DYNAMICS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT AND GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
Deddy Salim
Week 4
Professor Helman
June, 2024
Introduction
Landslide natural disasters in United States in the last decade have tended to increase
although there was a decrease, which occurred in the last decade 2,278 incidents during the
period 2005-2014 with 1,815 victims killed and missing with details in 2005 recorded 50
incidents, 2006 recorded 73 events, an increase of 104 events. In 2007, 112 incidents in 2008
and in the following years continued to increase, namely 238 incidents, 400 incidents, then
there was a decline to 329 incidents in 2011, 291 incidents in 2012, rose again to 296
incidents, and 385 incidents in 2014. Ironically, the various events The tragic event became a
polemic among various parties that was exposed in print, electronic media and official
forums. On the one hand, the government tends to view the incident as a pure natural disaster
beyond the will and power of humans, on the other hand, especially from environmentalists
and lovers, they view it as a result of human actions that have irresponsibly damaged the
ecosystem (Suara Merdeka, January 11, 2006: 6 & 9).
The occurrence of various natural disasters in the perspective of ecological and
historical politics is a complex problem that does not occur instantly, but involves national
political policies long before the occurrence of various disasters that are also intertwined with
global economic forces. Natural disasters in various places and times occur, among others,
due to imbalances and even damage to ecosystems and are the result of the implementation
of development with the ideology of economic growth, emphasizing the achievement of
economic growth targets to meet current needs without taking into account the needs of
future generations (Langhelle, 1999: 129-149).
Historical facts show that developing countries have vigorously promoted the green
revolution through agricultural intensification supported by the use of modern technology
and this global scenario has proven successful in increasing agricultural production to the
maximum, but has also contributed to environmental degradation (Pingali, 1989). In addition,
other natural resources such as forests and mines, in order to fulfill human needs and even
ambitions are now also explored and exploited to the maximum. Therefore, the destruction of
ecosystems in various places and regions has become a serious threat to the survival of
mankind.
In connection with the increasingly widespread damage to the global ecology, it
encourages The emergence of environmental social movements that began to spread since
the 1970s. The most serious threat of damage is especially to the weakest segment in the
control of economic resources and power, namely rural/local communities and their ecology.
In this context, in United States the phenomenon is very prominent, especially since the New
Order period. During this period there were dramatic changes in ecology as a result of
modernization and industrialization, which are the engines that drive the operation of the
capitalist economic system. Through various legal products, the government seemed to favor
capital owners as reflected in Law No.5/1967 on Basic Provisions of Forestry and Law No.
11/1967 on Basic Provisions of Mining. With these policies, the position of local
communities is getting weaker and more helpless in the face of the power of power
(government) and financiers (foreign and domestic capitalists). Even the green revolution,
which was vigorously implemented by the New Order government as an integral part of the
global scenario, not only failed to alleviate the poverty of the majority of rural communities
(Sajogyo, 1974), but has destroyed sustainable agricultural systems that have been traditional
in the lives of rural communities. Law No. 5 of 1990 on the Conservation of Natural
Resources and Ecosystems and the post-New Order TAP MPR No. IX/2001 on Agrarian
Reform and Natural Resource Management, also gave no hope to local communities due to
the lack of sensitivity of the authorities to the basic problems of local communities
(Robinson, 1984).
Such conditions contribute significantly to the rise of environmental social movements
by local communities, which are often inseparable from the work of networks of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) at
local, regional, national and international levels (Escobar, 1997). This tendency of
interconnection environmental social movements in the Southern Region, although in
principle there are differences. In the Southern countries, the environmental movement at the
end of the 20th century has been able to enter the political agenda of the state and
government (Dwivedi, 2001), while in United States the alignment is not yet clear, especially
at the implementation level. Environmental issues can involve various parties such as the
government of a country, world organizations such as the United Nations (UN), NGOs,
environmental movements, scientists, and communities (Forsyth, 2003).
Along with the level of public awareness of the dangers of environmental destruction
that is getting better, especially in developing countries, the practices of exploitation of
natural resources (natural resources) that threaten environmental sustainability began to get
resistance from various elements of society. They are members of various NGO
organizations that carry out various environmental movement activities, namely movements
aimed at increasing public awareness of environmental conservation and the dangers caused
by environmental destruction. In fact, they also carry out resistance to various parties, both
government and private, which directly or indirectly contribute to environmental damage.
