Reading Questions for Week 2

Students:

Since there's not much on the Week 2 guide on the Gottlieb book, here are some questions for you to consider. At the bottom of this post are questions related to the Reader's readings.


Introduction

What are the two components Gottlieb outlines with respect to LA as a "global city"? Are these components related, in tension, or both?

Regarding "scholarship of engagement" (9), what is the hybrid model that the author outlines? How does it differ from being either a 'traditional academic' and an 'inside actor'? How has he institutionalized this at Occidental? Is something like this on UCSD, and if not, why?

What are some of the similarities Gottlieb sees between LA's history of water/rivers and freeways? (10-12)

What does "culture of nature" mean? What idea of nature did the Sierra Club have, and what alternative visions are there?

What is the author's idea about "reinvention"? How does reinvention relate to our class themes of globalization, sustainability, and urban planning?

Chapter 1

I know this may be getting abstract, but take some time to think about the meaning of "nature." Try to get your head around Gottlieb's point that environmental groups--whether the Sierra Club or urban environmental justice groups--have often divided society or humans from nature. Yet he's arguing for something different, to see past that divide. By so doing, he questions the very concept of what is "natural." Are cities natural? They are from this second perspective. What are the potential effects of thinking about cities are natural places?



Why does the author suggest that a politics that divides nature from humans/society is doomed to never protect our environment?
Hint: (23) How have government and industry groups co-opted the use of environmental discourse to justify their projects? How do even academic concepts like 'footprints' use this divide?

In what ways does political ecology respond to these earlier ideas that separated society and nature? What does it mean to integrate "non-humans" into politics?

What trends in recent history does Gottlieb suggest affected our ideas about nature as separate from cities? How is rethinking the relationship between cities and nature crucial to "reinventing Los Angeles" [and really, all cities]?
Hint: think about capitalism and the market, industrialization, urbanization, etc.

Skim through his history of LA--but keep an eye out for the differences and similarities he sees in all of LA's urban zones [wealthy edge suburbs, inner suburbs, and the urban core] with respect to the environment.

How have environmental groups from different racial and class backgrounds converged over the shared desire to remake the core of LA? (34-5)

Skim 36-49

Again, try to wrap your head around the perspective that there IS NO SUCH THING AS A NATURAL DISASTER! All so-called natural events are always thoroughly social and involve human activity, whether LA earthquakes or hurricane Katrina.

Last, how does a political ecology perspective inform ideas such as Livability and Livelihood? How are these more durable and politically-meaningful representations than nostalgia and health-related relationships to nature?



Gleeson and Low

SKIM until p18--but focus especially on their treatment of neo-liberalism. What is this ideology? What does it have to say about globalization?

**Try to make linkages among the readings: how does their argument about Environmental Distribution connect to Gottlieb's argument about outdated views of nature & society?
Hint: think of their example of Laura Pulido's work--how can certain forms of environmentalism actually INCREASE ecological disparities? How is first-third world environmental relations a form of globalization?

What SCALE of politics do the authors suggest is necessary to deal with contemporary economic/environmental risks? Hint, look at the mentions of Beck's work and the very real trade in toxic and other wastes.

How do the authors argue that capitalism itself is among the "deeper causes of unsustainability"? What is their point about how the increasing urbanization of the world's population requires a fundamentally different approach to environmental politics? (21-2)



PEZZOLI, HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Please--SKIM this book--and use the very helpful and succinct questions put forth by Professor Pezzoli to help you focus on the key passages you need from his book.

And of course use the pictures to help get a sense of what's going on!


GRIMM ET AL
**Strive to make connections among your readings: how is the "urban ecology" perspective in this article in harmony with the political ecology approach advocated by Gottlieb?

For example, how can we think about cities AS ecosystems? What are some examples?

How are cities "microcosms" of larger scale changes occurring now? What are some examples?
[hint--fragmentation & edges]

REES AND WACKERNAGEL

How is industrialization linked to urbanization?

Know the following terms: ecological footprint, carrying capacity, load, overshoot, sustainability gap

How is consumption and density, rather than population alone, key factors in determining the Earth's human load? What does this suggest about how we might "reinvent" our cities?

But don't forget the very important critique offered by Gottlieb of the footprint concept. How does it continue to posit humans/cities/society as outside of or apart from nature/the environment?