Education

What is environmental studies?

A lthough precedents existed forenvironmental studies pro-grams in schools of forestry

and natural resources, colleges anduniversities did not begin to initiatefree-standing programs in the fielduntil the 1960s. But even as environ-mental programs evolved and diver-sified, a definition of environmentalstudies and clear statements aboutcurricular content and educationalobjectives have remained elusive.Now that environmental studies, asa specific curricular emphasis, is morethan a quarter century old and is ina new phase of proliferation andexpansion, the need for a distinctidentity seems more pressing, if onlyto help to counter the hostility toenvironmental education from somepolitical interests and to respond tocharges that the field lacks rigor.

One current trend that is contrib-uting to the indefinablility of envi-ronmental studies is that of welcom-ing an increasing disciplinarydiversity of faculty. In this article,we contend that this trend is causingcrises of vision and curricular devel-opment, leading to both a paralysisof program planning and hyper-di-verse, shallow curricula—"the envi-ronmental studies problem." Weconclude that until the costs of uni-versalism in environmental studiesare recognized and understood, thefield will not only remain indefin-able but also become increasinglyineffective in its primary mission: toeducate ecologically literate, respon-sible citizens who are problem solv-ers and agents of constructive socialchange. In addition, we explore a setof problems inherent in multi-disciplinary programs, and we rec-ommend changes in the curriculumand the organization of environmen-tal studies programs.

Michael E. Souleand Daniel Press

The origins and developmentof environmental studiesThe roots of environmental studiescan be traced to the turn of the cen-tury. The environmental politics ofthat era are usually portrayed as aconflict between two philosophies,conservation and preservation (Hays1959, Nash 1967, Worster 1994}, aconflict that continues today in theform of the polarity between anthro-pocentrism and ecocentrism.

Conservation originally meantpragmatic husbanding of natural re-sources, using the best science of theday and the mechanisms of govern-ment (legislation, management, andenforcement) to achieve these ends.This definition of conservation waschampioned by Gifford Pinchot(1865-1946), the first chief of theUS Forest Service, and John WesleyPowell (1834-1902), the first direc-tor of the US Geological Survey. Partof their legacy was to institutionalizeschools of forestry, fisheries, andwildlife management in most landgrant colleges (Williams 1989), andtheir views dominated higher educa-tion in natural resources and theenvironment until the 1960s.

John Muir (1838-1914), of theSierra Glub, and Robert Marshall(1901-1939), ofthe Wilderness So-ciety, were among the early preser-vationists. Their vision was to setaside the most magnificent, sceniclands in national parks, securing themforever from commercial exploita-tion. Later, Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) attempted to bridge the con-servationist and preservationistphilosophies by advocating a morecomprehensive definition of re-sources and a more ecological sys-tem of values.

Until relatively recently, environ-mental education continued to focuson prudent use of natural resources.A 1957 study entitled "Conserva-

tion Education in American Col-leges" (Lively and Preiss 1957) foundthat some 53% of the institutionssurveyed taught "some conservation"but that these courses emphasized re-source (utilitarian) philosophy, focus-ing on soil and water science, for-estry, ecology, and economics.

Prompted in part by RachelCarson's Silent Spring (1962) and itscritics, the direction of environmen-tal programs was transformed in the1960s, shifting its gaze from naturalresources and recreation to the ef-fects of pollution on the health ofwildlife and human beings. At thistime, academia was entering a pe-riod of experimentation and growth.Students were demanding that thecurricula of colleges and universitiesbecome more relevant to their socialagendas, whereas a minority of fac-ulty were determined to do somethingabout the lack of environmental aware-ness and literacy in the majority ofundergraduates. These two mutuallyreinforcing concerns, together withthe mood of self-determination andrebellion created by the Civil Rightsmovement and the Vietnam War, allcontributed to the rapid spread ofenvironmental studies throughoutthe United States and Canada.

Most of the new environmentalstudies programs were started byphysical and life scientists who wereconcerned with toxicologicai andepidemiological effects of pesticidesand other pollutants, and by socialscientists who were concerned withthe emerging fields of environmentalpolicy, policy analysis, and law. Re-source economists examined the ad-equacy ofthe resource base to sustaineconomic development. Environmen-tal studies was less a child of science orof a concern about the proper man-agement of fisheries and forests thanan eruption of concern about health,nature, and the quality of life—a so-cial movement anchored in academia.

May 1998 397

In these programs, professors andstudents joined forces to create anew area of academic emphasis thatnot only taught the basics and back-ground of environmental problemsbut also directed the attention ofstudents to issues of lifestyle andconsumption that, cumulatively,have profound consequences for so-ciety and nature. For example, anawareness of the amount of wasteproduced by the harvesting and trans-formations of natural resourceshelped students to understand theweb of economic, social, political,and ecological relationships in whichthey participated. The political im-plications of these programs—that is,their focus on the need for social changeand on the methods for achieving suchchange—distinguished them from theirmanagement-oriented predecessors(e.g., Callicott 1980).

Environmental studies programswere pioneers in this rare era of aca-demic experimentation, and ecol-ogy—the "subversive science" (Sears1964, Shepard and McKinley 1969)—was often the centerpiece of the envi-ronmental studies curriculum. Text-books and major sources includedworks by Eugene Odum (1971),George Woodwell (1970), Paul andAnne Ehrlich and John Holdren(1970), and Garret Hardin (1968).