One interesting thing is that these environmental organizations and movements are not
merely local organizations, but they often have national and even international networks.
This phenomenon of strengthening the third sector (civil society organization (CSO)/civil
society association (CSA), NGO) is a new social movement force that has strengthened since
the symptoms of deep distrust of conventional political organizations such as the state,
bureaucracy and people's representative institutions (Dharmawan, 2005).
The global nature of the network of environmental movements has a significant
impact on the process of strengthening civil society. This is possible Given that
environmental organizations in certain regions are not as stand-alone organizations but have
links and are often even associated with environmental organizations nationally and even
internationally. Moreover, the link is strengthened by the easier and more practical use of
communication tools such as telephone, fax, email, teleconference, and the world of social
media as a significant force outside the government in determining policies, especially in
areas related to the environment. This network is actually a bargaining power with the
government. The government will not rashly take repressive action against existing
environmental organizations, even though they may resist policies that have a destructive
impact on the environment. Thus, the government is not the sole power in making every
policy related to the existence of a harmonious environment. In this regard, this paper will
examine the issue of how the dynamics of the environmental movement take place and its
ability to encourage the strengthening of civil society within the framework of a global
environmental governanceṢ.
Methods
Through a critical historical method with a political ecology approach, landslides that are
increasingly threatening the lives of United States people are discussed in this paper. The
critical historical method is used to reveal the historical aspect of natural disasters in relation
to policies and the massive penetration of the capitalistic and exploitative global economy
towards natural resources. In line with the thought of C. Wright Mills, that "Every social
science or better, every well considered social study-requires an historical scope of
conception and a full use of historical material" (Skocpol, 1984).
In this context, the historical method is a systematic set of rules and principles for
collecting writing sources effectively, assessing them critically, and presenting a synthesis of
the results achieved in written form (Garraghan, 1957: 18). In the historical method there are
four steps, namely, heuristics (data collection), criticism (internal and external),
interpretation (analysis and synthesis), and historiography (Gottschalk, 1969: 32).
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
Environmental Social Movements In Historical Dynamics
Conceptually, the environmental social movement is a triangulation of social and political
movements that aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public
education, advocacy for better lifestyle choices, improved community planning, increased
financial investment, and government regulation (Jenkins, 1983). The environmental
movement actually encompasses and includes many different and sometimes separate
organizations, ranging from financially powerful organizations at the national and
international levels to thousands of voluntary environmental organizations operating at the
grassroots level and even including individuals struggling only at the local level. So it can be
said that, initially, concern for the preservation of the natural environment was the main
driving force that gave birth to the environmental movement.
Concern for the preservation of nature and awareness of the dangers of natural
destruction that threaten human life were first raised by Malthus in the 18th century. Then
Gidden who said that among the global dangers that could threaten human existence on earth
were 'ecological calamity and uncontainable population explosion' (Yearley, 1997).
However Thus, concern for the future of the environment and the preservation of human life
has not yet become a collective movement that bears a certain ideology. It was only after the
third quarter of the 20th century that the environmental movement became an organized
collective movement, especially when industrialization and the expansion of capitalism were
so developed and caused alarming ecological impacts on the lives of humanity.
As a result of industrialization and the mechanization of transportation, the initial
problem captured by environmental activists was the problem of pollution that occurred
especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Various environmental movements emerged to
protect air and water from pollution. Subsequently, environmental activists not only limited
themselves to the environment, but also other unique things such as unique wild plants and
animals, protection of rare creatures. This movement was quite fruitful in the US, for
example, with the issuance of various regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and so on, which became
the foundation for the creation of a standardized environment.
Due to increased public awareness and the expansion of environmental sciences in
recent years, environmental issues have also experienced tremendous development and have
even succeeded in developing key concepts regarding the future of human life on earth such
as the concept of 'sustainability' which refers to how humanity can coexist harmoniously
with nature in a sustainable manner with the principle of symbiotic mutualism (Castro, 2004).
In addition, these developments have also raised new awareness about various environmental
changes that are very worrying for humanity such as ozone depletion, climate change, and
biogenetic pollution (Langhelle, 1999).
