direct and perhaps deterministic source of guidance for political ideas and
institutional arrangement (Soper 1995 ).
The second nexus surrounds the question of the role and limits of liberal-
ism as a political philosophy that is compatible with eVective action on
environmental problems. Perhaps the most familiar stance within environ-
mental political theory has been one that highlights the limits of liberalism,
often focusing upon its individualism and its rigidity, especially in the context
of global capitalism (e.g. Ophuls 1997 ; Benton 1998 ; Meyer 2000 ; Maniates
2002 ). Avner de-Shalit has developed a more nuanced view, arguing that on
the one hand, liberalism is particularly eVective at promoting environmental
talk; while on the other, it is characteristically unsuccessful at enabling
environmental action (de-Shalit 2000 , 63 – 92 ). This sort of analysis has led
de-Shalit and others to explore the possibilities for reading liberalism more
expansively, in order to accommodate environmental sustainability as a
public good (cf. Barry and Wissenburg 2001 ; Eckersley 1996 ; Friedman 1992 ;
Hailwood 2004 ; Liebell 1999 ; Miller 1999 ; SagoV 1988; Stephens 2001 ;
Wissenburg 1998 , 2001 ). In this context, they frequently appeal for a re-
examination of the distinction between what has been termed ‘‘classical’’ or
‘‘economic’’ liberalism and more ‘‘social’’ or ‘‘political’’ interpretations
of liberalism.
This attention to liberalism is closely related to the third nexus, which aims
to connect theory to practice. De-Shalit summarizes this quest as follows:
to discover how [environmental political theorists] might construct a theory that is
much more accessible to activists and the general public (without relinquishing any
of our goals), and which can be harnessed to the aims of political philosophy. (de-
Shalit 2000 , 4 )
The quest to make environmental political theory both relevant and access-
ible to a broader public drives many theorists. Here, for example, we see
overlap with the work of philosophers advocating an ‘‘environmental prag-
matism,’’ as reXected in a volume co-edited by political theorist de-Shalit and
philosopher Andrew Light, with contributions by members of both discip-
lines (Light and de-Shalit 2003 ; cf. Light and Katz 1996 ).
As suggested above, I believe that this triad of concerns over nature,
liberalism, and practice share something that I have labeled a post-exuberant
approach to theory. In the face of environmental crises, the tendency of an
environmental political theory oriented in this manner is to probe the
contours and ideas of the present for their ability to shape, constrain, limit,
political theory and the environment 781