By the 1970s, the courses listed inmost environmental studies curriculadepended on which faculty could bebegged or borrowed from traditionaldepartments. Faculties struggled tocreate a new synthesis crossing tra-ditional disciplines as they gropedwith the issues of curricular coher-ence, rigor, and intellectual depth(Schoenfeld 1971, Schoenfeld andDisinger 1978). The end of this earlyphase in environmental studies pro-gram building saw most schools re-lying on one or more ofthe followingareas: environmental science (withmore or less emphasis on physical orlife sciences and sometimes with anapplied focus on sanitation, pollu-tion, land use, and chemical haz-ards); environmental policy and plan-ning (including economics, politicalscience, and policy analysis); andcultural studies (with varying em-phasis on American nature litera-ture, environmental philosophy, cul-tural geography, and developmentstudies).

Emerging themes, problems,and conflictsA resurgence in environmental con-cern from the mid-1980s onwardheralded the current era. Somethemes have become virtually uni-versal. One of these is complexity.Environmental problems are nowrecognized as belonging to a groupof problems that resist purely scien-tific or technological understandingand solution: They are fractious, re-fractory, and expensive. And al-though environmental problems aresalient to many people, salience doesnot necessarily translate into fund-ing or political support for specificpolicies (Bosso 1996). Another themethat emerged was the relevance ofscale (spatial and temporal) and con-text (ecological and cultural). Forexample, solutions to environmen-tal problems that may be appropri-ate at the local scale (or within aparticular culture) may be inappro-priate at a national or internationalscale, or in another culture.

Although such themes have pro-vided some identity to environmen-tal studies programs, the growth ofknowledge and the proliferation ofnew fields and emphases have exac-erbated the lack of coherence in manycurricula, sometimes causing a mush-rooming, chaotic menu of unrelatedcourses, their numbers limited onlyby the size and energy of the faculty.Among the subjects added to theenvironmental studies curriculum inthe last 15 years are the new fields ofconservation biology, ecological eco-nomics, sustainable agriculture, de-velopment studies, conflict resolution,environmental justice, and environ-mental ethics. In addition, the need tounderstand global biophysical pro-cesses and global commerce and theirenvironmental and social impacts hasstimulated curricular growth. Thetrend is obvious: Environmental stud-ies, as a field, is virtually limitless.Every aspect of the human economyand many aspects of culture affectthe environment and are affected byit. Moreover, the absence of a con-sensus about the environmental stud-ies canon militates against a logicalbasis for excluding course areas.

Environmental studies programsare bombarded with requests (anddemands) by both students and fac-

ulty for new courses and curricularemphases. These entreaties, whenconsidered individually, often appearto be reasonable. And even if themerits of particular proposals arequestionable, faculty may be reluc-tant to demur, given their fear ofoffending some group or being la-beled as elitist or non-egalitarian.The box on page 399 lists a sampleof some of the many course areasthat might be appropriate in particu-lar environmental curricula.

Given that the intellectual land-scape covered by environmental stud-ies programs is potentially immenseand that several new academic move-ments, such as deep ecology, politi-cal ecology, ecofeminism, and socialdeconstruction, have taken seats atthe environmental studies table, it isinevitable that confusion and con-flict are the result. Students alreadymust cope with the complex natureof environmental problems; now, inaddition, they are confronted by aspectrum of ideologies that promoteconflicting problem definitions,analyses, and favored solutions.

Thus, it seems clear that as thenumber of fields claiming environ-mental relevance has increased, asseveral new ideological groups havebeen welcomed into these programs,and as the environmental studiescurriculum has expanded with eachdisciplinary graft, the field has be-come increasingly chimeric. Theseissues-^the confusion about disci-plinary identity and the canon, theemergence of serious ideological con-flict, and the institutional problemsassociated with applied, multi-disciplinary programs in academia—must be resolved before there can hemuch progress in the field.

A discipline, multidiscipline, orinterdiscipline? Is environmentalstudies a discipline? A discipline, wecontend, is a field that is either "ver-tical" and/or that has achieved agree-ment on its fundamental works—thecanon. Vertical fields include sci-ence, economics, and math. In suchfields, there is a consensus on thesequence of subjects (prerequisites)that build competence in a linear orhierarchical fashion, until studentscan grapple with "higher" topics. Bycontrast, horizontal fields, such ashistory or sociology, are less rigid in

398 BioScience Vol. 48 No. 5

Topics and subject areas that are often taught underthe rubric of environmental studies

AgroecologyAnimal rightsAnthropology (nature and culture)Atmospheric sciencesBioregionalismCartography/global information systemsConflict management and resolutionConservation biologyCultural ecologyDevelopment studiesEcofeminismEcological economicsEcological engineeringEcologyEconomicsEnergy resources assessmentEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental educationEnvironmental ethics and philosophyEnvironmental historyEnvironmental interpretationEnvironmental justice and racismEnvironmental lawEnvironmental literatureEnvironmental politics and policyEnvironmental psychologyEnvironmental regulationEnvironmental toxicologyEnvironmental writingEthnobiology

Eisheries scienceEorestryGeographic information systemsGlobalization and the environmentHazard mitigationHuman demographyHydrologyIntegrated pest managementInternational environmental law and policiesInterview and survey methodsLandscape architectureLandscape ecologyNatural historyPlanningPollution chemistryRange managementRecyclingReligion and the environmentRestoration ecologyRisk assessmentRural sociologySoil ecologySustainable agricultureSustainable economic developmentSustainable exploitation of natural resourcesWater policyWatershed managementWildlife biologyWildlife management

the sequencing of prerequisites andcourses required for the major.

