The Quest for Ecological Modernization 447the state and the market be rearranged in ways which would usher in different
types of autonomous development which would incorporate ecological worth?
A ‘new age’ of ecology, however, has begun in a slow, fledgling and uneven way,
and it demands significant comparative analysis. It is argued here that it does,
however, have some real intellectual purchase, and that part of this allows us to
overcome some of the theoretical rigidities and obstacles of the past. Furthermore,
part of its value is that it brings the need for an enhanced spatial sophistication and
problematization back into a central arena in rural sociology. In addition, it opens
the door to more theoretical pluralism, debate and progress, moving beyond binary
social constructivist versus realist debates, structure and agency, and macro and
micro concerns. Hence, the brief accounts of some key concerns are elaborated
here as examples of how a stronger social-environmental and rural sociological
enterprise might be forged. The concepts are by no means exclusively the preserve
of either sub-discipline. However, they represent central critical connections or
bridgeheads through which such disciplines and theories could be progressed.
An attempt has been made here then to set out some of the cardinal conceptual
reference points and dialectics which are currently relevant for taking forward a
more productive and creative engagement between ecological modernization the-
ory and rural sociology. These are partly empirically grounded as well as theoreti-
cally constructed arguments and, as such, they deserve much more expansion,
debate and consideration than is feasible in this short paper.
However, one of the fruitful opportunities such an exercise begins to present is
the possibility of reassembling conceptual frameworks in ways which integrate
nature and space within the broader political economy of local, national and inter-
national ruralities. As we see from the discussion above, many of the current envi-
ronmental discourses and regulatory frameworks tend to fracture and fragment
such integrative endeavours in such ways as to create false divisions of professional
labour and interests between different communities of interest (including academ-
ics, policy officials, environmental NGOs, consultants and a whole range of
‘project managers’ who are now engaged in competitively progressing rural devel-
opment initiatives). This makes integration in ecological policy development and
implementation all that more difficult, and it leads to the driving out of a more
radical consideration of alternatives (or ‘deeper’ form of ecological modernization)
by the urgency of meeting bureaucratically applied performance measures and
indicators. Hence, the more holistic and critical development of environmental
and rural social science is now a central task in creatively engaging with what might
be, as well as what is. For instance, to not only accept that ecological modernization
is a highly contested and partial process, but to explore its further empirical and
theoretical potentialities in creating the spaces for autonomous action, institu-
tional reforms and development. The conceptual starting points outlined here are
in this sense ‘middle level’ concepts which can start to address this task. We should
remember that the agroindustrial modernization project has developed an elabo-
rate and justificatory social science with which to legitimize and institutionalize
itself; yet an equivalent rural social science for ecological modernization and rural