William R. Freudenburg, A Life in Social Research: Volume 21

After briefly covering Bill Freudenburg’s early years, this essay reviews his major scholarly contributions and professional accomplishments while a faculty member at Washington State University, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of California-Santa Barbara. Bill’s unique strengths – especially his keen sociological imagination – and crucial conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions are highlighted, as well as his commitment to providing valuable mentoring for students and colleagues. The enduring importance of his work is ensured by the continuing application and extension of his ideas by other scholars.

Bill Freudenburg arrived in the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of Wisconsin – Madison in 1986 with a broad view of environmental/resource sociology. Within a few years, Bill organized a dozen faculty members into STARE, the acronym for Science, Technology, Agriculture, Resources, and the Environment. For nearly a decade and a half, STARE comprised the country’s largest critical mass in environmental and resource sociology. His intellectual contributions to the field are well documented, but possibly his greatest legacy was training the next generation of environmental/resource sociologists.

“Beyond the Nature/Society Divide: Learning to Think about a Mountain” was published in 1995 (Freudenburg, Frickel, & Gramling, 1995) just as environmental sociology was entering into its first internal philosophical debate, waged between materialists and social constructionists. Today the debate has moved beyond the article’s relatively modest arguments, but the work continues to be cited and earn critical attention for its contributions to that earlier conversation. This remembrance essay recalls the article’s publication history, begun in 1992, leading to its eventual publication in Sociological Forum and offers philosophical, sociological, and personal reflections on that process.

Despite their salience as tools for understanding society–environment relationships, coupled natural and human (CNH) systems approaches have consistently failed to offer realistic pictures of the political processes that shape efforts to create sustainable societies. Engagement with William R. Freudenburg’s work on political inequalities in the regulation of natural resources and its incorporation into CNH work would address this source of weakness. Over the course of two decades, Freudenburg introduced a set of concepts that describe the political mechanisms through which politically powerful polluters prevent environmental policy reforms. Freudenburg and Gramling’s last book, about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, integrates Freudenburg’s political concepts into a CNH analysis and produces an explanation for the oil spill that is exceptional in its empirically accurate treatment of the role of political inequalities in shaping environmental outcomes. Future progress in CNH systems analyses hinges to a great degree on its ability to portray power dynamics in realistic ways. The Freudenburg–Gramling book on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill shows us how to do so. It represents an intellectual legacy which Bill Freudenburg would have been proud of.

This chapter examines similarities in government policies that have accelerated and privatized the extraction of offshore oil, coal, and oil sands on public lands in the United States and Canada, as well as the arguments used to justify those policies. Sociologist William Freudenburg argued that the diversion of public resources into private hands was made possible by a second diversion, the diversion of attention. Freudenburg, with Gramling, later applied this concept to U.S. offshore oil leases, noting that when it came to offshore oil, the myth of “energy independence” was often used to justify policies that were actually antithetical to the concept, promoting further dependence on fossil fuels. We extend the double diversion concept from offshore oil to U.S. coal and Alberta oil sands, noting the similarities in both the policy changes and the diversionary frameworks. The frameworks also divert attention from the increasing risks associated with energy extraction.

William R. Freudenburg conceived “the double diversion” as the simultaneous process of diverting environmental resources or rights shared by all to a small group of social actors, which was made possible by a second diversion – the acceptance of the taken-for-granted assumption that environmental harms benefit the common good. In doing so, Freudenburg was among the first to note the importance of looking at not only the distribution of environmental harms but also environmental privileges. In this chapter, we extend the conceptualization of the double diversion to include an instance where rather than framing environmental harm as being a public good, environmental action is framed as benefiting the public writ large, while larger issues of environmental injustice are ignored. In particular, we look at the disproportionate distribution of the urban tree canopy in Worcester, Massachusetts, and the framing of the mitigation of the environmental threat of the Asian Longhorned Beetle as a problem for the commons. Through an analysis of media, we demonstrate that organizations and social actors who have tried to address the effects of this particular ecological threat have nonetheless ignored previous disproportionalities in the environment–society relationship.

William R. Freudenburg’s work contributes to an understanding of how local and external factors influence environmental quality through land-use planning and growth management. A recent Adirondack planning study (Ruzow Holland, 2010) explores and analyzes, through the methodological lens of Participatory Action Research (PAR), how the town comprehensive planning process evolved within the community of Willsboro, New York (2010 Population 2025). Access to knowledge, technology, and deliberative decision making reduces the power of the “Privileged,” including external influences, to control the rate and type of local land development. The analysis illustrates the conversion point(s) of Freudenburg’s sociology of knowledge, power, and natural resources with the lessons learned from a place-based PAR, land-use planning project.