Is environmental studies verticalor horizontal? Brough (1992) pointsout that "problem-solving canfounder if not supported by a solidintellectual framework in theclassroom...land] the frameworkunderpinning environmental studiesprograms is science. Nearly all pro-grams require a course or two inbiology and other basic sciences as aprerequisite to taking advancedcourses" (p. 28). However, such ashort list of prerequisites, even ifrequired universally by environmen-tal studies programs, hardly sufficesto qualify environmental studies as adiscipline. We believe that environ-mental studies is a relatively hori-zontal field, although it contains sub-sets of verticality.

Does environmental studies havea canon? The identity of all disci-

plines relies in part on a consensuson the hody of authoritative worksthat practitioners consider to be fun-damental. When the canon becomesan arena of dispute, a field is flirtingwith fragmentation. Environmentalstudies did have a canon 20 yearsago. Eor example, the works ofCharles Darwin, Henry DavidThoreau, and Aldo Leopold werethen considered classics. These days,however, the attitudes expressed bythese authors offend some faculty, il-lustrating the depth of ideologicaldivision among environmental stud-ies faculty. We conclude, therefore,that environmental studies is furtherfrom disciplinarity than ever.

If environmental studies is not adiscipline, then what is it? We be-lieve that environmental studies pro-grams are multidisciplinary in theircomposition and often in their peda-gogy but that many faculty should

strive for something more—that is,interdisciplinarity in outlook andmethod. In this regard, Braddock etal. (1994) emphasize the value ofinteractions among faculty in prob-lem-solving projects, not just in theclassroom. T'hey suggest that inter-disciplinarity is possible only "whenthere is sustained interaction on aformal and informal basis betweenmembersof different disciplines" (p.39). This interaction is importantnot only because of its social benefitsbut also because it leads to new waysof thinking about complex issues.

An important reason for individu-als to come together in an environ-mental studies program is so thatthey can develop into "inter-disciplinarians"—people who under-stand the languages of other disci-plines and have learned to interacteffectively and creatively with profes-sionals in other fields. We note one

May 1998 399

Table 1. The two major ideological groups in environmental studies and somedefining characteristics.

Characteristic Social Critics Scientists/Empiricists

Values

Epistemology andmethodology

Fundamentalenvironmentalproblems

Ultimate cause ofenvironmentalproblems

Environmentalobjectives

Humanistic (antbropocentric);emancipation of human beings;holistic; sustainability ofeconomic development

Postpositivist or phenomeno-logical; social deconstruction,employing culturallycontextnalized case studies

Access to land and landownership; concentration ofwealth in elites; social andenvironmental consequences ofNorth-South economicimbalances; technologicaldomination by elites;sustainable economics;environmental injustice

Injustice and greed caused bypolitical and economicrepression

Critical skills; methods ofsocial change; social ethic

From ecocentric to anthropocentric;from protection of nature tosustainability of resources

Hypothesis testing; seeks generalities;often reductionistic or Darwinian;systems oriented

Loss of evolutionary lineages; loss ofnatural systems and biodiversity; thehuman population; unsustainableexploitation of natural resources;unsustainable economic growth;overconsumption; environmentaldegradation

Greed caused by human nature;human hegemony of ecosystems

Problem-solving skills; knowledgeof natural systems and conservationethics

caveat, however: Braddock et al.(1994) contend that "those who areapt to perform best in interdiscipli-nary settings are strong disciplinar-ians" (p. 39). If validated, this con-clusion should give pause to those(like ourselves) who are developingdoctorate programs in environmentalstudies.

Ideological conflicts. The problemsof continuing curricular prolifera-tion and of the lack of rigor havebeen aggravated by ideological ten-sions in environmental studies. En-vironmental studies programs tradi-tionally welcome new faculty,regardless of their disciplinary ori-gins, but we believe that this "opendoor" policy, as well as the recenttrend to recruit faculty with hetero-geneous epistemological loyalties andsocial goals, has led to confusionabout mission and to the breakdownof collegia! relations.

What are these conflicting fields?Academic fields can be subdividedendlessly, but for our purposes welump the environmental specializa-tions into two major categories(Table 1): social criticism and natu-ral science (which includes some ele-ments of political science and econom-ics). Eckersley (1992) has examined

this issue in depth and presented amuch finer classification, but ourtwo groups are consistent with heranalysis. We have excluded otherideologies from consideration. Forexample, mainstream neoclassicaleconomists are rare in environmen-tal studies programs, probably be-cause the views held by these practi-tioners are incompatible with thedominant paradigms of the field.Another ideology, animal rights, hasinfluenced the mores and behaviorof many students and some facultybut is not a major force in the devel-opment of academic programs.

The first group, the social (or"postmodern") critics, is largely hu-manistic, anthropocentric, andemancipatory (Fckersley 1992). So-cial critics often see the world, andteach about it, from the viewpoint ofthe human victims of discriminationand injustice. Their concept of theenvironmental problematique (Table1) comprises issues such as access toland, land ownership policies thatencourage concentration of wealth,and the social and environmentalconsequences of capitalism andNorth-South economic imbalances.These scholars favor social explana-tions (such as differential access ofclasses to power) for the unsustain-

able forms of exploitation and landuse now dominating the worldeconomy. Seeing little hope for in-cremental reform in many nations,they also tend to champion revolu-tionary political change and promotedecision-making that is bottom-uprather than managerial, or top-down,

In addition, these scholars aredeeply suspicious of pragmatism andincremental change, particularly 'when these are advocated by privi- jleged elites. Instead, they favor revo-lutionary forms of social change,pointing out that scientists and ac-tivists working on issues such as spe-cies conservation or "industrial ecol-ogy" too readily assume Western orecocentric views of nature and theeconomy—views that they regard asinappropriately narrow constructsfor guiding public policy.

