Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Taken separately, class and nature constitute two of the most significant categories of analysis within the geographical tradition. As a marker of different forms of social stratification, class has provided a key fulcrum around which political and economic geographers have sought to understand the life paths taken and “life chances” presented to different people. As a complex indicator of both the essential essence of existence and the environmental fabric of being, nature has provided a multidimensional lens for geographers exploring areas as diverse as race relations, the colonial imagination, and late modern forms of environmental change. In these contexts, both class and nature embody key objects of analysis that geographers seek to understand and, at the same time, important conceptual categories for interpreting the operation of various forms of socioeconomic and ecological process. When considered together, the varied relations between class and nature have provided a rich terrain of critical analysis that has, perhaps more than any other arena of study, characterized the contribution of human geographers to the study of the environment.

Marxist Views of Class and Nature

The first systematic, geographical analysis of the relations between class forces and nature was presented in Neil Smith's influential volume Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and Production of Space. Smith deploys a Marxist theory of class to reveal the ways in which the social and geographical structures of capitalist society have shaped, and have in turn been conditioned, by certain economic appropriations of nature. Karl Marx's 19th-century reflections on human relations with the natural world were important because they marked a sharp break from the prevailing tendencies at the time to see nature as an object of analysis within the physical sciences but not the fields of economics and politics. In keeping with his broader modes of dialectical thought, Marx asserted that nature was not an eternally unchanging backdrop against which human history is played out but a historically contingent product of prevailing political and economic systems.

It is important to note that the varied social relations associated with a capitalist economy (including systems of market exchange, private property, and regimes of accumulation) have all critically shaped modern relations with the natural world. Smith asserts that it is the particular class formations of capitalism that have determined the specific ways in which modern industrial societies apprehend and transform nature. While Marx himself identified a plethora of socio-economic classes that were characteristic of capitalism, it is the broad division between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that Smith focused his analysis on. Following Marx, Smith interpreted the bourgeoisie to be the strata of industrial society that own the means of economic production (viz., agricultural land, factories, mines, etc.) and the proletariat as those whose only property is their own bodies and the associated labor they can sell. While these class positions may be familiar enough, the impacts that they have on socionatural relations are perhaps less easy to discern. It is the various processes of alienation that, in different ways, hold the key to interpreting the ecological significance of such class positions.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading