represents a rejection of this complacent orientation in favor of what Ian
Shapiro terms a ‘‘problem-driven’’ form of political theorizing (Shapiro
2002 ). Nonetheless, the answer to the question of how one might go about
creating and maintaining the link between theory and practice remains far
from obvious.
At least two distinct—although perhaps not mutually exclusive—models
can be found in recent works. TheWrst presumes that environmental political
theory should oVer practitioners (activists and policy-makers) a vision that
can strengthen their sense of purpose and clarify the obstacles along their
pathway toward positive environmental change. ReXecting this approach, de-
Shalit argues that environmental political theory ‘‘should relate to real cases
and should be relevant to real life... [t]he best way to achieve this would be
to start with the activists and their dilemmas’’ (de-Shalit 2000 , 29 ). Here, the
theorist utilizes her or his privileged position to reXect upon the dilemmas of
practitioners and then to oVer these reXections back to them as a form of
guidance. Theory can guide practice, in this view,ifit is adequately attentive
to the character of practice in theWrst place.
By contrast, Tim Luke oVers an approach that seeks to develop theory
out ofan analysis of both actual socioeconomic relationships and what he
terms ‘‘populist’’ practices ( 1999 ; cf. Dryzek et al. 2003 ). Here, practice
guides theory, rather than the other way around. David Schlosberg, in his
analysis of the theoretical implications of the environmental justice move-
ment, oVers a further example of this approach (Schlosberg 2003 , 1999 ; see
Guha and Martinez-Alier 1997 and Lohmann 1995 for a similar approach
in relation to Third World movements of environmental resistance). These
movements’ constituencies have often been described as rooted more in a
material connection to and dependence upon ecological resources than in
the post-materialist concerns with quality of life issues said to motivate
more privileged environmentalists in Western nations. To base theory
upon such movement perspectives thus has the potential to restructure
the categories and conceptions of environmental thought, since it is
not just the questions, but also the perspectives and voices, of activists
and other practitioners that become central subjects for insight and
reXection. The implicit democratic faith, here—both in the movements
and in the possibilities for democratizing the practice of political theory—
is striking.
786 john m. meyer