Introduction
If a real estate agent and a farmer are given the same piece of land, it is likely that the former will perceive it as a potential space for building, while the latter will see it as a land for growing food. Therefore, being the piece of land always the same, it derives that people might have different perceptions of nature according to their identities. To this extent, this paper will address the question of whether it exists a nature ‘out there’ as maintained by Positivism or if it is only a social construction as claimed by Social Constructivism. It will be argued that the radicalism (and sometimes even blindness) of those perspectives is reflected also in their political approaches, as highlighted by the case study of the Australian …show more content…
Indeed this theory, despite the acknowledgement of a nature ’out there’, embraces also the social construction of the environment without falling into the relativism of Postmodernist theories. ¬As pointed out by James Proctor, ‘ideas are social concepts that have an ontological basis but are understood via a particular, socially predisposed framework’ (1998: 361). On the one hand, the recognition of the ontological value of nature allows Critical Realism to recognize biophysical processes that are taking place in the environment and consequently undertake political action. On the other hand, by acknowledging that the concept of nature is socially constructed, it is able to understand that scientific knowledge is the product of an interaction between objectivity and subjectivity and that it might reinforce practices of exclusion of social groups that are not involved in the scientific knowledge-making process. Indeed, the overall aim of Critical Realism is ‘to highlight how scientific explanations of environmental change provide only partial insights into complex biophysical processes, and that existing models of explanation reflect the agendas of the societies that created them’ (Forsyth, 2001: 1). By rejecting environmental orthodoxies derived from Positivism, Critical Realism argues that environmental change cannot be understood in any final or universal way. Nonetheless, it maintains that some epistemologies might be more harmful than others as they regulate inclusion- and exclusion-mechanisms. Sticking with the case of drought policy, it seems that a new debate around a possible redefinition of drought that takes into account both climate change and its social impact on farmers is emerging as a viable Critical Realist approach. In fact, Critical Realism aims at empowering developing countries, minorities and disfavoured social groups by redefining pre-existing
If a real estate agent and a farmer are given the same piece of land, it is likely that the former will perceive it as a potential space for building, while the latter will see it as a land for growing food. Therefore, being the piece of land always the same, it derives that people might have different perceptions of nature according to their identities. To this extent, this paper will address the question of whether it exists a nature ‘out there’ as maintained by Positivism or if it is only a social construction as claimed by Social Constructivism. It will be argued that the radicalism (and sometimes even blindness) of those perspectives is reflected also in their political approaches, as highlighted by the case study of the Australian …show more content…
Indeed this theory, despite the acknowledgement of a nature ’out there’, embraces also the social construction of the environment without falling into the relativism of Postmodernist theories. ¬As pointed out by James Proctor, ‘ideas are social concepts that have an ontological basis but are understood via a particular, socially predisposed framework’ (1998: 361). On the one hand, the recognition of the ontological value of nature allows Critical Realism to recognize biophysical processes that are taking place in the environment and consequently undertake political action. On the other hand, by acknowledging that the concept of nature is socially constructed, it is able to understand that scientific knowledge is the product of an interaction between objectivity and subjectivity and that it might reinforce practices of exclusion of social groups that are not involved in the scientific knowledge-making process. Indeed, the overall aim of Critical Realism is ‘to highlight how scientific explanations of environmental change provide only partial insights into complex biophysical processes, and that existing models of explanation reflect the agendas of the societies that created them’ (Forsyth, 2001: 1). By rejecting environmental orthodoxies derived from Positivism, Critical Realism argues that environmental change cannot be understood in any final or universal way. Nonetheless, it maintains that some epistemologies might be more harmful than others as they regulate inclusion- and exclusion-mechanisms. Sticking with the case of drought policy, it seems that a new debate around a possible redefinition of drought that takes into account both climate change and its social impact on farmers is emerging as a viable Critical Realist approach. In fact, Critical Realism aims at empowering developing countries, minorities and disfavoured social groups by redefining pre-existing