Social critics prefer intuitive, ordeconstructive, methods over hy-pothesis-testing, reductionist meth-ods (Lester and Stewart 1996). Thesearch for underlying generalities orprinciples and for methodologicalrepeatability are eschewed in favorof culturally contextualized, occa-sionally ethnographic case studiesthat question the cultural norms ofWestern civilization. Such scholars .often attack scientists and techno-crats as being narrowly "scientistic"and "technist" and disparage mod-ern science as an engine of the domi-nant, authoritarian culture.

The second major group—natu-ral scientists—rarely equate intuition(or narrative) and knowledge. Theyalso differ from the social critics inaccepting the premise of evolution-ary or incremental (rather than revo-lutionary) improvements in society.For example, natural scientists gen-erally support the kinds of progres-sive environmental legislation thatwas adopted by the United Statesduring the 1970s and 1980s. More-over, many natural scientists, politi-cal scientists, and economists believethat environmental studies shouldteach students to be effective prob-lem solvers and to master skills anaresearch techniques to facilitate en-try into careers and graduate school-These contrasting values and ap-proaches often lead to miscommuni-cation and tension among faculty mem-bers who have differing visions aboutthe future directions of programs.

400 BioScience VoL 48 No.

Disputes between these two groupsare often formulated in terms of an-thropocentric versus ecocentric goalsand values, although these labels donot apply to all members of thesegroups. Anthropocentrists from boththe left and right consider humanwelfare and economic advancementto have higher ethical standing thanthe welfare and existence of otherspecies and ecosystems. Among thosein environmental studies who aretraditionally in the anthropocentriccamp are sociologists, many anthro-pologists (those who emphasize sus-tainable development and povertyalleviation as environmental solu-tions}, and many ecofeminists. Adhominem attacks are common, withthe humanistic social critics accus-ing the biologists of social naivete,misanthropy, and racism. In re-sponse, ecocentric biologists accusethe humanists of "speciesism," eco-logical naivete, and callousness to-ward living nature.

In contrast to the social critics,most ecocentrists reject the claims ofabsolute human privilege and right-ful domination over nature. Althoughthey are not attached to any particu-lar social science theory of history orsociety, some admire the works ofintrinsic value theorists such as ArneNaess, Holmes Rolston, and GeorgeSessions. Ecocentrists advocatebiodiversity, wilderness, and nativeplant and animal communities (eco-systems), including the services theseprovide society (e.g., Baskin 1997,Daily 1997). A premise shared bymost ecocentrists is that the ultimatecauses of environmental problemsare either ancient human institutions(such as agriculture) or the genetic,evolved roots of human nature; theyseek solutions that tacitly assume auniversal, deep-seated impulse to-ward self-interest in all species, in-cluding human beings. In particular,ecocentrists frequently invoke thepossibility that there is a genetic po-tential for greed or selfishness andthat self-interest is resistant to cul-tural fixes or education. Hence,ecocentrists often question thetheory, popular among social critics,that greed is simply learned. Becauseecocentrists believe greed to be afundamental part of human nature,they are less sanguine about the po-tential long-term benefits of revolu-

tions (which all too often replace oneelite with another).

Given these differences in corebeliefs, values, and methods, con-flict among faculty in environmentalstudies is inevitable. One of the ear-liest, most persistent of these con-flicts is the human population ques-tion. The debate about the causesand effects of population growth hastended to drive a wedge between thehumanistic and ecocentric environ-mentalists. The objective of theformer group has been to protecthuman health and welfare, includingthe sustainability of economic growthand of enterprises based on the ex-ploitation of natural resources. Bycontrast, the ecocentrists have beenmore concerned with protecting liv-ing nature.

Hence, most ecologists have seenhuman population growth as themajor driving force of biotic attri-tion and habitat destruction world-wide, and they have always supporteduniversal access to family-planningservices. Social critics, however (joinedlater by social deconstructionists),have usually pointed the finger in-stead at injustice, exploitation ofworkers, patriarchy, and inequity inland distribution and resources.Population growth, they claim, is aconsequence of misguided economicand social policies—that is, it is morean effect of poverty and injusticethan an independent forcing vari-able. These critics have argued thatpoverty and maldistribution of landand power, rather than reproductivebehavior and family size, are theappropriate targets for social ma-nipulation and economic change.

More or less simultaneously, an-other group of social scientists, theneoclassical economists, were argu-ing that substitutes for scarce natu-ral resources can always be found,thereby rendering trivial problemssuch as degrading soils, depleted fish-eries, denuded watersheds, and spe-cies extinction. Thus, the populationissue remains the flash point of the"ecocentrism-anthropocentrism"dialogue (Soule and Lease 1995}, inpart because the two groups havedivergent "environmental" goals.

In some ways, however, ideologi-cal diversity has benefited environ-mental studies. The social scienceshave revolutionized the manner in

which many environmental problemsare addressed. It is now consideredessential to incorporate analyses ofinstitutional behavior, value differ-ences, and socioeconomic dispari-ties in access to justice and power.Eor example, most environmentalpractitioners, regardless of ideology,are now attentive to stakeholdersand their participation in definingproblems and prescribing solutions.

Nevertheless, there can be toomuch ideological diversity in a pro-gram, and there are better ways toaccommodate and institutionalizemultiple ideological perspectives thancramming them all into one unit.Although disciplinary and ideologi-cal diversity is desirable within theacademy as a whole, we question thebenefits of "hyper-diversity" withina single program or department, par-ticularly if it creates chronic tensionsand perennial stalemates about pro-grammatic direction and producesan unwieldy, unfocused curriculum.

Institutional problems. Multi-disciplinary programs are, in gen-eral, plagued by extrinsic or institu-tional handicaps. Although theseproblems may not appear to be im-mediately relevant to defining envi-ronmental studies, exploring thembuilds a context for our recommen-dations and conclusions.

Multidisciplinarity is not the normin colleges and universities, and tra-ditional systems of academic resourceallocation and rewards were not de-signed to sustain vigorous, integra-tive experiments in multidis-ciplinarity. Issues of legitimacy erodethe status of such programs. Cairns(1979} pointed out that attempts atnew forms of academic integrationare "vigorously resisted by much ofthe academic community, thus de-priving both society and students ofa holistic view." New ways of orga-nizing teaching and research are of-ten perceived as radical and threat-ening, particularly if there are fiscalimplications for preexisting depart-ments. Therefore, we doubt that en-vironmental studies programs couldexist in the traditional universitywithout student demand.

A related institutional issue is au-tonomy. The vigor of multidis-ciplinary programs clearly dependsto a great extent on their indepen-

Mayl998 401

dence within the institution. Pro-grams that rely on ad hoc groups offaculty with different departmentalloyalties or that are "stepchildren"within a disciplinary department areunlikely to be as successful as thosethat control their own budgets, re-cruit their own faculty, and managetheir own promotion processes. Adepartmental structure also tends tominimize faculty turnover and pro-vides a safer harbor for junior fac-ulty, particularly if their researchinterests are applied, collaborative,or interdisciplinary. Autonomy ap-pears to be greatest in cases whereenvironmental studies programs haveevolved within schools of forestry ornatural resources management (e.g.,at Yale University and at the Univer-sity of Michigan).

Environmental studies programsare somewhat unorthodox in otherways. They often weigh criteria fortenure and promotion differentlythan traditional departments, inwhich individual intellectual perfor-mance gains the highest rewards. Bycontrast, environmental studies pro-grams frequently give more weightto collaborative teaching and re-search and may consider communityservice as well.

The perception of heterodoxy isreinforced by the tendency of envi-ronmental studies programs to con-done or even embrace activism. Ac-cording to Orr (1992), a decentenvironmental studies program mustmake the leap from "I know, I care"to "I'll do something." Indeed, manystudents are motivated by causes suchas anima! rights, vegetarianism, en-dangered species, or the victimiza-tion of minorities. This idealism,however, can give rise to caricaturesof environmental studies programsas "churches of the environment."

Finally, many scholars still main-tain that applied research, let alonecommitment to a cause, is primafacie evidence of bias, thus castingdoubt on the significance of scholar-ship. The perception of subjectivityin environmental studies is perva-sive, notwithstanding the existenceof many other kinds of applied workwithin the academy, from schools ofengineering, agriculture, and medi-cine to the contract military researchperformed in many "pure" disciplin-ary departments. The anti-establish-

ment nature of much environmentalanalysis, however, only underscoresthe perception of bias on the part ofconservative critics, as manifestedby the contemporary wave of anti-environmental propaganda, calledthe "brownlash" by Ehrlich andEhrlich (1996).

Solutions for multi-disciplinary illiteracyGiven the above challenges of iden-tity, curricular diversity, and ques-tions about objectivity, it should beno surprise that there is widespreadconcern, both within and outsideenvironmental studies programs,about the quality and rigor of thecurriculum. Are the students receiv-ing a sound undergraduate educa-tion? In our experience, many envi-ronmental studies students have onlya superficial knowledge of any field,and the least probing exposes theirignorance. As educators, therefore,environmental studies faculty riskpromoting what Swedish scholarTorsten Husen calls "multidiscipli-nary illiteracy." Another observerhas commented that the subject mat-ter of environmental studies is sobroad and the pedagogy so shallowthat students are sent into the worldbrandishing merely "the blunted lanceof the well-rounded" (Nash 1977).

At least two general approachesfor combating multidisciplinary il-literacy exist. The first approach isto build in disciplinary depth by im-posing requirements in addition tospecific coursework. Our preferredoption is for all environmental stud-ies programs to require students totake a second major in a traditionaldiscipline. Alternatively, studentscould minor in a (disciplinary) field.A third solution is to require an hon-ors-level senior thesis, so long as thework involved in this effort providesthe same level of familiarity with adiscipline to that usually obtainedby majoring or minoring in that dis-cipline. One drawback of this solu-tion is that faculty must be preparedto devote many hours to supervisingundergraduate research. Fourth, pro-grams could require that studentsspecialize in a particular area or"track" within the environmentalstudies major. However, in our ex-perience this approach rarely pro-

vides for sufficient disciplinarygrounding. A fifth solution is to es-chew an environmental studies ma-jor altogether, offering instead aminor that comp!ements a major inanother field. However, this optionis probably impractical for reasonsof institutional traditions and poli-tics: Programs or departments thatoffer only minors are less !ike!y to hetaken seriously, !ess likely to hefunded, and less likely to attract stu-dent interest.

