. The Occidental Quarterly,
8(1), 7–16.

Durkheim, É. (1933). The Dvision of Labor in Society. The Free Press of Glencoe. http://
www.new.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/233884

Durkheim, É. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Mehtod. The University of Chicago Press.
urn:lcp:rulesofsociologi0000mile:epub:99c646ea-1fa7-49f3-90fc-b0df947be0f9

Durkheim, É. (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. The Free Press.

Durkheim, É. (2004). As regras do metodo sociologico. Presença.

105
fi
Dzhengiz, T., Miller, E. M., Ovaska, J. P., & Patala, S. (2023). Unpacking the circular
economy: A problematizing review. International Journal of Management Reviews,
25(2), 270–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12329

Ekins, P., Domenech, T., Drummond, P., Bleischwitz, R., Hughes, N., & Lotti, L. (2019). The
Circular Economy: What, Why, How and Where (Managing Environmental and
Energy Transitions for Regions and Cities).

Engels, F. (2010). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Penguin
Classics.

Ferretto, A., Matthews, R., Brooker, R., & Smith, P. (2022). Planetary Boundaries and the
Doughnut frameworks: A review of their local operability. In Anthropocene (Vol. 39).
Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2022.100347

Fevre, R. (2003). The New Sociology of Economic Behaviour (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.

Foster, J. B. (2002). Ecology Against Capitalism. Monthly Review Press. https://

archive.org/details/ecologyagainstcaOOOOfost

Foster, J. B., & Burkett, P. (2000). The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations: Marx and
the Hegelian Philosophy of Nature. Organization & Environment, 13(4), 403–425.
ft
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026600134002
ra

Foster, J. B., & Burkett, P. (2008). Classical marxism and the second law of
thermodynamics: Marx/Engels, the heat death of the Universe hypothesis, and the
origins of ecological economics. Organization and Environment, 21(1), 3–37.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026607313580
D

Foster, J. B., & Holleman, H. (2012). Weber and the environment: Classical Foundations
for a Postexemptionalist sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 117(6), 1625–
1673. https://doi.org/10.1086/664617

Foster, J. Bellamy. (2000). Marx’s ecology : materialism and nature. Monthly Review Press.

Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America; Historical Studies

of Chile and Brazil. Monthly Review Press.

Frank, A. G. (1978). Dependent Accumulation and Under-Development. In Syria Studies

(Vol. 7, Issue 1). The Macmillan Press LTD. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/269107473_What_is_governance/link/548173090cf22525dcb61443/

106
 download%0Ahttp://www.econ.upf.edu/~reynal/Civil
wars_12December2010.pdf%0Ahttps://think-asia.org/handle/
11540/8282%0Ahttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41857625

Giddens, A. (1986). Sociology: A Brief but Critical Introduction (2nd ed.). Macmillan
Education UK.

Giddens, A. (1995). A Contemporary Critique os Historical Materialism (2nd ed.). Mcmillan

Education UK.

Gross, M. (2000). Classical sociology and the restoration of nature: The relevance of Émile
Durkheim and Georg Simmel. Organization and Environment, 13(3), 277–291.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026600133001

Gross, M. (2001). Unexpected Interactions Georg Simmel and the Observation of Nature.

Grundmann, R. (1991). The Ecological Challenge to Marxism. New Left Review, 187(1),
103–120.

Grundmann, R. (2001). Marx’s Ecology. Materialism and Nature by John Bellamy Foster.
The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, Vol. 26, No.
4 (Autumn, 2001), Pp. 670-672, 26(4), 670–672.
ft
Gudynas, E. (2023). The Sticky Myth of Economic Growth. In B. Bull & M. Aguilar-Støen
ra

(Eds.), Handbook of International Development and Environment (pp. 26–40).

Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800883789

Hamamoto, A. (2023). Social Impacts to Infrastructure Construction: Sociological

D

Approaches to Development. In S. Urata, K. Kuroda, & Y. Tonegawa (Eds.),

Sustainable Development Disciplines for Humanity. Springer Nature Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4859-6

Haugseth, J. F., & Smeplass, E. (2023). The Greta Thunberg E ect: A Study of Norwegian
Youth’s Re exivity on Climate Change. Sociology, 57(4), 921–939. https://doi.org/
10.1177/00380385221122416

Hirsch, F. (1976). Social Limits to Growth. Harvard University Press.

Jerolmack, C. (2012). Toward a Sociology of Nature. Max Weber and the Iron Cage of
Technology, 53, 5.

107
fl
ff
Jervis, R. (2024). Climate change, critical theory and economic democracy: ‘Small is
Beautiful’ and the challenge to growth. European Journal of Social Theory. https://
doi.org/10.1177/13684310241231227

Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70(5), 873–880. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007

Kallis, G. (2018). Degrowth. Agenda Publishing.

