REVISITING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF
THE DILEMMA OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE POST MODERN
ERA
Name : Leya Alfares
Professor : Rose Penasaran Ya
Date : June, 2024
Week : 3
Introduction
At first, the issue of environmental sustainability was not too much discussed, but along
with the emergence of various environmental crises in various parts of the world, it seems that
the initial position above has begun to shift. Flash floods, landslides, forest fires, ozone layer
depletion, global warming, climate change, drought, environmental pollution, and many more
are real conditions that humanity is starting to face now. These environmental problems do
not only raise anxiety but are also a cause for concern is also frightening given its tremendous
impact on human life.
According to Richard Steward and James E Krier, the globalized environmental crisis
can be grouped into three things: first, environmental pollution; second, land mis-use; third,
exploitation of natural resources that causes natural resource depletion (Steward & Krier,
1978). These three things can be understood in a series that the decline in environmental
quality that manifests in various forms of environmental pollution is a consequence of the
haphazard and exploitative use of natural resources.
The above conditions occur in almost every country, but became increasingly strong
when the industrial revolution in Europe appeared which was then followed by several other
industrialized countries. This condition began to occur in the 1950s where industrialized
countries began to massively exploit various natural resources so that they contributed greatly
to the environmental damage that occurred. Environmental damage that occurs is no longer
local, but has turned into a regional and even global problem.
The various environmental damages that emerged then triggered public anxiety in
industrialized countries in the late 1960s to 1970s by starting to question various state policies
oriented towards economic growth. The effort to question the orientation of economic growth
was framed in relation to the limitations of physical resources as the main support for the
industrialization process. This can be seen in The Limits to Growth which provides an
overview of the environmental crisis or disaster on a global scale as a result of the massive
industrialization process. The limitations of the ecosystem (earth) to support economic growth
are the basis for building awareness of environmental sustainability. So do not be surprised if
at that time there was an extreme offer towards zero growth that expected to maintain the
integrity of the environment (Meadows, 1972).
The offer towards zero growth proposed as an elaboration of ecocentrism does not
seem to attract too much interest from related parties. Ecocentrism is seen as too one-sided in
understanding the relationship between humans and the environment, so it is actually no more
moderate than anthropocentrism. The difference is only in the starting point used as a value
orientation, which is no longer in humans, but nature.
At a later stage, the concept of sustainable development emerged. This idea is seen as a
breakthrough that can bring consensus on the crucial environmental issues in resource
management. However, the existence of sustainable development is not without problems.
This idea is considered by many environmentalists to be unclear in its alignment and still
dwells on the logic of profit and loss which is actually based on the philosophy of
utilitarianism. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is always a dilemma in the practice of
sustainable development related to the orientation of the desired value to be sustainable.
Nonetheless, this concept has become a trend that is then adopted by many countries on the
grounds of its realism. Apart from the various polemics that have emerged, until now the idea
of sustainable development remains an idol and is adopted by many countries. Based on the
above, the researcher will focus on efforts to question the basis of argumentation in
sustainable development to be reflected on and drawn its relevance to the context of
environmental management, especially in the postmodern era.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
Discussion
Environment in the Context of Modernity
The term modernity is understood as a condition that refers to the form of social life or
organization that emerged in Europe from the 17th century and afterwards until the 20th
century, which then influenced the entire development of society in the world. Modernity is
built on the foundation of rationality, optimism, and positivism in humans which then led to
consequences in the form of extraordinary developments in science and technology. This
condition then develops into a very complex one, considering that there are so many
discontinuous consequences of modernity that are ultimately able to shift the traditional social
order in a way that has never existed before (Giddens, 2009).
In connection with the meaning of modernity above, the discussion of the environment
in the context of modernity will start from the way humans perceive and assess something
outside themselves, which will involve the process of shifting society from traditional to
modern.
