(+46) 735 392523
(+57) 314 354 8154

Climate change: a problematic condition for existing inequalities and social exclusions.

  • 9 February, 2022
  • Posted by: Orly Vidal
5,208 Comments

1. Introduction

The social theory of risk societies and the global environmental hazards that people might face because of the direct and close interrelation of humans, the physical systems and the natural world (Beck 2009). The idea is reinforced when it is identified as a social problem the globalization of environmental problems, as a result of industrial and policy decisions made in the past. Beck’s examples include how global risks lead to conflict, forms of inequalities and exclusions especially when decision-making and political factors portrays deficiencies. As the future analysis of climate change will potentially imply social, political and economic issues. the unpredictability of disturbances on the natural systems and other anthropogenic influences may cause unexpected pressures with impacts in social dimensions such as human security and inequalities. While the global population is at risk, there are pockets of the society that will significantly be exposed to these changes.
Understanding the impacts of climate change is to recognize that it involves vulnerabilities and social dimensions that require deep explorations and analysis in order to identify pathological aspects of current and potential social problems. There are multiple factors that determine the level of vulnerability of society. Its origin may vary in accordance with social, economic and political contexts. According to Beck (2007), poverty, corruption, social vulnerabilities, and other risks tend to be dramatically linked. The combination of these issues impacts the whole society, depriving development and the capacities to resist and recover from uncertain events. Thus, since poverty, weak governance and economic failures are common among unequal groups, external factors such as climate change may exacerbate inequality, social exclusions and therefore human security. The accumulation of these threats is recognized by Beck (2007) as death zones of risk society. Yet, existing social, economic and political disruptions may be structural elements that can be worsened in a context of climate variability (Berdal and Malone, 2000).
Using constructionism as an approach to understanding these issues, it can be suggested that social observations of change can be shaped by preceding or defined imaginaries drawing on contextual factors. However, immediate social problems may compete with climate change in accordance with policy priorities (Stehr and Von Storch (1995). Similarly, the social significances of change are frequently reconstructed regarding the different arguments of climate experts and the media (Lacey and Longman, 1993; Lowe and Morrison, 1984). Therefore, the reproduction of realities might include epistemologies which entail objectivist or subjectivist interpretations (Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 1994). Yet, as the perceptions of risks are based on the availability of information provided by researchers, climate experts, the media and policy makers, one aspect to consider is the unpredictability of future environmental events. On this scenario, the knowledge of future changes could be uncertain. This epistemological aspect may affect the social construction of climate change especially among poor and marginalized societies who depend on the natural resources and ecosystems potentially threatened by weather events.
The aim of the present document is to explore how climate change can be considered as a problematic condition when inequalities and exclusions exist in a society. The analysis includes a brief contextual framework of the social pressures produced by climate change and the impacts on human security. It is followed by explorations on inequalities and social exclusions and how they can be exacerbated in a climate change context. Conclusions are intended to summarize the main arguments and provide elements to further research.