A second way to combat multi-disciplinary illiteracy is to reexam-ine the objectives and content ofthecore curriculum. The core curricu-lum has always resisted definitionand codification. A common solu-tion has been to cobble together a setof courses that respects the faculty'sdiversityof experience, training, val-ues, and worldviews. This opportu-nistic approach usually produces anunstable solution. Our own list ofcore essential topics—those that webelieve will equip students to under-stand, analyze, and help solve envi-ronmental problems in an effectivemanner—includes ecology, politicalscience, ecological and natural re-source economics, environmentalhistory, environmental policy, en-ergy, pollution chemistry, environ-mental law, and environmental phi-losophy. We chose these particulartopics to provide students with acommon language and a sufficientdepth of knowledge as groundingfor further education and good citi-zenship. These core topics imply aset of educational objectives:

• Students should have a strong in-troduction to the modern, quantita-tive science of ecology. Ideally, theyshould master basic biology and ha-sic chemistry before taking an ecol-ogy course. Such a course should heof equal or greater rigor to upper-division general ecology coursestaught in a biology department.• Students should understand thephysics and chemistry of the atmos-phere and hydrosphere and the pro-cesses contributing to the pollutionand degradation of air, water, andsoils. It is likely that more than onecourse would be necessary in theseareas.• Students should be able to useeconomic arguments effectively as

402 BioScience VoL 48 No. 5

tools in solving environmental prob-lems, and they should be able toarticulate and critique the premisesof neoclassical economics.• Students should be familiar withthe concepts of property, pohcy pro-cesses and tools, and the laws andregulations that affect land use, zon-ing, and the management of publicand private lands. They should alsolearn how government institutionsand the political milieu affect thenatural environment.• Students should be exposed di-rectly to the natural world throughfield courses, internships, or involve-ment in interdisciplinary senior-levelprojects or faculty research.• Students should have the opportu-nity to develop sufficient disciplin-ary depth to equip them for graduateschool or for a career. Appropriatesubject areas include conservationbiology, ecological restoration, soilecology, environmental policy, edu-cation, environmental toxicology,sustainable agriculture, planning,and environmental or ecological eco-nomics. Among the skills that couldbe mastered in particular programsare environmental risk assessment,basic policy analysis, natural his-tory, ecological and sociological fieldresearch methods, statistics, geo-graphic information systems andcartography, toxicology field andlaboratory methods, hazard mitiga-tion, interview and survey measure-ment, and econometrics.

These objectives alone, however,do not completely define a core cur-riculum. A core curriculum must alsofamiliarize students with the historyof the relevant disciplines and ofenvironmental studies itself. In addi-tion, students should develop enoughcritical acumen to detect the subtlemessages and premises in rhetoric ofall kinds. The core curriculum mustalso introduce students to problemsof scale, cultural context, and com-plexity; students should learn, forinstance, that environmental prob-lems are multidimensional and thatsolutions that have worked in onecontext or scale will often fail inanother. Hence, case studies and casehistories are an essential component,not only because they are heuristicbut also because there are few uni-versals in this field.

We would add one more require-ment, even if it is not, strictly speak-ing, a "core" curricular element: in-ternships. Academic work alone isinsufficient preparation for solvingenvironmental problems and con-flicts in the larger society becausethese issues are socially embedded,politically complex, and animatedby individuals whose approaches tochallenges may differ substantiallyfrom those of their academic men-tors. Eor this reason, many environ-mental studies programs recommendinternships. It is one thing to read,write, and talk about environmentalproblems, but it is another thing toexperience them in a "real world,"nonacademic setting. Furthermore,the opportunity to test one's theo-retical knowledge can motivate fur-ther learning.

This list of objectives, limitedthough it may be, still covers a muchbroader intellectual territory thanmost disciplinary majors. Therefore,we believe that the core curriculum,its quahty notwithstanding, is a nec-essary but insufficient response tothe challenge of multidisciplinary il-literacy, at least within the limits ofa four-year program. An adequateresponse must include one of thestructural mechanisms describedabove, such as requiring a secondmajor or minor.

Conclusions andrecommendationsIn response to the curricular andideological hazards of universalism,we propose three internally coherentapproaches to the study of the envi-ronment at the undergraduate level.Although only the first of these ful-fills all ofthe educational objectiveslisted above, all three can constitutean integrated course of study.

Ecology and environmental policyanalysis. This approach to environ-mental studies would combine ap-plied biology and public policy analy-sis. It would require a solid backgroundin science (similar to that required fora biology major}, while emphasizingfields such as conservation biology,wildlife biology, forestry, sustain-able agriculture, and environmentaltoxicology. In addition, this programwould draw on economics, political

science, and public policy analysis.Research outlooks would tend to bepositivist and empirical, with contri-butions from philosophy. The philo-sophical emphasis could incorporateelements of both the ecocentric andanthropocentric agendas. A variantwould be to emphasize the tradi-tional focus on natural resources orenvironmental science. Either vari-ant would fit best in a natural sciencedivision, given the requirements forlaboratories and support for scien-tific research.