In traditional societies, nature is placed as the determinant of reality so that humans are
objects of natural forces. Therefore, traditional societies will strive to always adapt to the
workings of nature. If analogous to Auguste Comte's thoughts on the stages of societal
development, then this stage is called the metaphysical stage. If in the theological stage
everything that happens is believed to be due to the existence of supernatural powers
possessed by gods, spirits, or God, then at this metaphysical stage humans begin to believe in
the existence of abstract forces other than God, namely nature. Meanwhile, modern society is
more positivistic. Modern society believes that the power over reality resides in man himself,
not nature. In modern society, everything that happens in nature can be explained
scientifically through empirical evidence, not depending on metaphysical entities (Abidin,
2002).
The positivistic nature that emerges in this stage of society is then interpreted as
knowledge that is real, useful, certain, and exact, which has a significant effect on the
development of science and technology in modern society. The massive development of
science and technology then goes hand in hand with the development of human ability to
change nature. This process also underlies the formation of modern culture. Along with the
aforementioned, there is also a process of accumulation capital in a broader scope. This
accumulation of capital is ongoing, especially in developed countries, which is often done
through a process of exploitation in developing countries.
Further developments have raised concerns about the positivist nature of modernity.
This was triggered by the emergence of various environmental problems that are increasingly
globalized as a logical consequence of the massive exploitation of natural resources. In the
1960s, serious problems arose in Western industry related to the use of pesticides (DDT),
which were later described by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. This book tells the
story of spring conditions that are no longer beautiful, there are no more plants that can grow
and bloom, no birds singing, no eggs hatching, many cattle die in the pasture, fish die in
thousands, mothers and children experience mysterious illnesses, paralysis, etc. Carson used
very poetic and beautiful language in describing the environmental damage that occurred. As
a biological scientist, Carson researched the cause of it all was the use of synthetic pesticides
in the early days of the green revolution on agricultural land. This is because pesticides not
only kill crop pests but also kill birds, butterflies, bees and other insects that help pollinate
plants. The trail of pesticides through the food chain explains many of the environmental
degradation conditions that exist. For example, spraying pesticides not only destroys insects
but also their main enemies, birds, so that when there is an explosion in the insect population
the number of bird populations is no longer balanced to become their natural predators
(Radfords, 2011).
Rachel Carson's Silent Springs raised the awareness of the general public and
policymakers to be careful with technology. The book also opened the door for other
environmental studies that led to the conclusion that industrialization and the green revolution
must be addressed with extra care because otherwise it will endanger humans themselves and
be fatal for all living things on earth.
Ten years later, in 1972, a book written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,
Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III entitled The Limits to Growth appeared. This
book was actually a result of research conducted by a group of experts mentioned above under
the auspices of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with sponsorship from The
Club of Rome. In the book, five main components of life are used to explain the condition of
the earth and its carrying capacity, namely: world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and depletion of natural resources. Based on these five main components, it is
concluded that: first, if the current growth trend continues, human civilization will lead to an
overshoot condition, which is beyond the limit of growth that can be accommodated by the
earth. The limited carrying capacity of the earth to support the life of living things must be
seriously considered because otherwise it will cause a civilization disaster. Second, if humans
realize the conditions in point one above and then make efforts to change the trend of
economic growth, it is possible to achieve ecological stability and conditions that are more
sustainable. In other words, if humans want life on earth to be well preserved then humans
must maintain their own sustainability wisely. If this second point is realized and accepted,
efforts towards change can be made more quickly so that the chances of success become
greater (Meadows, 1972).
The emergence of the aforementioned works shows that since that time there has
actually begun to emerge a collective awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability. Since then, the assumption of modern society that nature is something that can
be changed according to human will and needs has begun to be questioned because it has
proven to cause many problems.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
process of awareness that has been formed as described above. The concept of sustainable
development is a new perspective in seeing what and how development is. This perspective
arises from anxiety over what humans have done to nature to achieve progress as an ideal of
development. Various forms of human exploitation of natural resources have led to over-
explotation conditions that cause nature to be unable to recover in order to restore its carrying
capacity. This condition, if allowed to continue, will cause the ecosystem to become
unbalanced and can lead to the emergence of various disasters that endanger humanity.