Environmental movement activists usually have relatively similar value systems,
moral compasses, and heroic idols. However, they often differ on more detailed issues such
as the priorities and emphases of their movements, the ways in which they take action, and
the specific goals they seek to achieve. The environmental movement, in its purest form,
tends to represent broad public interests concerning clean air, clean water, healthy food,
animals, natural beauty, open spaces, and so on. In addition, the environmental movement is
also very concerned about protecting animals, including wild animals, from being hunted for
hobby or consumption.
One very interesting thing is that various environmental movements and organizations
interact and have relationships with each other and even have links with various other types
of social movements that share the same moral views. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
environmental movement also cooperates with social movements for peace, the struggle for
human and animal rights, movements against the use of nuclear weapons, movements
concerned with endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, and so on. Because of these networks,
most environmental movements have a global dimension.
Although environmental movements and organizations today have a tendency to spread
to various regions of the country and even provinces or even smaller and local units, or often
called ecoregions, they generally have the same spirit in fighting for environmental
sustainability. In addition, the cooperation between them both nationally and internationally
is very solid as a network, so that in terms of organization, it sometimes reflects a cross-
border organization or boundaries organization (Forsyth, 2003).
The global and 'cross-border' nature of these environmental organizations and
movements also has tremendous consequences for local communities, where the
environmental movement operates or conducts activities. In this case, Forsyth (2003) argues
that environmental organizations are often a potential challenge to the power network, which
in this case is the government (of course the 'environmentally unfriendly' government).
According to Prijono, the working relationship between the environmental movement and the
government is contextual and fluctuating. There are times when conflicts arise because they
have different orientations and interests. However, in general, the relationship pattern can be
divided into three: associative, parallel, and conflictive. There are several variations in the
relationship between the environmental movement and the government, namely very close,
parallel, and taking distance (Prijono, 1995).
Their focus on environmental sustainability and their global network give the
impression of being organizations and movements that are neutral from the influence of
global political conflicts, even though their activities often collide with various national and
international political forces. This can be exemplified by the actions of various
environmental movements such as Greenpeace, Green Parties, and groups such as ACTtivist
Magazine that have concerns in the fields of ecology, biodiversity and so on that are geared
towards environmental preservation and peace. They operate at the local level, but when
necessary they are also involved in various environmental threat issues at the global level.
Groups like Bioregional Revolution are expected to be able to bridge the various differences
of interest between industries that exploit natural resources and various groups that want to
preserve nature. This will be one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Capitalism And Environmental Destruction
Environmental degradation, especially in developing countries such as United States, has
caused much controversy. Many experts see that environmental damage in developing
countries is caused by the expansion of capitalism manifested in colonialism (colonization)
through the process of imperialism that has been going on since the XV century. Capitalism's
desire for unlimited accumulation of capital has pushed natural resources (through
exploitation), human resources (through slavery) and socio-cultural resources (through
colonization) to be boosted in such a way as to fulfill the capitalist production appetite.
Eventually, the colonies were exploited beyond what could be achieved normally. This
phenomenon has led to the destruction of the environment because its potential is extracted
beyond its capacity (Dharmawan, 2005).
An interesting example of colonial over exploitation in relation to social and
environmental disasters occurred in Java. It is known that since 1830 the Dutch colonial
government implemented a capitalist exploitation program in agriculture under the name
Cultuurstelsel (cultivation system) or Tanam Paksa. There are many studies on the history of
the Cultivation System, but a study on the impact of this exploitation system on
environmental destruction is still inadequate. Although somewhat controversial,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz analyzed the link between the capitalistic nature of colonial
political policies, the socio-cultural conditions of indigenous people, and the heavy
ecological burden. Geertz described an alien combination of capitalist plantation
extensification, indigenous agricultural intensification, and stagnation rooted in the
Cultivation System. He proposes the concept of 'agricultural involution' which refers to the
stagnation or stagnation of agricultural patterns that are indicated by the absence of real
progress. It is under these conditions that even a very small ecological disaster will lead to a
catastrophic social disaster such as the famine and death epidemic on this island (in Demak,
Semarang, Cirebon) in the mid-19th century (Geertz, 1976). It is this capitalist economic
practice that gave birth to ecological destruction in colonized countries such as United States.
