Environmental degradation, disproportionality, and the double diversion: Reaching out, reaching ahead, and reaching beyond

• Published in: Rural sociology 2006-03, Vol.71 (1), p.3-32
• Main Author: Freudenburg, W.R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Activism; Attention; Biodegradation; Bypasses; Disproportionate Representation; Diversion; Economic Impact; Environmental conditions; Environmental Degradation; Environmental impact; Environmental Influences; Environmental Protection; Environmental Standards; Hazardous Materials; Human influences; Institutions; Interdisciplinary Approach; Meetings; Natural Resources; Organizations; Physical Environment; Professional associations; Resource Allocation; Rural Areas; Rural Environment; Rural Population; Rural society; Rural Sociology; Rural studies; Scientists; Social Environment; Social Justice; Social problems; Social roles; Social Scientists; Social theory; Sociologists; Sociology; Specialists; Stereotypes; Theory Practice Relationship; World Problems
• ISSN: 0036-0112; 1549-0831
• DOI: 10.1526/003601106777789792

Rather than seeking ivory-tower isolation, members of the Rural Sociological Society have always been distinguished by a willingness to work with specialists from a broad range of disciplines, and to work on some of the world's most challenging problems. What is less commonly recognized is that the willingness to reach beyond disciplinary boundaries can contribute not just to the solution of real-world problems, but also to the advancement of the discipline itself. This point is increasingly being illustrated in studies of environment-society relationships. Most past discussions of humans' roles in environmental problems have focused on overall or average human impacts, but rural sociologists have played leading roles in identifying what I have come to call "the double diversion." First, rather than being wellrepresented by averages, environmental damages are often characterized by high levels of disproportionality, with much or most of the harm being created by the diversion of environmental rights and resources to a surprisingly small fraction of the relevant social actors. The disproportionality appears to be made possible in part through the second diversion, namely distraction---the diversion of attention, largely through the taken-forgranted but generally erroneous assumption that the environmental harm "must" be for the benefit of us all. There are good reasons why rural sociologists would have been among the first to notice both of these "diversions"---and why they will give even greater attention to both in the future.