The concept of sustainable development clearly began to emerge in the 1980s as an
attempt to find a compromise between development and environmental sustainability. There
are many definitions of sustainable development, but the most commonly used definition is
that of The Brundland Commission, which defines sustainable development as a process of
change in which the exploitation of natural resources, investment, use of technology and
changes in institutions are consistent with the needs of future generations as well as the needs
of current generations (WCED, 1987).
Based on the definition above, sustainable development is actually an effort to adjust to
the various problems that arise from the adoption of the concept of modernity in development.
Sustainable development goals are then defined as "a universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity". The SDGs agenda
until 2030 adopted by various UN member states is to prepare a blueprint for achieving
conditions of peace and prosperity for humans and the planet, both now and in the future. This
is then contained in the 17 main programs of SGDs (Gigliotti et al., 2018). This statement also
emphasizes that in the idea of the SDGs, efforts to protect the planet cannot be separated from
the interest of creating prosperity and peace, and eliminating poverty. This is interesting
because it then shows that the spirit of the SDGs idea still cannot be separated from the roots
of modernity's ideas of progress and prosperity, even though it is done by trying to create a
balance between the interests of humans and the earth as an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, efforts to create this balance are often co-opted by narrow interests that
endanger humanity in the long run. The practice of this concept also triggers a lot of debate
because then it will depend on which side is to be emphasized, whether economic or
environmental considerations, which in reality these two things are difficult to compromise.
So it is not surprising that in the end there are still often found various exploitative and
environmentally unfriendly policies. This will ultimately lead to the question of what value
orientation actually underlies various policy choices or human actions. What is considered
valuable, and who is the subject of judgment? This question will then lead us to the debate
about anthropocentrism and ecocentrism with various variants that arise in it.
Environmental Management Ideologies: The Anthropocentrism - Ecocentrism Debate
Discussions about the ideology of environmental management will always grow with
the value orientation adopted in that context. This will eventually lead to the classic debate
between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
Starting from the idea of Rene Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think then I exist, then
the existence or absence of humans is then measured from a thinking process. Starting from
this phase, a paradigm shift occurred. Ratio occupies a very important position in determining
human relationships with various things outside themselves, including human relationships
with nature. This new paradigm builds optimism by placing humans as the main axis. This
condition brings The consequence is the belief that nature is no longer the determinant with its
absolute nature, but nature can be changed by humans through various technological
developments that are created. The acceptance of this paradigm then brings consequences to
the function of everything that is outside of humans as a resource or object. This is where the
idea of anthropocentrism comes from.
Anthropocentrism as a school bases its argumentation on the belief that humans are the
rulers and determinants of reality who will determine what becomes and happens to them.
Therefore, everything outside humans will be treated as objects that function to fulfill their
needs (Kuntowijoyo, 1998).
In the context of environmental management, the idea of anthropocentrism manifests in
the form of beliefs that put humans at the center of the universe system. Anthropocentrism as
a paradigm in environmental management is based on the assumption that humans are the
center of the universe system. Humans with their various interests are the most decisive
parties in the ecosystem order and policy making related to nature management. This is due to
the belief that only humans have value, so that everything in this universe will only be
valuable to the extent that it supports human interests. Nature only has value to the extent that
its existence is able to provide benefits to humans, so that in nature itself there is no value
(Keraf, 2005).
This anthropocentric perspective has led to a one-sided relationship dominated by
humans. This then has consequences in the form of a resource management model that tends
to be exploitative and only profit-oriented.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism takes the opposite position. Ecocentrism
places all subjects in the universe (both biotic and abiotic) as the things that are have value
because they will be bound together in an ecosystem.
Ecocentrism in environmental ethics theory is a continuation of biocentrism. If
biocentrism only places the biotic community as the subject of value, then ecocentrism goes
further by placing the entire ecological community (biotic and abiotic) as the subject of value.
Although different, these two concepts have something in common in terms of breaking down
anthropocentrism thinking by expanding the scope of value to not only apply to humans
(Keraf, 2005).