The inability of the rulers of former colonies to break away from the capitalist system
after they achieved independence is easy to understand. This is related to the fact that
colonialism had developed a tight capitalist relation of production (Dharmawan, 2005). In
the post-colonial period, especially since the New Order, United States tends to continue the
capitalist economic system or is in subordination to the capitalist state structure, so the
ecological damage has become even worse. Ecological destruction continues through
development programs that are actually a mere metamorphose of capitalist production
relations. The former colonies are still positioned as markets and suppliers of cheap labor
and raw materials. The former colonizers remain the center, while the former colonies
remain the periphery. Dependency continues. Globalization and various strategic issues such
as human rights and the environment are used as tools for the former colonial countries to
become new colonialists (neo-colonialism), exploiting the former colonies. Through funding
agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), former colonial countries impose a
capitalistic development model to perpetuate this dependency. Thus what happens is not
sustained growth for the former colonies but what happens is sustained ecological
devastation.
Meanwhile, phenomena that directly threaten environmental sustainability continue.
Privatization and commercialization of sources of life are currently taking place, starting
from the water sector, forests, food crop seeds, oil and gas mines and other minerals, coastal
marine, and others. The privatization, or rather commercialization, of environmental resource
exploitation will clearly pose a threat to environmental sustainability. Ecology will be
optimally exploited in the hope of bringing in the maximum economic benefit. Economic
calculation and profit (profit oriented) is the culprit for environmental destruction. Whereas
environmental resources are not inherited from our ancestors, but are borrowed from future
generations. This fact has shown who actually benefits from this way of exploiting the
environment; capitalists, who are impoverished; the oppressed people and who must accept
the impact of a damaged environment; the environment itself and the surrounding humans in
need.
Civil Society In A Global Context Environmental Governance
The environmental movement is a form and/or part of what is conceptualized as civil society
and vice versa, the environmental movement also has a significant contribution in the process
of strengthening civil society. The strength of the environmental movement in supporting the
strengthening of civil society lies in the fact that the environmental movement has an
international network without facing many constraints of national borders.
Currently, the civil society discourse is still a hot topic of discussion and scientific
debate in United States. This polemic revolves around the relationship between civil society
and the state. The core of the issue concerns the debate on how big the role of the state is and
vice versa. The role of society in determining policies that concern the public interest. In
short, 'the state' has been suspected of being a usurper of civil society's rights so that the
position and role of civil society becomes weak. However, the debate forgets the historical
and actual fact that the power of global capitalism as a giant force is an equally powerful
challenge in the process of strengthening civil society in the future. This fact is often
forgotten because global capitalism, which is actually a product of liberalism, will provide
freedom to every element of society to self-actualize and uphold human rights. However,
what is forgotten is that it is precisely in this freedom that giant powers will tend to 'impose'
their interests in various ways.
It must be recognized that the study of civil society emerged and became more
widespread along with the euphoria of the spirit of freedom following the fall of the New
Order regime. The search for the genealogy of the concept of civil society has led to two
different opinions on the concept of civil society. The first opinion translates civil society
with 'civil society', while the second opinion translates this concept with a literary translation
of 'civil society' (Baso, 1999).
The first opinion translates civil society as 'civil society' in the sense of a society that is
complementary or supplementary to the state. This interpretation especially referred to the
concept and formulation of the Medina society built by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, which
is described as an ideal prototype of a democratic, egalitarian, just and civilized society. The
Medina Charter is considered the initial constitution that preceded the UN Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948. In short, it was during this era that civil society, in the view of this
group, gained its justification, its historical legitimacy in society. Muslims. However, the
question is whether the prototype of Medina society at that time can be used as a prototype of
a modern society that is very complex as it is today.
Those who translate civil society as 'civil society' assume that it has a close relevance to
the struggle for democratization in United States. By maintaining the character of civil
society in the context of Western culture, namely as a counter-balancing to the state, civil
society plays itself as a tool of state control, even resistance to the tendency of new state
authoritarianism in the transition process. In this context, the most important thing is to
contextualize the idea in an effort to strengthen the potential of society in a common life.