Literature and philosophy. The sub-ject matter of programs that takethis approach would include ethics,aesthetics, metaphysics, phenom-enology, and the connection of hu-man cultures to the land. The cur-ricula of these programs wouldnormally require courses in environ-mental history, nature literature, re-ligion and nature, and environmen-tal philosophy. The most compatibleadditional topics would be sustain-able agriculture, land-use planning,bioregional studies, environmentalpolicy, animal rights, ecology, andnatural history. This approach, likethe first, is fully multidisciplinary,with rich potential for interdiscipli-nary research. It would be housedmost comfortably in a humanitiesdepartment or school.

Social criticism and critical theory.Similar in philosophical orientationto programs in science and technol-ogy studies, this approach springs fromthe New Left and other philosophiesthat challenge the assumptions of mo-dernity; these programs would be basedon critiques of the free market orcapitalist economy, the hegemony ofscience, globalization of trade, ever-increasing economic growth and con-sumption, community instability,alienation, independence (e.g.,caused by the automobile}, positiv-ism, scientific reductionism (versusholism}, authoritarianism, and sex-ism. Courses would typically em-phasize humanistic values, includingsocial justice and equity in both de-veloped and developing societies, andthe mastery of critical analysis skills.Programs of this type would be in-fluenced by feminism and otheremancipatory doctrines and wouldwelcome scholars specializing in po-

May 1998 403

litical ecology, ecofeminism, andenvironmental justice. This approachwould fit easily within a social sci-ence division.

Each of these approaches is suffi-ciently coherent to constitute an un-dergraduate major or university de-partment. Each has its own canonand epistemological foundation.(Nevertheless, each is still vulner-able to multidisciplinary illiteracy inits graduates.) We believe, however,that mixing them is pedagogicallyquestionable and institutionally di-sastrous, the former because the sub-ject matter is too broad, and thelatter because the combinations bringtogether faculty with deeply diver-gent worldviews. In theory, thesephilosophical differences couldstimulate productive cross-fertiliza-tion, for example, on the nature ofsocial inquiry. But program areasthat are "naturally" !ess compatibleplace heavier burdens on faculty tomanage their fundamental norma-tive conflicts, lest they find them-selves in chronic disagreement onissues of program identity, directionsfor growth, curricular content, andfaculty recruitment.

Ideally, such ideological conflictis manageable when faculty arestrongly committed to making anopportunity out of competing para-digms, but it may be difficult orimpossible to nurture a sense of ca-maraderie or community in a verybroad program (Braddock et al.1994). As Braddock et al. (1994)note, one of the most critical anddifficult disciplinary divides to bridgeis that between the social and natu-ral sciences. We have found that suc-cess in this "bridging" requires so-cial scientists who have a backgroundand a continuing interest in science,as well as natural scientists who arenot only committed to grasping thenettle of politics and policy but alsohumble enough to admit ignoranceof these matters, at least in the begin-ning of their collaboration.

Even if interpersonal conflictscould be worked out, however, "uni-versalist" programs fail to addressthe curricular and pedagogical prob-lems of coherence and depth. Thus,we recommend that environmentalstudies programs avoid the "univer-salisttrap." Collegial relations aside,the more diverse a program, the less

coherent its curriculum and thegreater its risk of producing intellec-tually shallow graduates. Achievingthe dual objectives of curricular co-herence and rigor requires limits ondiversity.

Thus, our solution to "the envi-ronmental studies problem" wouldlimit diversity within, but not be-tween, programs. Implicit in ourrecommendations is that some exist-ing programs should split along frac-tious ideological or methodologicalboundaries, particularly along theborders between the three approachesoutlined above. Would such divi-sions mean that students would notbe exposed to alternative points ofview? Of course not. Breadth is rela-tive, and even the narrowest of envi-ronmental programs is likely to bemuch broader than any disciplinarymajor. Moreover, additional breadthcan be attained by requiring or rec-ommending that students takecourses from other departments orunits.

Lest we forget, the goal of moststudents is to graduate and get onwith their lives. Although most ofthem entertain ideas about socialjustice, environmental quality, andecological integrity, few feel the needto commit deeply to a particular,exclusive ideology about the funda-mental causes of the human condi-tion or environmental problems.Even if many academics cannot suc-cessfully bridge the ideological andepistemological divides, they can atleast provide a good education bycarving out coherent, compatiblemajors within the immense ambit ofenvironmental subjects and concerns.Moreover, an environmental educa-tion must shield graduates from theaccusation of dilettantism.

Environmental studies programsare defined by their curricula. Aslong as a curriculum lacks coher-ence, environmental studies is prob-ably indefinable. At best, an envi-ronmental studies major equips itsgraduates with an exceptionalbreadth and depth of knowledge,benefiting them, society, and nature.Without curricular depth and coher-ence, however, such programs canfail by any standard of academicexcellence. As long as students sufferfrom multidisciplinary illiteracy, adisservice is done to them and to

society. The solution to these dilem-mas of quality, identity, and defini-tion is to acknowledge the field'sexplosion in diversity and to dealwith this heterogeneity in ways thatrecognize the potential dangers ofcurricular universalism. Environmen-tal studies does not need to become auniversity in miniature.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank David Orr, David Allan,David Johns, Jennifer Anderson, MarcMangel, Rich Howarth, and anony-mous reviewers for their thoughtfulcomments and suggestions.

References citedBaskin Y. 1997. The Work of Nature: How

the Diversity of Life Sustains Us. Wash-ington (DC); Island Press.

Bosso CJ. 1996. Seizing back the day; Thechallenge to environmental activism inthe 1990s. Pages 53-74 in Vig NJ, KraftME, eds. Environmental Policy in the1990s. 3rd ed. Washington (DC); Con-gressional Quarterly Press.