In this research, the idea of biocentrism will not be debated. The researcher will focus
on the ideas of ecocentrism and anthropocentrism only to show the conditions of difference at
the paradigmatic level in total.
Ecocentrism believes that nature is not merely instrumental, that is, as a means of
fulfilling human needs, but rather nature has intrinsic value. All ecological communities have
intrinsic value regardless of whether or not they can benefit humanity. However, what is
certain is that there will always be interrelationships between one another (biotic and abiotic)
in a web of life or ecosystem (Capra, 2002). Therefore, ecocentrism does not speak with the
logic of profit and loss as anthropocentrism, but rather an effort to create a balance between
all components in the ecological community (Cobb, 1972). This is as described by Arne
Naess in Deep Ecology, that humans are not a single subject that is the center of life, but all
elements in the ecosystem are inseparable and need each other. Therefore, wisdom is needed
in managing these relationships so that a systemic synergy will be formed.
Rethinking the Theoretical Position of Sustainable Development
Based on the theoretical explanation of environmental ethics above, it can be examined
more deeply regarding where the real environmental ethics are theoretical position of
sustainable development. As explained above, the emergence of sustainable development
cannot be separated from the various environmental problems that arise from the adoption of
the concept of modernity in development. The logic of modernity that believes that humans
are able to achieve economic progress through the utilization of natural resources has led to
conditions of resource exploitation. This is because nature is a means for humans to achieve
their desired goals. Humans in this perspective are the measure of value. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the concept of modernity is based on anthropocentrism.
What about sustainable development? Is this idea based on the value orientation of
ecocentrism? To answer this, we will explain what sustainable development is.
The concept of sustainable development was popularized in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development through its report entitled Our Common
Future. The commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, presented a long-term
environmental strategy to lead to conditions for achieving sustainable development starting in
the year 2000. In addition, the commission also identified the relationship between people,
resources, environment and development that can be integrated into national and international
policies. Referring to the definition of sustainable development mentioned in the previous
section that sustainable development is a process that seeks to balance attention to the needs
of present and future generations for all forms of utilization and exploitation of natural
resources, investment, use of technology and institutional changes, this concept implicitly
tries to bring environmental management conditions to be more ecocentric. However, what
needs to be observed is that the compromise mechanism used by sustainable development,
namely by balancing economic interests and environmental sustainability, often falls on the
issue of sustainable development practical. There are many debates and differences in
applying this concept, depending on which side one wants to emphasize, whether economic or
environmental considerations. In practice, these two things can almost never compromise.
What happens is that some of the environmental sustainability indicators that are created tend
to be packaged solely for economic needs.
Based on the process of its emergence, the initial logic built by sustainable development
is clearly not separated from modernist logic, so it is not surprising that the mechanisms
offered by sustainable development tend to be technocentric. This can be seen for example in
efforts to redesign markets and production processes to be adjusted to the logic of the
operation of nature. In addition, sustainable development also uses market mechanisms and
capital accumulation to predict the condition of nature in the future. The stability of the
capital stock of nature is the main condition for the achievement of sustainable conditions
(Banerjee, 1999). Banerjee's criticism clearly shows that the orientation of sustainable
development has not actually shifted from the starting point of anthropocentrism. Similarly,
Bruce Mitchell, et al. point out that a commonly quoted statement from the Bruntland
Commission is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However,
there is a statement that is rarely quoted, which is that sustainable development has two key
concepts. The two key concepts are (1) needs, especially the needs of the poor in developing
countries; (2) the limitations of technology and social organization with regard to the capacity
of the environment to meet the needs of present and future generations (Mitchell, 2000).
Therefore, the idea of sustainable development is still based on the anthropocentric concept,
which makes humans the central theme. So it is not surprising that the implementation of this
concept still faithfully uses cost-benefit calculations which often fall into mere calculations on
real values. This can be found in various environmental management policies, such as in the
case of licenses forest management and conversion, mining, industrial establishment, etc.