2. Climate change, global pressures and human security

The environment is changing as the world is more globalized, bringing social, economic and political issues that will shape the future. The social dimensions of these changes are molded when vulnerabilities emerge and human security is threatened (Barnett and Adger, 2007). Likewise, as industrial growth continues to develop, new lifestyles and economic preferences will shape social structures, bringing additional pressures that might reinforce foregoing threats. Since physical and biological systems have thresholds, one of the main characteristics of this scenario is the notion of risk and uncertainty (Barnett and Adger, 2007; Giddens, 2003). From this premise, Beck (2009) points out the social theory of risk societies and the global environmental hazards that societies might face as a result of the direct and close interrelation of humans, the physical systems and the natural world. The idea is reinforced when the scholar identifies as a social problem the globalization of environmental problems, as a result of industrial and policy decisions made in the past. Beck’s examples include how global risks lead to conflict, forms of inequalities and exclusions especially when decision making and political factors portrays deficiencies. Thus, the future analysis of climate change will potentially imply social, political and economic issues. Since global environmental change might cause unpredicted disturbances on the natural systems and anthropogenic influences may cause further pressures, there could be negative implications in social dimensions such as human security and inequalities.
On the preceding arguments, different studies suggest that climate change represents a hazardous condition that will impact security, arguing that most of the risks may emerge from existing forms of exclusions and inequalities (Barnnet, 2003; Brown, 1989; Edwards, 1999). While the global population is at risk, there are pockets of the society that will significantly be exposed to these changes. That is the case of low-income communities, whose poverty conditions made them more vulnerable and less capable to cope with climate hazards (Barnett and Adger, 2007). The existence of inequalities and exclusions have been responses to political and economic failures, including market gaps that constrain people choices and opportunities to develop (Sen, 1981; Waal, 1997). For instance, in Africa, decades of colonial regimes and weak governance systems have had a profound effect social structures, resulting in the inadequate distribution of wealth which led to inequality, violent conflict and therefore the worsening of their poverty conditions (Bax, 2002). Since the African society is majorly rural and highly dependent on their natural resources (Denton, 2002; Somorin et al., 2014), they are notably prone to climate variability, which has direct effect in human security and their socio-economic dynamic. Thus, understanding the impacts of climate change is to recognize that it involves vulnerabilities and social dimensions that require deep explorations and analysis in order to identify pathological aspects of current and potential social problems. Likewise, past events might shape the evolution of social deviations and disorganizations that are presently noticed especially among low-income societies, where human security and social stability are exposed to climate variability.
Silver (2007) remarks on how social exclusions may have the origin in the frequent displacement of people that are at risk or vulnerability and the relevancy of contextual factors. Being poverty a condition that makes societies vulnerable to different forms of risks, the author suggests that they tend to be context-dependent as a result of the lack of material, social or institutional safety. On this aspect, Sen (2000) determines individual’s capacity can be developed if there are opportunities for them especially from economic sectors; however, the absence of these options may have a profound impact in their perspectives of progress. On this view, Silver (2007) proposes several indicators of exclusions which are widely associated with the notions of risks. For instance, housing tenure, household composition, perception of risk owing to poverty, income instability, health conditions, life expectancy, unemployment, among others. While these indicators are typical causes of social exclusions contextual aspects such as climate hazards can underpin other vulnerabilities with a direct effect on the entire human security.
As societies have a direct relation with the surrounding environment, especially those who are dependent on natural resources, the notion of human security can be dimensioned from the social and ecological perspective. On the first hand, living conditions are essential including housing, livelihoods, access to markets, health, social services and material possessions social relations, and so on (Muffels et al., 2001; Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos, 2002). On the other hand, human security reflects on exogenous factors which comprise ecological capitals such as natural resources and ecosystem services. For instance, access to fresh water, soil production, marine species, forest materials, minerals, etc. (Barnett and Adger, 2007). This social-ecological relationship might imply intense social changes especially if they are stressed by unpredicted climatic threats, driving potential distortions (Diamond, 2005), disorganizations and deviant conducts, especially among the poor and marginalized. As an illustration of these scenarios, Davis (2001) explored how after a drought, famine conditions produced different forms of inequalities and exclusions in the African rural communities, nevertheless the negative effects were reinforced owing to the legacy of colonization which had direct impacts on the management of natural resources.