Khmara, Y., & Kronenberg, J. (2023). On the road to urban degrowth economics?
Learning from the experience of C40 cities, doughnut cities, Transition Towns, and
shrinking cities. Cities, 136, 104259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104259

Klinenberg, E., Araos, M., & Koslov, L. (2020). Sociology and the Climate Crisis. Annual
Review of Sociology , 46, 649–169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919

Kosoy, N., Brown, P. G., Bosselmann, K., Duraiappah, A., Mackey, B., Martinez-Alier, J.,
Rogers, D., & Thomson, R. (2012a). Pillars for a ourishing Earth: Planetary
boundaries, economic growth delusion and green economy. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cosust.2012.02.002
ft
Kreinin, H., & Aigner, E. (2022). From “Decent work and economic growth” to “Sustainable
work and economic degrowth”: a new framework for SDG 8. Empirica, 49(2), 281–
ra

311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-021-09526-5

Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., Łaszkiewicz, E., Xue, J., & Khmara, Y. (2024).
Cities, planetary boundaries, and degrowth. In The Lancet Planetary Health (Vol. 8,
D

Issue 4, pp. e234–e241). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/

S2542-5196(24)00025-1

Laasch, O. (2024). Radicalizing Managers’ Climate Education: Getting Beyond the Bull****
Fairy Tale of Eternal Economic Growth. Journal of Management Education, 48(1),
110–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629231210524

Latouche, S. (2010). Degrowth. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 519–522. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.003

Lewis, W. A. (1955). The Theory of Economic Growth. George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

108
fl
Loiseau, E., Saikku, L., Antikainen, R., Droste, N., Hansjürgens, B., Pitkänen, K., Leskinen,
P., Kuikman, P., & Thomsen, M. (2016). Green economy and related concepts: An
overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.08.024

Maley, T. (2004). Max Weber and the Iron Cage of Technology. Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society, 24(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604263181

Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse (FIRST VINTAGE BOOKS). Random House, Inc. https://
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/grundrisse.pdf

Marx, K. (1982). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Penguin Books.

Marx, K. (1988). The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Prometheus Books.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1948). The Manifest of the Communist Party (Vol. 2007).
International Publishers.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1969). The German Ideology. International Publishers. https://
archive.org/details/germanideology0000karl/page/n5/mode/2up

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & III, W. W. B. (1972). Limits to Growth - A
ft
Report for The Club of Rome Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe
Books.
ra

Mensah, K., Wieck, C., & Rudlo , B. (2024). Sustainable food consumption and
Sustainable Development Goal 12: Conceptual challenges for monitoring and
implementation. In Sustainable Development (Vol. 32, Issue 1, pp. 1109–1119).
D

John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2718

Merino-Saum, A., Clement, J., Wyss, R., & Baldi, M. G. (2020). Unpacking the Green
Economy concept: A quantitative analysis of 140 de nitions. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118339

Murphy, R. (2002). Ecological Materialism and the Sociology of Max Weber. In R. E.

Dunlap, F. H. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the
Environment: Classical Foundations and Contemporary Insights (pp. 73–89).
Rowman & Little eld Publishers.

Newton, A. C., & Cantarello, E. (2014). An Introduction to the Green Economy: Science,
Systems and Sustainability. Routledge.

109
fi
ff
fi
Nisbet, R. (2017). The Sociological Tradition. Routledge.

Nisbet, R. A. (1980). History of the idea of progress. Basic Books.

OECD. (2011). Towards Green Growth (OECD Green Growth Studies). OECD. https://
doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-en

Ostrom, E. (2008). Tragedy of the Commons. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The
New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed., Vol. 8). Palgrave Macmillan.

Owen, R. D. (1824). An Outline of the System of Education at New Lanark. Wardlaw &
Cunninghame. https://archive.org/details/outlineofsystemo00owen

Padilla-Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S., & Merveille, N. (2020). Addressing the social
Aspects of a Circular Economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 12(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12197912

Papadopoulos, D. (2022). Implicated by Scale: Anthropochemicals and the Experience of

Ecology. Sociological Review, 70(2), 330–351. https://doi.org/
10.1177/00380261221084780

Paulsson, A., Koch, M., & Fritz, M. (2024). Diminishing Returns of Growth? Economic
ft
Performance, Needs Satisfaction and Ecological Impacts of OECD Welfare States.
Critical Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183231218971
ra

Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our
Time -. Beakon Press Books. https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/
The_Great_Transformation.html?id=YfpIs1Z6B2sC&printsec=frontcover&source=
D

kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Press, G., Olden, H., & Phillips, P. (1952). The Point Four Program: Promise or Menace?
Science & Society, 16(3), 222–246.

Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three Pillars of Sustainability: in Search of
Conceptual Origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

Raworth, K. (2017a). A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st
century. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(2), e48–e49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1

110
Raworth, K. (2017b). Why it’s time for Doughnut Economics. IPPR Progressive Review ,
24(3), 216–222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12058

Research & Degrowth. (2010). Degrowth Declaration of the Paris 2008 Conference.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 523–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2010.01.012

Richardson, K., Ste en, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., Drüke,
M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., von Bloh, W., Feulner, G., Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T.,
Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W., Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogués-Bravo, D., …
Rockström, J. (2023). Earth BeyondSix of Nine Planetary Boundaries. Science Advances,
9(37), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

Rockström, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries. Nature Climate Change, 1(910), 112–112.

https://doi.org/10.1038/climate.2009.92

Rockström, J., Ste en, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T.
M., Sche er, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes,
T., Van Der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U.,
… Foley, J. A. (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space
ft
for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Rosa, E. A., & Richter, L. (2008). Durkheim on the Environment: Ex libris or ex Cathedra?
ra

Introduction to Inaugural Lecture to a Course in Social Science, 1887-1888.

Organization and Environment, 21(2), 182–187. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1086026608318740
D

Saito, K. (2017). Karl Marx’s Ecosociaism: Capitalism, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique
of Political Economy. Monthly Review Press.

Saito, K. (2022). Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism.
Cambridge University Press.

Saunders, F. P. (2015). Planetary boundaries: At the threshold… again: Sustainable

Development Ideas and politics. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
17(4), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9577-y

Schumacher, E. F. (1989). Small is Beautiful. Harper Perennial .

111
ff
ff
ff
 Scipes, K. (2023). Sociology: A Guide to Action or to Analysis in the Global Climate
Change Crisis? A Call for Action by the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Class,
Race Corporate Power, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.25148/crcp.11.1.010600

Shabeco , P. (2003). A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement. Island
Press.

Simmel, G. (1990). The Philosophy of Money (D. Frisby, Ed.). Routledge.

Smith, A. (1852). An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealh of Nations. T. Nelson
& Sons. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38194

Smith, A. (1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Clarendon Press.

Song, J., & Jang, C. H. (2023). Unpacking the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
interlinkages: A semantic network analysis of the SDGs targets. Sustainable
Development, 31(4), 2784–2796. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2547

Spash, C. L. (2020). ‘The economy’ as if people mattered: revisiting critiques of economic

growth in a time of crisis. Globalizations, 1–18. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14747731.2020.1761612
ft
Ste en, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs,
R., Carpenter, S. R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J.,
ra

Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015).
Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.
Science, 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
D

Swedberg, R. (2000). Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology. Princeton
University Press.

Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific Management- Comprising Shop Management, the Principles

of Scientific Management, Testimony Before the Special House Committee. Harper
& Brothers .

Tönnies, F. (1957). Community and Society. The Michigan State University Press. https://
archive.org/details/ferdinandtonnies0000char/mode/2up

Turner, J. H., & Abrutyn, S. (2017). Returning the ‘Social’ to Evolutionary Sociology:
Reconsidering Spencer, Durkheim, and Marx’s Models of ‘natural’ Selection.

112
ff
ff
 Sociological Perspectives, 60(3), 529–556. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0731121416641936

UNEP. (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and

Poverty Eradication. www.unep.org/greeneconomy

United Nations. (1972). Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/nl7/300/05/pdf/
nl730005.pdf?token=yoneudrwrMKBAbx7f8&fe=true

Van Der Heijden, A. ;, Koopmans, R. ;, & Giugni, M. (1992). The West European
Environmental Movement. In The Green Movement Worldwide (pp. 1–40). JAI
Press.

Walker, G. (2005). Sociological theory and the natural environment. History of the Human
Sciences, 18(1), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695105051127

Warde, P. (2011). The Invention of Sustainability. Modern Intellectual History, 8(1), 153–
170. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S1479244311000096

Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (H. H. Gerth & W. C. Mills, Eds.).
Oxford University Press.
ft
Weber, M. (2013). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (S. Kalberg, Ed.; 3rd
ra

ed.). Routledge.

Weber, M. (2019a). Economy and Society (K. Tribe, Ed.). Harvard University Press. https://
lccn.loc.gov/2018030731
D

Weber, M. (2019b). Economy and Society: A New Translation (K. Tribe, Ed.). Harvard
University Press.

Weber, M. (2023). General Economic History. Routledge.

Winterhalt, K. R. (2018). Truman’s New Deal: Point Four and the Genesis of Modern
Global Development. Undergraduate Research Journal, 4(2). https://www.cia.gov/
library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-

Wol , J., & Leopold, D. (2021). Karl Marx. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/marx/

113
ff
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common
Future. Oxford University Press. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/5987our-common-future.pdf

Sociology in the Anthropocene © 2024 by Maria Isabel Guimarães,

Sandra Coelho & Cláudia Amador is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA
4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
ft
ra
D

114