The cost-benefit calculation mechanism is the basis for all public policies taken. All
factors are included and then calculated in a mathematical calculation to then add up which
ones are able to provide the greatest benefits and minimal risk of impact. In various policy
studies, it is concluded that through the cost-benefit calculation mechanism, relative
advantages can be obtained, especially in the economic context. This is certainly a breath of
fresh air for countries that are pursuing economic growth, but it becomes a catastrophe when
viewed from the aspect of sustainability and environmental preservation. This is due to the
tendency of calculations that only lead to calculations of real values and ignore normative
values. This is actually the biggest challenge in the application of the concept of sustainable
development.
The Dilemma of Sustainable Development: Reluctance to Abandon Utilitarian
Calculations
If traced further, the cost-benefit calculation mechanism cannot be separated from one
of the ethical schools in philosophy, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is better known as a
form of moral and political philosophy based on the idea that morally right actions or policies
are those that produce the greatest happiness for citizens. At least, this is the definition given
by traditional utilitarianism about utility, which is known by the slogan greatest happiness of
the greatest number (Mulgan, 2007).
As a moral and political philosophy, utilitarianism faces many challenges related to its
efforts to fight for utility. This is due to the limited resources available to create conditions for
maximizing utility for every citizen. In addition, there are also various preferences of each
person that may conflict with each other in the effort to maximize utility.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism as a moral and political philosophy retains its appeal. These
attractions are (Kymlicka, 2004);
The first appeal is that the goals promoted by utilitarianism are independent of
metaphysical entities (e.g. God, soul, consciousness, etc.).
The second appeal is that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. This understanding
emphasizes on each individual to assess actions or policies based on the consequences
or consequences arising from the choice of certain actions or policies. The
consequentialist understanding also emphasizes that an action or policy can be said to
be morally good when it is able to make human life (citizens) good, and vice versa it
can be said to be morally wrong when it makes human life worse.
The aforementioned notion of utilitarianism is intuitively appealing because human
welfare is paramount and therefore all rules should be tested based on their effects on human
welfare. However, in reality the definition of utility itself is something that is debated, there
are at least four definitions of utility according to (Kymlicka, 2004), namely:
Welfare hedonism
The welfare hedonism perspective defines utility as the experience or sensation of pleasure.
According to this viewpoint, humans will basically always strive to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This is an empirical human need that will always be calculated quantitatively.
Non-hedonistic mental state expediency
The second definition of utility is the usefulness of non-hedonistic mental states. The
perspective that emerges in this second definition rejects if utility is only attached to pleasant
(hedonistic) experiences or sensations. This is because all forms of experiences or sensations
experienced by a person are not hedonistic. Human beings are something of value that cannot
be reduced to a single mental state such as happiness.
Preference satisfaction
The third definition of utility is preference satisfaction. According to this viewpoint,
increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences whatever those preferences are.
This definition has been criticized for blurring the distinction between what a person currently
prefers and what is valuable to have or do. What is good or valuable to a person may be
different from what he currently wants or prefers. In this context, having a desire or
preference does not make something valuable, but because a certain thing (object) has value, a
person has a preference for it.
Knowledgeable preference
The fourth definition of utility is knowledgeable preference. This definition appears to
complement the shortcomings in the definition of utility in point 3 above. According to this
viewpoint, utility should be interpreted as preference satisfaction that is based on complete
information and correct (rational) considerations.
Apart from the various debates that arise among utilitarians in defining what utility is,
there is actually one common thread that can be drawn between these various points of view,
namely that an appropriate action or policy according to utilitarianism is one that aims to
maximize utility. The mechanism of utility maximization can be carried out through two
models, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In the first model, act utilitarianism, utilitarianism is placed as a comprehensive moral
doctrine where each individual is a U-agent who will always perform utilitarian calculations
consciously in every action. This is done by assessing which actions are considered to be
more satisfying their preferences. However, this utilitarian model has received a lot of
criticism. There are at least two main criticisms that arise with utilitarianism mechanisms
direct, i.e., this model negates the existence of special obligations towards certain people and
the possibility of unauthorized preferences to be counted as utilities (Kymlicka, 2004) cf.
