Exploring how critical realism offers a nuanced framework for understanding nature-society relationships in political ecology, challenging flat ontology approaches.
Imagine two scientists studying the same environmental crisis—say, deforestation in the Amazon. One produces a detailed analysis of soil chemistry and species loss. The other documents the economic pressures forcing farmers to clear land. Both are studying the "same" phenomenon, yet their descriptions seem worlds apart. This dilemma lies at the heart of a profound philosophical debate reshaping environmental science: how do we reconcile the physical reality of nature with the social structures that define our relationship to it?
Nature and society exist on the same plane—intertwined without hierarchy. This approach has gained traction in recent political ecology.
A nuanced alternative that acknowledges both the independent reality of nature and the social lens through which we perceive it 5 .
In recent years, a provocative approach called "flat ontology" has gained traction in political ecology. But in 2023, geographer Ståle Knudsen launched a compelling counter-argument in the Journal of Political Ecology, urging a return to critical realism 2 3 . This philosophical framework, pioneered by Roy Bhaskar in the 1970s, offers a nuanced alternative—one that acknowledges both the independent reality of nature and the social lens through which we perceive it 5 .
This isn't just academic wordplay. How we conceptualize the nature-society relationship directly influences environmental policy, conservation strategies, and our ability to address crises like climate change.
Proposes "structured ontology"—recognizing distinctive domains of reality while focusing research on their points of interaction. This approach enables political ecologists to:
Rejects hierarchical distinctions between different types of entities—whether human, animal, technological, or natural 2 . From this perspective, a farmer, a plow, and the soil it tills exist on the same ontological plane.
Knudsen argues this flattened view obscures crucial differences in how social and biophysical realities operate 3 . Social structures change relatively quickly through human decisions, while biophysical structures follow different, often slower timelines.
Perhaps no concept better illustrates the high stakes of political ecology than the notorious "Tragedy of the Commons." In 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin published what would become one of the most influential essays in environmental science. He proposed a simple mental experiment: imagine a common pasture open to all herdsmen. Each herdsman, acting rationally in self-interest, would continually add more cattle to their herd. Eventually, overgrazing would destroy the pasture for everyone 4 .
Hardin's thought experiment wasn't based on field observation or empirical data—it was a theoretical model presented as universal truth. Yet its impact was enormous. It provided the intellectual justification for:
From a critical realist perspective, the problem with Hardin's model wasn't necessarily its internal logic but its failure to distinguish between the actual mechanisms governing common-pool resources and empirical observations of how communities historically managed shared resources 4 .
When political ecologists and institutional economists like Elinor Ostrom (who later won a Nobel Prize for this work) actually studied commons systems, they found something remarkable: communities frequently developed sophisticated governance systems that prevented the "tragedy" Hardin assumed was inevitable 4 .
| Factor Contributing to Success | Percentage of Cases Where Factor Was Present | Impact on Resource Sustainability |
|---|---|---|
| Clearly Defined Boundaries | 92% | Strong positive correlation |
| Proportional Costs/Benefits | 88% | Significant positive effect |
| Collective-Choice Arrangements | 85% | Essential for adaptation |
| Monitoring | 90% | Critical for rule compliance |
| Graduated Sanctions | 78% | More effective than harsh punishments |
Political ecologists applied what we might call a comparative institutional approach to test Hardin's hypothesis:
Study various common-pool resource management systems (irrigation systems, forests, fisheries).
Record the rules communities developed to govern shared resources.
Evaluate resource condition across different governance systems over time.
Determine patterns associated with successful, sustained commons.
The empirical research revealed that the actual "tragedy" was often what scholars later termed "the tragedy of the grabbed commons"—not inherent degradation from communal ownership, but the disruption of traditional governance systems by external forces like commercial encroachment, state appropriation, or colonial policies 4 .
This case demonstrates critical realism's power for political ecology: it allows us to separate the real mechanisms of successful resource governance from the actual history of commons management and the empirical claims used to justify policy interventions. The crucial insight is that the commons "tragedy" wasn't a natural inevitability but a potential outcome that specific social arrangements could either prevent or enable.
While political ecology doesn't use laboratory reagents in the traditional sense, it employs powerful conceptual tools for analyzing nature-society relationships:
Function: Examines how environmental problems are framed, represented, and debated.
Application: Reveals how power shapes what counts as legitimate knowledge.
Function: Traces how current environmental conditions emerged from past socio-ecological interactions.
Application: Challenges simplistic degradation narratives with longitudinal data.
Function: Maps formal and informal rules governing resource access and control.
Application: Identifies design principles for sustainable governance.
Function: Analyzes how structure, agency, and culture interact over time.
Application: Models social-ecological change without reducing it to either structure or agency.
Function: Identifies causal mechanisms operating across different domains of reality.
Application: Explains environmental outcomes without deterministic reductionism.
The debate between flat ontology and critical realism in political ecology represents more than philosophical positioning—it reflects divergent approaches to some of our most pressing environmental challenges. Where flat ontology sees interconnected networks, critical realism sees differentiated domains with distinctive properties and logics that require careful theoretical negotiation.
The ultimate insight of critical realism for political ecology may be this: we can acknowledge that environmental problems have real biophysical dimensions without treating scientific accounts of those problems as neutral or beyond political interrogation. Similarly, we can accept that all knowledge is socially produced without claiming that environmental reality is merely a social product.
In a world of complex environmental challenges, we need frameworks that honor both the material constraints of nature and the political dynamics of knowledge. Critical realism, despite ongoing debates about its precise formulation 2 4 , offers precisely such a framework—one that might just help us build more nuanced, effective, and equitable responses to the socio-ecological crises of our time.