Focus: The importance of rural communities and the recognition of harmful consequences from external actions; developing new systems for management and successful integration with urban settings

To begin with, I looked at “Community Watershed Organizations in Pennsylvania”, an article written by Richard Stedman, Brian Lee, Kathryn Brasier, Jason L. Weigle, and Francis Higdon (2009). This paper discusses the recent implementation of community-based resource management (CBRM), particularly in the form of community watershed organizations (CWO’s). Specifically, the paper focuses on the impacts of these organizations on rural communities and their overall well-being. In addition, measures of effectiveness are examined and viewed through a lens that focuses on the “building of rural capacity” and development of rural community (Stedman et al., 2009, p. 178). In doing so, the authors highlight an important concept underlying many issues in environmental management—as we operate in a society and structure based on inequality, wealth, and “environmental privilege” (Pellow, 2016, p. 4), working within this framework to find solutions to environmental or hierarchical socio-economic issues is an extreme challenge.

This is reflected by Stedman as he writes, “It has become apparent that managing environmental resources via traditional political administrative boundaries has been problematic, leading to calls for emphasizing ecological boundaries” (Stedman et al., 2009, p. 179). External forces imposing systems on rural communities is representative of a much larger issue: many problems faced by those in rural areas originate from urban spaces, or other disconnected peoples who won’t have to feel the consequences of their actions (immediately). This is true not only with rural communities, but in various aspects of inequality and environmental disadvantage. Despite human reliance on certain natural resources and processes, consumption and negative by-products affect only a small portion of society. This demonstrates de Tocqueville’s concept of the “tyranny of the majority”, or the power of the majority to make decisions based on the placement of their own desires and needs above those of the minority (whose fate is also determined by the majority) (Pellow, 2016, p. 1).

This ties in to a main point of Pellow’s article “Environmental justice and rural studies”, which highlights the importance of focusing on “environmental privilege”, rather than “environmental disadvantage”. In doing so, one can use language to target those who benefit from an unequal system, rather than the people who are forced to act in it. Pellow also notes the juxtaposition between “environmental justice” and “environmental injustice”, an impactful conception and realization for myself. Having studied and participated in routine usage of the term “environmental justice”, it was hard seeing it from a new perspective wherein a negative ideal was being enforced through my choice of language.

It was also an interesting development on Pellow’s own thoughts and work, especially considering the progression of certain concepts in his framework for environmental justice. His original four pillars fail to highlight the importance of language, and lack an emphasis on revising our way of thinking to define the problem in a way that addresses those benefiting from environmental privilege, rather than those at the bottom of the hierarchy (Pellow, 2016, p. 4). Pillars one and three are deeply involved in these ideas of intersecting inequalities across categories of difference, and the reinforcement of these disparities by society and state powers (Pellow, 2017). Yet through his use of the term “environmental justice”, Pellow seems to disregard the importance of focus on the environmentally and otherwise privileged, and instead uses language that suggests action must be taken by the marginalized individuals rather than those inhibiting their agency.

Pellow discusses all of this through the analysis of a collection of papers published in the Journal of Rural Studies. He notes the lack of attention given to rural studies or spaces, despite their entanglement and interconnection to urban areas, and asserts that “environmental hazards facing rural people are out of sight and out of mind for urban-based policy makers, and so are the rural residents themselves” (Pellow, 2016, p. 2). This relates to the concept of “procedural inequity” and the issue with a strategy that strives for inclusion rather than innovation. Why is assimilation into and acceptance of our current unjust system the common solution? As discussed earlier, the structure of modern systems historically stems from ideas based in racism, sexism, colonialism, and other inequalities. In attempting to be included in these processes, one legitimizes those systems and the continuation of those ideals. Pellow thus calls for the development of an entirely new, inclusive structure that notes the importance of rural communities and urban-rural relationships on all members of society.

In her paper “Fluid Lives: Subjectivities, Gender and Water in Rural Bangladesh”, Farhana Sultana addresses potential starting points for implementation of this new system. She stresses the importance of understanding the environment and water as allies, actors, and agents (Sultana, 2009, p. 434), another connection to Pellow’s first pillar and the agency of non-human actors (Pellow, 2017). The article focuses on arsenic contamination in wells used for drinking water by rural communities in Bangladesh. It brings to attention the complex interactions between various social and economic ideals, including rural versus urban contexts, gender relationships, and wealth dispersion. As wells became unsafe in rural areas, women (who were in charge of the “feminine” chore of fetching water) were forced to travel longer distances and visit public areas where social norms often prevented them from going. Issues of wealth and privilege became obvious as enforcement of societal pressures, access to clean water, and removal from the environment were brought to the forefront of communities.

Environmental struggles such as these highlight existing inequalities that are enforced by our current systems. Environmental privilege allowed for certain individuals to have the luxury of focusing on social/gender norms, such as women traveling alone and to public areas, or men participating in the “feminine” act of retrieving water. Those who didn’t have to worry about water security or personal and familial health often (incorrectly) perceived themselves as removed from the effects of environmental degradation. This sentiment is reflected in statements from local men and women that were forced to put their safety before societal norms. One man confided “‘Sometimes I help my wife get water, or my son does. This arsenic problem is for all of us’” (Sultana, 2009, p. 437), while another woman explained “If we don’t get our own water from outside, who will bring water for us?” (Sultana, 2009, p. 432). Advantage, both political and social, allows some portion of our society to decide who is or isn’t expendable, and thus who has access to natural resources and safe environments.

New systems of organization that recognize human and non-human agents, strive for equal distribution of resources, and connect urban and rural communities are necessary for further advancement. By continuing to operate in structures based on marginalization and inequality, we as a society allow the continuation of racist, sexist, colonial, and classist ideals to dictate our daily lives. In changing our perspective from “how can disadvantaged groups fight this?” to “how can groups that privilege off of these disadvantages change?”, we reassign the responsibility of agency to those that generate negative consequences rather than those who have been forced to suffer through them.