Civil society is confronted with the state because the state is not considered a 'benevolent'
institution whose actors selflessly fight for the interests of the people. So, a strong and well-
established civil society is needed as a means of pressure and control over all state policies, if
necessary in opposition to the state.
However, seeing the state as the only obstacle in strengthening civil society is a
symptom of 'night blindness' that needs to be watched out for considering that in this era of
global capitalism the role of the state is being emasculated by the forces of global capitalism.
Neoliberalism, which is supported by the forces of global capitalism, indoctrinates that the
role of the state must be reduced and replaced by the power of the private sector, which of
course is the domain of global capitalism. In this context, it is the market regime controlled
by the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) that actually rules. With their issues,
they have been able to eliminate state borders. Neoliberal ideology rejects state intervention
and forbids state protectionism, in favor of free trade that will drive competition and develop
efficient utilization of resources, labor, and capital. With this view, the position of the state
will actually be subordinated to global capitalism and the power of capital and thus the power
of the state will actually also become a mere pseudo.
The presence of the interests of the global capitalist regime in the state ultimately
forces civil society to face two forces at once, namely state power and the power of global
capitalism. Challenges originating from the state take the form of repressive policies and
actions against social movements, while challenges originating from global capitalism
manifest themselves in market forces controlled by the structure of global capitalism.
Meanwhile, there is also a struggle between the state and the forces of global capitalism. On
the one hand, global capitalists want to use the state as an agent to exploit their territory,
while the state also wants to use capitalists to boost the country's economy.
In the pattern of the environmental movement, it is natural to calculate the power of
neoliberalism or capitalist globalization and what will be needed as a variant of polarization
of the environmental movement as one of the social movements to fight it. This also
correlates with the power of the state as a facilitator of the forces of capitalist globalization in
the exploitation of natural resources. For example, during the New Order era, the state
through the bureaucracy with the support of its military power instruments successfully
secured or expedited the process of natural resource exploitation and capital accumulation.
In the above context, the environmental movement that is concerned with preserving
the environment as an asset that fulfills the 'livelihood of many people' from destructive
actions carried out either by the state or by global corporations or cooperation between the
two, will awaken and encourage local communities to join the struggle to preserve ecology as
part of Global Environmental Governance. The environmental movement will be able to
strengthen the bargaining position of local communities civil society in fighting for their
rights in relation to the environment. They have this power because they have a global
network, so that capitalists and the state must calculate to take repressive actions against
them. Thus, the development of the environmental movement will strengthen the position of
civil society in building a sustainable global environmental system for human welfare.
Conclusions
From the historical dynamics of the environmental social movement in United States, it is
generally proven that it can support the process of strengthening civil society, which in turn
can jointly fight to uphold a sustainable global environmental system for the welfare of
society. By looking at the heavy burden of the environmental movement in facing forces that
can damage the environment (both from state policies and from the expansion of global
capitalism or the collaboration of the two), various steps must be taken. Of course, these
steps are not realized in a moral movement, but must take action. In this context, the struggle
to preserve the environment is not only defensive in nature, which only 'moves' when the
natural environment has begun to be damaged, but must also be offensive in nature to correct
all kinds of state policies that are projected to have an impact on natural damage such as; the
sale of uncontrolled logging concessions including mining in protected forest areas; revoking
regulations that deny people's sovereignty to gain access to reasonable and sustainable use of
the environment. In addition, security forces are well prepared to handle and prevent brutal
acts against the environment such as illegal logging.
Institutionally, various environmental movements in United States need to emphasize the
need for an umbrella institution that takes care of the environment life. Unlike now, there are
too many institutions such as the Minister of Environment-non-Department, Minister of
Forestry, Minister of Mining Energy and Mineral Resources, Minister of Agriculture,
Minister of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, and others. They have their own
coordination patterns, making it very slow in dealing with environmental issues that often
require urgent handling. In addition, it is the task of the environmental movement to realize
the protection of the rights of every citizen to the right to a clean and healthy environment
and to have the right to manage natural resources and sources of life, fairly and equitably by
prioritizing ecological sustainability ecological (ecological sustainability). In this way, the
environmental movement will strengthen civil society in upholding sustained global
environmental governance.