3. The social problems of climate change: understanding exclusions and inequalities

There are multiple factors that determine the level of vulnerability of society. Its origin may vary in accordance with social, economic and political contexts. As weak governance systems may fail in the regulation and control of macroeconomic policies and market dynamics (Adger and Kelly, 1999), these groups are usually prone to encounter different forms of inequalities and social disorganizations. According to Beck (2007), poverty, corruption, social vulnerabilities, and other risks tend to be dramatically linked. The combination of these issues impacts the whole society, depriving development and the capacities to resist and recover from uncertain events. This argument is consistent when external factors such as climate change emerge. Leary et al. (2006) consider that the major disturbances of climate variability are particularly perceived when different stresses act in concert, that is the case of corrupted governance structures, economic crisis, land degradation, and poverty conditions. The academics remark lessons learned from developing nations highly dependent on their natural resources and ecosystem services, where extreme weather events have exposed and threatened agriculture and nutrition systems. Similarly, the authors emphasize the impact of human security because is not just exposed to social dynamics and livelihood stability. It also entails spatial scales, including the sensitivity of natural resources such as freshwater, marine species, and soil productivity; the degree of dependency on these resources; and the capacity to adapt and recover from climate threats (Barnnet and Adger, 2007; O’ Brien et al., 2004). Each dimension is connected and therefore social and environmental factors might be combined when concepts of human security are explored. This argument opens the door to the analysis of social and ecological concerns, including the political and economic influencers that may pressure the preceding conditions. Hence, as poverty, weak governance and economic failures are common among unequal societies, external factors such as climate change may exacerbate inequality, social exclusions and therefore human security. The accumulation of these threats is recognized by Beck (2007) as death zones of risk society.
Understanding the social problems that emerge from climate change implies the recognition that its pressures may differentially disturb those who live in risk areas but mostly those who are exposed to political and economic problems (Barnnet and Adger, 2007). For instance, there are assumptions that climate effects have increased the risk of violent conflicts especially among poor and subsistence societies (Barnnet, 2003; Barnnet and Adger, 2007; Brown, 1989; Edwards, 1999). These theories are based on the notions of human security which involves social, economic, political and environmental factors (Leary et al. 2006). The idea is also reflected on Barnnet and Adger (2007) hypothesis in which climatic and non climatic factors have an impact on human security and it includes violent behaviour. The authors distinguish the vulnerability of livelihoods, poverty conditions, weak governance systems and migration as social, political and economic disruptive elements that might stimulate conflicts. Yet, climatic events may reinforce them, therefore they could not be isolated assumptions. In other words, existing social, economic and political disruptions may be structural elements that can be worsened in a context of climate variability (Berdal and Malone, 2000).
Regarding the previous statements, climate change may represent a problematic condition that can foster new forms of inequalities and exclusions. On Beck’s (2007) perspective, as states are units where different individuals, groups and social structures relate, there are patterns of inequalities that may emerge as a consequence of each decision and conducts. However, there are new horizons that transcend state units such as globalization, planetary features, future-oriented ideas, and global responsibilities, in which climate change can be into place. These horizons lead to global norms and alternative joint actions that have a direct effect on social discourses (Beck, 2009). Since boundaries are restricted in a globalized world and economic, political and social structures have a stronger influence in the configuration of norms and rules, it can be assumed that unequal positions can be more exposed and vulnerable to transnational trends and forces (Beck, 2007). In other words, the more globalized the world, the greater integrated can be a society, and because it comprises environmental aspects such as climate change, individuals might  be more sensitive to its pressures. Is when emerging the concept of risk societies because pressures transcend the borders and global threats have an effect in each unit of it (Albrow, 1996).
Beck (2009) affirms that unequal social disturbances and vulnerabilities promote risk conflicts, but this particular aspect is more difficult to homogenise. The reason could be because each social unit sustains multiple values and principles. They may imply cultural aspects in the form of etchnic patterns, traditional epistemologies, religious beliefs, but also contextual factors constructed over time. For instance, among marginalized groups, global tendencies can be merged with the local dynamics including political identities based on a past of authoritarian and coercive regimes. These examples might be also catalyzers of exclusions and inequalities. While human experiences may encompass subjective interpretations, it is also influenced by an external world (Crotty, 1998). Following Beck’s principles on risky societies in a globalized world, climate change could be socially constructed regarding the linkages among perception of change, new industries and the public domain (Stehr and Von Storch, 1995). Therefore, forms of inequalities can be shaped by the perceptions raised in this context. For instance, they can be molded upon existing social, economic and political disruptions. Also, based on past dislocations as the case of Africa, where colonial regimes still have an effect in the form the society is built (Bax, 2002).