Braddock RD, Fien J, Rickson R. 1994. Envi-ronmental studies: Managing the disci-plinary divide. The Environmentalist 14;35-46.

Brough H. 1992. Environmental studies; Is itacademic? World Watch Jan/Feb: 26-33.

Cairns Jr. J. 1979. Academic hlocks to assess-ing environmental impacts of water sup-ply alternatives. Pages 77-79 in BlackburnAM, ed. Thames/Potomac Seminars; Pro-ceedings of the Washington Seminar.Washington (DC); Interstate Commissionon the Potomac River Basin.

Callicott JB. 1980. Animal liberation; A tri-angnlar affair. Environmental Ethics 2:311-338.

Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.

Daily GC. 1997. Nature's Services; SocietalDependence on Natural Ecosystems.Washington (DC): Island Press.

Eckersley R. 1992. Environmentalism andPolitical Theory; Toward an EcocentricApproach. Albany (NY); State Universityof New York Press.

Ehrlich P, Ehrlich A. 1996. Betrayal of Sci-ence and Reason; How Anti-Environmen-tai Rhetoric Threatens Our Future. Wash-ington (DC): Island Press.

Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH, Holdren JP. 1970.Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Envi-ronment. San Francisco; W.H. Freeman.

Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the com-mons. Science 162: 1243-1248.

Hays S. 1959. Conservation and the Gospelof Efficiency: The Progressive Conserva-tion Movement, 1890-1920. Cambridge(MA); Harvard University Press.

Lester JP, Stewart Jr J. 1996. Public Policy:An Evolutionary Approach. St. Paul (MN):West Publishing Co.

Lively CE,PreissJJ. 1957. ConservationEdu-cation in American Colleges. New York:

404 BioScience VoL 48 No. 5

The Ronald Press Co.Naess A. 1989. Ecology, Community, and

Lifestyle. Translated by Rothenherg D.Camhridge (UK): Cambridge UniversityPress.

Nash R. 1967. Wilderness and the AmericanMind. New Haven (CT): Yale UniversityPress.

.1977. Goodby renaissance road. Jour-nal of Environmental Education 8: 2-3.

Odum EP. 1971 Fundamentals of Ecology.3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Orr DW. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Educa-tion and the Transition to a PostmodernWorld. Alhany (NY): State University ofNew York Press.

Sclioenfeld C, ed. 1971. Outlines of Environ-mental Education. Madison (WI): DemharEducational Services.

Schoenfeld C, Disinger J, eds. 1978. Environ-mental Education in Action—IL Case Stud-ies of Environmental Studies Programs inColleges and Universities Today. Colum-hus (OH): ERIC Clearinghouse for Sci-ence, Mathematics, and EnvironmentalEducation.

Sears PB. 1964. Ecology—A suhversive sci-ence. BioScience 14 (July): 11-13.

Shepard P, McKinley D, eds. 1969. The Sub-versive Science. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Soule ME, Lease G, eds. 1995. ReinventingNature? Response to Postmodern Decon-struction. Washington (DC): Island Press.

Williams M. 1989. Americans and Their For-ests: A Historical Geography. Camhridge(MA): Camhridge University Press.

Woodwell GM. 1970. Effects of pollution onthe structure and physiology of ecosys-tems. Science 168: 429-433.

Worster D. 1994. Nature's Economy: A His-tory of Ecological Ideas. 2nd ed. NewYork: Camhridge University Press.

Michael E. Soule (e-mail: soule@co.tds.net) is a research professor and DanielPress is an associate professor in the De-partment of Environmental Studies, Uni-versity of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064. Soule can be reached at P.O. Box2010, Hotchkiss, CO 81419. © 1998American Institute of Biological Sciences.

May 1998

J3t Lhbb PR(AFTHF

(^he office has always been a

place to get ahead. Unfortunately,

it's also a place vi iere a lot of natural

resources start to fall behind. Take a

look around the next time you're at

work. See how many lights are left

on when people leave. See how much

paper is being wasted. How mudi

^ • t t | electricity is being used to

j | i P B B r run computers that

^ ^ are left on. Look

- "" at how much water isUse both sides

of the paper being wasted in the

when writing

a memo. restiDoms. And _ j

how mudi solid waste is MM K i

being thrown out in the ^ i V t \

trash cans. We bet its a lot l^V

¥!>Now, here are some simple ways '41 .

\you can produce less waste at work. ^ I

When you're at the copier, only

make the copies you need. Use both

sides ofthe paper H^en writing a

memo. Turn off your light when you

leave. Use a lower watt bulb in your

lamps. Drink your coffee or tea out

of mugs instead of throwaway cups.

IT'S A CONNEQED WORLD.DO YOUR SHARE.• ^ ^ ^ 1 A Public Service olr p V * 1 This Publication

Goincfl

JDUCTIVFOFFICESet up a recycling bin for aluminum

cans and one for botdes. And w4ien

youre in die bathroom brushing

^ | f c ^ your teeth or

l^^^ ' , ' washing your (ace.

J P P don't let the (aucet

Drink out f~, , -r, run. Remember, if we

ojmugs

instead of.1 use fewer resourcesthrowaway cups.

today, well save more for O^morrow.

Whidi would truly be a job well done.

FOR MORI INFORMATION AND TIPS

CALL l-SOO-m-SHARE.

YXXXYV

llfmwwiHmmV

pJ. Earth Share405