order. The language of a ‘‘paradigm shift’’ or ‘‘worldview transformation’’ has
often been invoked to capture this notion of a large-scale change in ethics and
consciousness that will subsequently transform society (Fox 1990 , 22 – 40 ;
Meyer 2001 a, 21 – 34 ). Yet as John Dryzek argues persuasively:
macro consequences (in terms of policies, institutions, and events such as revolu-
tions) are rarely if ever a simple extrapolation of micro causes... so even if there
were large-scale conversion of individuals... it is quite possible that nothing at all
would change at the macro level. (Dryzek 1997 , 170 )
Despite the vital connections between ethical and political inquiry, therefore,
recent environmental political thought has come to be distinguished from
environmental ethics by its greater attention to these ‘‘macro consequences.’’
A second normative approach has been to describe environmental concern
as the basis for a distinct political ideology—labeled ‘‘green’’ or ‘‘ecolo-
gism’’—that can be contrasted with existing ideologies including conserva-
tism, liberalism, and socialism. While this approach is less vulnerable to
Dryzek’s criticism of inattention to ‘‘macro consequences,’’ an obfuscation
of politics seems also embedded within it. By suggesting a radical distinctness
from other ideologies, the idea of a green or ecological ideology implies that
transformative political commitments can follow from a proper understand-
ing of environmental concern. By contrast, in his expansive new survey of the
Weld, Peter Hay makes it quite clear that rather than settling upon the core
tenets of an ideology, serious environmental thinkers have proliferated a wide
array of political ideas and ideals in recent years (Hay 2002 , esp. chs. 7 – 10 ).
How can this diversiWcation be reconciled with the ‘‘ideology’’ label? Some
authors do this by oVering a more nuanced treatment in which ecologism is
not wholly new or distinct from strands of liberal, conservative, socialist, or
feminist thought (e.g. Dobson 1995 , 14 ; Ball and Dagger 2004 , 245 – 6 ). Yet
labeling ecologism as a distinct ideology seems intended to oVer a clear
conceptual distinction from these competing schools. To do so while also
detailing its growing engagement with other traditions of political thought
serves to muddy the conceptual clarity promised by the notion of a political
ideology in theWrst place. Thus, we can locate the obfuscation in theideaof
ecologism as an ideology, which holds out this unfulWlled promise of clarity
and distinctiveness (cf. Barry 1999 , 3 – 7 ). 4
In turning away from conWdent yet under-articulated visions of transform-
ation often found in discussions of ‘‘environmental ethics’’ and ‘‘ecological
4 Of course, a ‘‘green’’ ideology remains as something that can be studied empirically.776 john m. meyer