4. Constructionism: social perceptions of change

In a climate change scenario, inequality and social exclusions could be understood from a constructionism approach. To contextualize this assumption, it is considered the explorations made by Stehr and Von Storch (1995). The authors’ observations implied a sociological position on climate variability and the linkages on policy-making processes. The scholars demonstrate that social observations of change can be shaped by preceding or defined imaginaries drawing on contextual factors. On the other hand, the academics suggest that immediate social problems may compete with climate change in accordance with policy priorities. Congruently, the social significances of change are frequently reconstructed regarding the different arguments of climate experts and the media (Lacey and Longman, 1993; Lowe and Morrison, 1984). As a result, the reproduction of reality might include epistemologies which entail objectivist or subjectivist interpretations (Goode and Ben Yehuda, 1994). Since the process of producing knowledge might be social, Stehr and Von Storch (1995) explorations can be examples of contextual constructionism which tend to be relativist because meanings are constructed on the basis on the interactions with the natural and social world (Crotty, 1998). Yet, they might be also built on interests, speculations, contextual conditions and perspectives of future changes. Crotty’s concepts define that social interpretations are frequently shaped following utilitarian that not necessarily are the most functional. In terms of policy making, it is commonly perceived that climate experts provide objective estimations based on their research on climate; however, the reality is that the social construction is what determine climate policies and not necessarily is the climate what shapes such policies. (Stehr and Von Storch 1995).
As the perceptions of risks are based on the availability of information provided by researchers, climate experts, the media and policymakers, one aspect to consider is the unpredictability of future environmental events. On this scenario, the knowledge of future changes will be uncertain. This epistemological aspect may affect the social construction of climate change. While societies are more integrated as a result of the new global order (Beck, 2007), the unpredictability of climate events may affect the perceptions of change and their behavioural attitudes. Alike may occur with the social problems driven by climate change. Inequalities can be shaped by the perceptions raised on each context and the social, economic and political patterns. Applying the constructionism concept, the reality of climate change and its embedded social problems could be interpreted differently by multiple actors such as the policy maker, the researcher, the climate expert, the media and individuals, but still, the problems of climate change are real. This aspect can be supported considering Stehr and Von Storch (1995) who point out the interdependency of climate variability and the social reproduction of climate. The analogy is more critical especially among poor and marginalized societies who depend on the natural resources and ecosystems potentially threatened by weather events.

5. Conclusions

Since the future analysis of climate change will potentially imply social, political and economic issues, the unpredictability of disturbances on the natural systems and other anthropogenic influences may cause unexpected pressures with impacts in social dimensions such as human insecurity and inequalities. Understanding the impacts of climate change is to recognize that it involves vulnerabilities and social dimensions that require deep explorations and analysis in order to identify pathological aspects of current and potential social problems. While poverty, weak governance, and economic failures are common among unequal groups, external factors such as climate change may exacerbate inequality and social exclusions. Beck (2009) affirms that unequal social disturbances and vulnerabilities promote risk conflicts, but this particular aspect is more difficult to homogenise. The reason could be because each social unit sustains multiple values and principles. They may imply cultural aspects in the form of etchnic patterns, traditional epistemologies, religious beliefs, but also contextual factors constructed over time. Using constructionism as an approach to understanding these issues, it can be suggested that social observations of change can be shaped by preceding or defined imaginaries drawing on contextual factors. However, immediate social problems may compete with climate change in accordance with policy priorities (Stehr and Von Storch (1995).