What constitutes a social problem? How do policy-making institutions carry out their responsibilities to solve problems that lead to risky consequences? This issue has drawn relatively little attention among researchers in the social sciences, partly because it lies at the interface of social problems and public policy cutting across disciplinary boundaries. This chapter attempts to focus on the issue where social problems and public policy come together with a greater attention to the institutions that are responsible for managing risky outcomes. It summarizes major contributions made by W. R. Freudenburg. Particularly it focuses on the ways that solutions to social problems are not successfully carried out by policy-making institutions. The chapter explains reasons for institutional failures and discusses some future challenges for a fuller understanding of institutional failures.

Bill Freudenburg’s concept of recreancy is used as a frame for explaining processes that perpetuate questionable regimes of emergency response planning. The specific instance of tar sands upgrading in Alberta, Canada, is used as a case in point. When recreancy is institutionalized so that the results correlate across permitted hazardous facilities, it must be concluded that recreancy is less of a situational response than a normative dynamic.

Recreancy is a concept that received William R. Freudenburg’s studied attention. Freudenburg moved beyond its conventional meaning – shirking duty – to a larger realm of irresponsibility by public actors who breach a societal trust they assume. This research focuses on the issue of “Peak Farmland,” a rendering of global carrying capacity that, we suggest, qualifies for what Freudenburg called “privileged discourse” and possibly recreancy. Scholars identified with dematerialized progress argue that finite farmland in the face of increasing population will improve human welfare and spare land for nature. This iconoclasm presents an arena for testing academic probity with respect to global food security. After an overview of past carrying capacity debates, we summarize the “Peak Farmland” position of the dematerialization school and suggest an important blind spot: the dematerialization of the global land base itself. Gathering the results of multiple studies on land loss, we offer evidence that the world’s warehouse of productive land is not just peaking but eroding on a grand scale. Ignoring this form of dematerialization while proclaiming nearly unlimited carrying capacity for Earth’s denizens strains the meaning of responsible scholarship.

In this chapter, I suggest three conceptual tools developed by William R. Freudenburg and colleagues that characterize the failure of institutions to carry out their duties – recreancy, atrophy of vigilance, and bureaucratic slippage – are of use beyond environmental sociology in the framing of the September 11, 2001 disaster. Using testimony and findings from primary materials such as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Joint Inquiry hearings and report (2002, 2004a, 2004b) and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004) alongside insider accounts, I discuss how Freudenburg’s tools have the potential to theorize institutional failures that occur in national security decision making. I also suggest these tools may be of particular interest to the U.S. intelligence community in its own investigation of various types of risk and failures.

In 2001, two important scientific groups, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council, published the results of two of the most extensive (and ongoing) research projects on climatic changes. They both express scientific consensus on the fact that anthropogenically induced climatic disruptions are here to stay and that they perhaps represent the most decisive policy issue of our time. A concerted effort to distract and even attack the legitimacy and expertise over this scientific consensus has been quite effective, so much so that to this day, there is no clear federal climate policy in the making. Bill’s (and my) work on “Weapons of Mass Distraction” may prove to be a handy analytic tool to understand this blunt attack on the evidence-base scientific consensus.

Research has found a subgroup of conservative white males have lower perceptions of risk across a variety of environmental and health hazards. Less research has looked at the views of these “low risk” individuals in group interactions. Through qualitative analysis of a technology deliberation, we note that white men expressing low risk views regarding technologies for energy and the environment also often express high social risks around potential loss of control. We argue these risk perceptions reflect identification with corporate concerns, usually framed in opposition to government and mirroring arguments made by conservative organizations. We situate these views within the broader cultural struggle over who has the power to name and address risks.

This chapter examines how the dual role of the federal government in promoting and regulating promising new industrial technologies may evolve to embody an inherent conflict of interest, a condition referred to as the “paradox of partnerships.” Using a temporal perspective to explore relevant paradoxes of partnerships, this research speculates on the parallels of two recent technologies: nuclear power and nanotechnology. We conclude that while government–industry partnerships may seem relatively uncontroversial during early phases of technological development, such partnerships can prove problematic years later – as the government moves away from its role as a technology promoter and toward its role as an essential regulator. Lessons learned from the downfall of the nuclear power industry suggest that as nanotechnology becomes technically and economically feasible, early government investments may come to look more like entanglements – ones that may involve irreconcilable incentives that jeopardize the ultimate rewards.

Much of the environmental sociology literature calls for economic development to lead to environmental destruction, but growing bodies of work on “ecological modernization” and “environmental Kuznets curves” (EKCs) argue that, beyond a certain point, socioeconomic development can lead to environmental improvement. A third hypothesis (Boyce) argues that inequality may be more relevant than levels of prosperity. Published findings have been sufficiently mixed to warrant more detailed analyses. This chapter considers both cross-sectional and two-wave panel data and the three competing expectations, considering air emissions and toxic manufacturing releases for U.S. counties. Air emissions tend to correlate positively with economic prosperity, supporting the “core” environmental sociology hypothesis, while toxic emissions show greater support for the EKC/ecological modernization hypothesis. The most consistent theoretical support is found among indicators of inequality and power that support the Boyce hypothesis. The findings suggest implications for policy as well as for future research.