Claudia J. Ford

In this article, we advocate for a particular form of environmental radicalism that realizes a revolution in ways of thinking, knowing, and acting in human relationships with ourselves, with others—in multiple senses of the that term—and with the earth. In this endeavor, we join many environmental researchers and activists in calling for a fundamental shift in the terms and enactment of the human relationship to the planet and its natural systems. However, we are convinced that to be successful in halting and remediating our present destructive environmental conditions, environmental radicalism must also incorporate a significant, nontrivial paradigmatic shift in human self-development, in human social structures, and in our epistemological foundations for these structures. In this regard, we understand environmental radicalism as both theory and action, equally philosophy and practice. We begin by identifying environmental radicalism as a species of both philosophy and action within the genus of radicalism and with a direct, specific relationship to the idea of revolution. To be an environmental radical within our usage, one must advocate for a revolution in relationships between humans and our environments, both at the level of thought and behavior. We further explain our concept of revolution throughout this article. Elsewhere we have written about the necessity for redefining revolution, “not as destruction but as the necessary collapse, reorganization, and creation cycle, foundational to the overall resilience of social ecological systems.” Perhaps more substantively, we hold that such a revolution must understand that our need for radicalism comes from the existence of a white supremacist system of intranational and international power, devastation, and destruction. Thus, to be an environmental radical one must also advocate for a revolt against white supremacy, which will allow opportunity for the needed changes in human interactions with natural systems.

As currently understood and practiced, global development and climate justice appear irreconcilable. In fact, global development has been and remains a key driver of climate inequalities. We hold that this is not an accident, but instead is a result of global development being established within worldwide systems of oppression. We define global development as setting the goals for, and the processes for achieving, what constitutes a good life for all communities, and taking the steps needed to reach those goals. This article provides an outline of how the theories of two moral and political philosophers – Achille Mbembe and Charles Mills – point us in the direction of an ethical framework for the relationship of humans to each other and to the natural world. We examine two contexts that should motivate development practitioners to move from the current development regime toward the direction of a transformational ethical framework built off the work of these philosophers: (i) the perpetual failure of global development practice to foster a humane approach to migration; and (ii) the inability of global development solutions, like SDGs and leapfrogging, to stray from the very problems they are intended to address.

As currently understood and practiced, global development and climate justice appear irreconcilable. In fact, global development has been and remains a key driver of climate inequalities. We hold that this is not an accident, but instead is a result of global development being established within worldwide systems of oppression. We define global development as setting the goals for, and the processes for achieving, what constitutes a good life for all communities, and taking the steps needed to reach those goals. This article provides an outline of how the theories of two moral and political philosophers – Achille Mbembe and Charles Mills – point us in the direction of an ethical framework for the relationship of humans to each other and to the natural world. We examine two contexts that should motivate development practitioners to move from the current development regime toward the direction of a transformational ethical framework built off the work of these philosophers: (i) the perpetual failure of global development practice to foster a humane approach to migration; and (ii) the inability of global development solutions, like SDGs and leapfrogging, to stray from the very problems they are intended to address.