On the other hand, the reproduction of reality might include epistemologies which entail objectivist or subjectivist interpretations. Yet, as perceptions of risks are based on the availability of information provided by different sectors such as researchers, climate experts, the media and policymakers, one aspect to consider is the unpredictability of future environmental events. Considering constructionism theories, the reality of climate change and its subsequent social problems could be interpreted differently by multiple actors, but still, the problems of climate change and pathological factors that it includes are real. This aspect can be supported considering Stehr and Von Storch (1995) who point out the interdependency of climate variability and the social reproduction of climate. The relationship might be critical within poor and marginalized societies, who depend on the natural resources and ecosystems which is widely known are potentially threatened by climate events. Social academics must deepen in the different implications that climate change may entail when existing structural problems such as inequality and social exclusions. While there are global trends that affect the whole society, the analysis of social problems must be socially constructed and contextually explored.

Reference list

Adger, W. N. and Kelly, M. (1999). “Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements”. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, 253-266

Albrow, (1996). The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity. Polity Press. Cambridge.

Barnett, J. (2003). “Security and climate change”. Global Environmental Change, 13, 7-17.

Barnett, J. and Adger, W.N. (2007). “Climate change, human security and violent conflict”. Political geography, 26(6), 639-655.

Bax, M. (2002). Violence Formations and ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ at a Bosnian Pilgrimage Site. In D. Kooiman, A. Koster, P. Smets, & B. Venema (Eds.), Conflict in a Globalising world. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum.

Beck, U. (2009). World at Risk. Chapter 10: Global Inequality, Local Vulnerability: The Conflict Dynamics of Environmental Hazards Must be Studies within the Framework of Methodological Cosmopolitanism. Pp 160-186. Cambridge: Polity

Berdal, M. and Malone, D. (2000). Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Brown, N. (1989). “Climate, ecology and international security”. Survival, 31, 519-532.

Crotty, M. (1998). Introduction, in, The Foundations of Social Research. Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Davis, M. (2001). Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño, Famines, and the Making of the Third World. New York: Verso.

de Waal, A. (1997). Famine Crimes: Politics and the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa. Oxford: The International African Institute, with James Currey.

Denton, F. (2002). “Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: Why does gender matter?”. Gender & Development, 10(2), 10-20.

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.

Edwards, M. (1999). “Security implications of a worst-case scenario of climate change in the South-west Pacific”. Australian Geographer, 30, 311-330.

Giddens, A. (2003). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. Taylor & Francis.

Goode, E. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Social Problems, in: Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance, Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell, 87-103.

Lacey, C. and Longman, D. (1993). “The press and public access to the environment and development debate”. The Sociological Review, 41(2), 207-243.

Leary, N., Adejuwon, J., Bailey, W., Barros, V., Caffera, M. and Chinvanno, S., et al. (2006). “For whom the bell tolls: Vulnerability in a changing climate”. A Synthesis from the AIACC project. AIACC Working Paper No. 21. Florida: International START Secretariat.

Lowe, P. and Morrison, D. (1984). “Bad news or good news: Environmental politics and the mass media”. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 75-90.

Muffels, R.J.A., Fouarge, D.J.A.G., Mayes, D.G., Berghman, J. and Salais, R. (2001).” Social exclusion and poverty: definition, public debate and empirical evidence in the Netherlands”. Social Exclusion and European Policy, 93-123.

O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G. and Tompkins, H., et al. (2004). “Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India”. Global Environmental Change, 14, 303-313.

Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Silver, H. (2007). The process of Social Exclusion: The Dynamics of an Evolving Concept. Department of Sociology, Brown University. Rhode Island, USA.

Somorin, O.A., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Arts, B., Sonwa, D.J. and Tiani, A.M. (2014). “REDD+ policy strategy in Cameroon: Actors, institutions and
governance”. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 87-97.

Stehr, N. and Von Storch, H.(1995). “The social construct of climate and climate change”. Climate research, 5(2), pp.99-105.

Tsakloglou, P. and Papadopoulos, F. (2002). “Aggregate level and determining factors of social exclusion in twelve European countries”. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(3), 211-225.

Author: Orly Vidal

Leave a Reply

5,208 Comments