(Mulgan, 2007).
The second mechanism is rule utilitarianism which emphasizes political utilitarianism.
In this model, it is very possible that an action taken by an individual is carried out by not
following the utilitarian mechanism directly, but the goal of maximizing utility remains the
main goal. In this context utilitarianism is understood as a standard of moral truth rather than
a decision procedure so that the correct action is the one that maximizes utility, but that does
not mean that it must deliberately try to maximize utility. Rule utilitarianism or often called
indirect utilitarianism teaches that the principle of utility should only be used by social
institutions and governments to ensure utility maximization, namely the realization of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Kymlicka, 2004) cf. (Mulgan, 2007).
Rawls calls this rule utilitarianism teleological utilitarianism. This perspective places utility
maximization as the telos to aim for and does not focus on the idea of egalitarianism as
believed in act utilitarianism. This perspective emphasizes efforts to make things better and
does not focus on the principle of treating people equally (egalitarian). This is because
humans are only one part of the utility maximization network. Therefore, the center of
attention is still placed on the state of goodness (telos), which in this context is utility
maximization.
In relation to the theme of this research, the dilemma of the concept of sustainable
development is actually rooted in the issue of what is interpreted as utility, so that it must be
maintained. This will ultimately come down to two main points of view, namely whether
utility is interpreted in terms of long-term environmental sustainability or utility is interpreted
in terms of short-term economic growth. If utility is interpreted as a condition In the long
term, the practical implication is that prudence and non-exploitative principles will be used in
resource management. Orientation is no longer directed towards economic growth but rather
ecosystem balance. The choice of this orientation also requires a willingness to control the
various desires of massive human consumption. On the other hand, if utility is only
interpreted as usefulness within the framework of economic growth, then various choices of
actions and policies will ultimately boil down to the interests of satisfying human
consumption desires and pursuing economic growth targets alone. This second choice of
orientation may be wrapped in mechanisms that seem to be pro-environmental sustainability,
but usually it only stops at the level of mere formality, without touching the essence of the
real problem. An example is the mandatory AMDAL study before a certain industry will be
built in a certain area. The role of AMDAL should be used as a control mechanism for various
industries that are worth developing or not. But so far, the existence of AMDAL has only
been interpreted as a formal business license without any clear and continuous evaluation and
control mechanism. Such weaknesses also occur in many other environmental management
sectors such as forestry, plantations and mining. This indicates that sustainable development,
which is echoed in practice, is then limited to a slogan because of the dominant calculation of
benefits in the short term by various related parties. It cannot be denied that this condition
involves many actors, both at the local, national, regional and global levels. The strong
interests of the capitalists as the owners of capital have caused the concept of sustainable
development to be trapped in mere technical matters (technocentrism) and giddy to firmly
take sides in efforts to emphasize environmental sustainability as the value of the benefits to
be addressed.
Postmodernism and Environmental Management
Entering the post-modern era, there have been several attempts to question the meaning
of development. This was done by questioning the grand narratives related to the myth of
development and even by rejecting modernism. In this context, the meaning of development
as economic growth began to be questioned, because the meaning of development itself is
something that can still be debated.
The term postmodernism itself was originally directed at a series of philosophical
stances and aesthetic styles that had developed since the 1950s. In the postmodernist
viewpoint behind everything is the belief that all human knowledge is limited and culturally
conditioned. Therefore, each age thinks in a certain way that humanity cannot do anything
about. Consequently, there is no way to stand outside the discourse to obtain pure truth
(O'Donnell, 2003).
Many negative views are directed at postmodernism because it is considered to be post-
structuralist which is generally neo- Nietzschean. This results in the equation of post-
structuralists as deconstructionists only. In reality, post-modernism consists of a variety of
ideas, which when categorized simply will lead to two groups, namely deconstructive
postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, and Rorty) and constructive or revisionist
postmodernism (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Mary Hesse (hermeneutical tradition), David
R. Griffin, Frederic Ferre, D. Bohm (Whiteheadian process studies), Fritjof Capra, J.
Lovelock, Gary Yukav, I. Prigogine (holistic physics tradition) (Sugiharto, 1996).
