This paper will examine a landmark land management policy enacted to use the global market to increase environmental sustainability. This study involves an inquiry into environmental discourses; specifically, I will use discourse analysis methodology to analyze implications of the expansion of policy missions. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is a global initiative to reduce carbon emissions put forth by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Policy reviews display a notable shift in language surrounding the purpose of REDD+. During negotiations, the Conference of the Parties (COP) was influenced by developing countries to expand the mission and include “forest degradation” and other aspects surrounding forest governance. This project was influenced by the ideas of mismanagement of land, pricing the environment and global governance. I will examine elite and official discourses to trace related national environmental policy before and after the shifts in REDD+ language occurred which offer insight into this puzzle. Mission expansion enacted by developing countries have economic motives associated with them so benefits are maximized. Stakeholder motivations have a significant contribution to the failures of international environmental policy.

Gorski’s basic suggestion is that social science can offer us genuine insights into human well-being. Gorski is in pursuit of combating the “separationist” view of facts and opinions as they very broadly translated into a division of empirical and normative inquiry, respectively. He states that “… facts also leak into the domain of values” therefore the wall between facts and values is more permeable than perceived.[1] Facts cannot alone exist without some moral or ethical background and these backgrounds are essential in establishing said ‘facts.’ Gorski relies on the “ethical naturalism” which allows for “natural and social science …(to)… correct and expand our ethical knowledge.”[2] The co-existence of these types of knowledge will allow developing of further knowledge. Positivist philosopher, Sam Harris, brings Gorski’s argument to a type of extreme. He states that “values are a kind of fact.”[3] He exemplifies this by stating that if it is wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie and if there were to be an exception that there would be no moral truths.[4]  He agrees with religious thinkers who use the argument from their respective creators, that there are right and wrongs to moral questions.[5] Harris seems to make fun of the idea that normative inquiry can be rational when he asks if there are “moral expertise.”[6]

I find myself to agree with Gorski rather than Harris. To rely only on one form of knowledge seems to be irrational and narrowminded. I study International Relations, however, there is something to be said about the notion that this field of study is not a “hard” science. I will be more marketable if I specialize in the field and take more courses that are based on empirical learning. A holistic view is useful, however, let us note that my major itself it rooted on the “normative” scale of learning. I am not saying that I did this on purpose because I believe the normative inquiry is necessarily more valuable than scientific, rather I am drawing on this example to show that both are valuable. If ethics is neglected than our society is being unthoughtful but if empirical evidence is neglected, our society is being narrowminded.

My own research on how discourse shapes action does lead to a normative discovery of this kind. As an interpretivist, I am not prone to using normative assumptions, rather unpacking the way people perceive a concept and the implications of said perception.

 

Gorski Phillips S. “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences.” Springer Symposium: Facts, Values and Social Science. Springer, October 16, 2013. 543-553.

Harris, Sam. “Science Can Answer Moral Questions.” TEDTalks. 2010.

[1] Philip S. Gorski, “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences.” Springer Symposium: Facts, Values and Social Science. Springer, October 16, 2013. 553.

[2] Ibid, 551

[3]Sam Harris, “Science Can Answer Moral Questions,” TEDTalks, 2010.

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] ibid

Plato, Tocqueville and Dr. Johnson all suggest that citizens of a democracy are predisposed against the idea of making normative and ethical arguments and evaluations. Plato suggests that because democracy aims for equality, everything is considered “right” or “correct.” If everyone is right, then all arguments would be empirical because no one can be wrong.[1] Tocqueville also shares similar thoughts. In his study of American life, he states that “America is, therefore, the one country in the world where the precepts of Descartes are least studied and best followed.”[2] As the founder of modern rationalism, Descartes suggests that opinions and actions should only be based on knowledge and reasoning, leaving no room for normative thinking. Tocqueville suggests that Americans have no time for normative evaluations because they easily take norms and established knowledge as is without questioning it. Lastly, Dr. Johnson argues that “lazy relativism,” the idea that people avoid intellectual debates by simply “agreeing to disagree,” has led to the lack of normative arguments.[3] While the three scholars wrote these beliefs during three different time periods, they all find themselves at the same conclusion. To a degree, I think they are correct. Tocqueville suggests that there are less knowledge-based decisions and I would further clarify that this is because of the acceptance of ‘common’ knowledge. What is found is that the “acceptance of knowledge” is more focused on normative knowledge so that normative arguments can be dismissed, as Dr. Johnson has theorized. The ideas presented by these three scholars are exemplified in my daily life. At American University, I am surrounded by politically inclined students. I have a friend who has a very different perspective on abortion access than me. Abortion access is a highly debated and divisive issue. However, for the sake of our friendship, we do not discuss abortion access because we both believe that our belief is ‘correct.’ We are both students who are capable of having a conversation, however, because our beliefs are deep-rooted we agree to ignore this glaring difference so that we can continue to be friends. If we were to have a discussion on abortion access we would likely use different language (pro and anti-life and pro and anti-choice) and feel upset with the lack of agreement about a moral and ethical discussion. My friend and I are both raised in the United States and both grew up knowing that our beliefs are equally valuable to anyone else’s. The discomfort associated with normative arguments is undesirable and thus leads to a lack of such discussions.

 

 

[1] Plato, Republic Book VIII

[2] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2, Part 1, Chapter 1 (2000) 403-410.

[3] Leigh M. Johnson, “Lazy Relativism,”  Read More Write More Think More Be More, November 7, 2009, http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2009/11/lazy-relativism.html

 

 

Johnson,  Leigh M. “Lazy Relativism.”  Read More Write More Think More Be More, November 7, 2009. http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2009/11/lazy-relativism.html

Plato. Republic Book VIII.

Tocqueville, de Alexis. Democracy in America Volume 2, Part 1, Chapter 1, 2000.

As a person who draws on pathos, I am personally touched by social movements and personal stories. This is best exemplified in my first research post in September when I discussed Richard William’s “I’m Sorry” spoken word piece. He addressed future generations that are forced to live with the consequences of their ancestors who had a  lack of concern for the environment and therefore caused deforestation, water shortages, food insecurity, and other environmental catastrophes.[1] This sparked my curiosity because of the desperate time crunch that environmentalist preach. I deepened my studies of environmental science, policy and thought throughout high school and in the past two years of my undergraduate career. I took environmental science classes in high school and then in college I have taken What is Suffering?, Chemistry, Environmental Science Lab and Environmental Sustainability. I want to work in the field of international environmental policy and therefore, I find policy extremely valuable because it effects not only my current and future family, but also the wellbeing of the entire planet. I want to understand where policy fails so that I can work with my future colleagues to correct these mistakes and ensure policy translates into direct action. Due to the urgency of climate change, it is in my personal interest and the interest of the future to conduct related research. Environmental studies is my passion because of the emotions that are evoked when discussing rising sea levels, displacement, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss. But now it has matured because the effects of climate change are growing and every aspect of this phenomena needs to be studied. Further, adequate policy needs to be agreed upon to slow down the anthropogenic causes. I proposed a discourse analysis in December 2017 and this is quite evident to the type of person, student, and researcher I am. I find it valuable to bring my personal experiences, ideas and thoughts to light. It is necessary to understand the researcher to grasp how they conducted their research and why they came to the conclusions provided. Furthermore, I believe that by examining specific instances and cases, we can get to the root causes, and that is where change is meaningful. My proposed research does have normative assumptions because it insinuates that the UNFCC’s REDD+ Platform is the actor that reconstructed the discourses surrounding land management policies. There are various pieces of legislation that still would need to be examined to conclude that REDD+ Platform was in fact the actor to do so. At this point, I am editing the question, and quite possibly the type of research to truly dig deep within the puzzles of environmental politics.

[1] ¨Dear Future Generations: Sorry” (YouTube, 2015), accessed September 1, 2017, web, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRLJscAlk1M