In relation to the explanation above, the response to modernism and environmental
problems can also be included in two stages of analysis. In the context of deconstructive
postmodernism, modernism with its spirit of materialism and consumerism has caused
environmental damage and depleted the spirit and values of society. Modernism, which is
closely linked to capitalism, has caused tremendous ecological degradation. It is therefore
appropriate that the definition of development as economic growth should be reviewed.
Development Not only is there a shift from traditional society to modern society, but in this
development there is also a shift in mindset, behavior patterns and lifestyle.
The above is the condition on one side. Meanwhile, on the other side, the development
process has also led to an increase in the power of production, especially the owners of
capital. Whether we realize it or not, the development process that has been running so far
with a modernist prototype has been too one-sided and dominantly benefits the owners of
capital. With such a development model, justice for all citizens will be difficult to achieve.
This is because the main orientation in modernism is concentrated on the subject/self rather
than the community. It is not surprising that the increase in economic growth will not
necessarily be in line with the increase in welfare and the realization of economic justice in
society. This happens because the distribution of welfare is still mostly centered around the
owners of capital.
However, if seen from the perspective of constructionist post-modernism, mechanisms
will be found to anticipate various problems arising from modernism, including in this case
the problem of environmental damage. The emergence of sustainable development in this
context is a real form of the face of constructionist postmodernism. What is done by
sustainable development does begin by dismantling some aspects of the depiction in the
modern world, one of which is shown by the dominance of environmental sustainability
issues, but in the end this concept still maintains various aspects of modernity itself and then
seeks to construct a new world picture. A depiction of the ideal conditions of economic and
environmental relations so that the hope that conditions towards sustainability will be
realized. But unfortunately, the hope towards this ideal condition seems to be far from
expectations. Political reality shows that the dominance of the economy over environmental
issues is increasingly expanding with the increasingly strong position of capital owners. As
long as this condition has not changed, environmental considerations are still will remain in
the gray area and the hope for sustainability will remain a mere discourse.
Conclusion
The globalization of environmental issues has put this issue in a very strategic position.
This is because in every environmental issue there will always be links with various interests,
ranging from economic, political, ecological, and even ethical interests. So it is not surprising
that in an environmental issue there are always complications as a result of overlapping
interests that arise and want to be adopted.
The emergence of the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the
idea of modernity. Modernity with a basic foundation of rationality has led humans to an
anthropocentric mindset in resource management. This condition implies a significant
degradation of environmental quality. If allowed to continue, it will endanger civilization.
Facing the various problems mentioned above, sustainable development with its
postmodernist-constructionist style tries to offer a new discourse on development. The
prescriptions offered by sustainable development are expected to be able to bring about a
more ideal condition in the relationship between humans and nature, because in the
exploitation of resources carried out by the current generation must take into account the
needs of future generations.
However, it must be recognized that the optimism brought by sustainable development
has not yet brought changes to the paradigmatic level of environmental management. In fact,
in practice, it is not uncommon to find that the substance of the policy is still struggling in the
domain of anthropocentrism, as seen when a public policy is still very oriented towards cost-
benefit calculations, which in the end always calculates benefits only within the framework of
real values (cash value). This condition then raises a dilemma in the application of the
concept of sustainable development. The spirit of sustainable Development, which from the
beginning wanted to bring conditions towards sustainability, is then questioned again, because
at what point will the sustainability be highlighted. Environmental sustainability with its
carrying capacity or economic sustainability within the larger framework of development.
This is what then makes sustainable development still open to debate because in the end
everything will be proven in practice. And so far it seems that the tug of war between
economic and environmental interests is still won by economic interests. Of course this can
happen because of the strong role of the authorities and capital owners in determining the
management model of various existing resources. If this condition continues, the hope that
sustainable development can bring value orientation closer to ecocentric will only be an
empty hope.
