Book Review: Satterfield, Anatomy of a Conflict

Terre Satterfield.
Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge, and Emotion in Old-Growth Forests.
University of British Columbia Press/Michigan State University Press, 2002, 208 pp.
$24.95 paper (0-7748-0893-4) $85.00 hardcover (0-7748-0892-6)

This relatively short book is about the conflict over the old growth forest of the Pacific Northwest, namely, the forests of Oregon. It is a conflict between environmentalists (many, middle-class urbanites) and logging community members (working class, rural residents). Some of the supporting cast (whether actively involved, or invoked in discourse) include Aboriginals, scientists, policy makers, and politicians.

While superficially, much of the debate over old growth forests is focussed on science and economics, Satterfield’s ethnographic account of the debate suggests that the core of the conflict is about culture and identity. The main organizational actors are: the Oregon Forest Community Coalition (a pseudonym for loggers and timber-dependent communities generally), the Ancient Forest Grassroots Alliance (a pseudonym for environmentalists), the Forest Community Movement (a pseudonym for organized loggers and residents of timber communities) and the Ancient Forest Movement (a pseudonym for grassroots environmentalists).

The central questions that guide the analysis contained in this book, as outlined in the introductory chapter, are:

“(1) In what sense can we be talking about a cultural battle when the terms of the debate appear to be driven solely by different legal, scientific, and land-management disputes? And (2) How do competing activists (loggers and environmentalists) operate as cultural producers who reflect and contest these formal terms of the debate.” (p. 10)

Chapter 2 — “The Cycle of History: Public Lands, Forest Health, and Activist Histories in the American West” — compares contemporary definitions of old growth forests with historical accounts, and provides a history of public land policy and conservation ethics.

Chapter 3 — “Disturbances in the Field and the Defining of Social Movements” — provides an ethnographic description of the Ancient Forest Movement, and the Forest Community Movement. Both groups (environmentalists, loggers) express strong connections to the forests, and concerns for nature. However, these expression take divergent forms. Loggers talk about their appreciation of regenerating forests, and their pleasure to be able to work in the woods. Environmentalists are connected to the forests through spirituality, aesthetics, and an appreciation of the intricate complexities of nature. In this chapter, Satterfield also provides some reflections on the strains of her role as an ethnographer moving back and forth between the two parties, and on the tensions between her own beliefs and those of her informants.

Chapter 4 — “Negotiating Agency and the Quest for Grassroots Legitimacy” — deals with how the competing parties construct their own, and their opponents’ identities. Timber community members stress their stigmatization, and their role as victims. Environmentalists portray loggers as pawns of the forest industry, and describe timber communities as dysfunctional. Both groups make claims as authentic grassroots movements.

In the eye of the storm over old growth forests is science. In chapter 5 — “Voodoo Science and Common Sense” — Satterfield explores how the parties to the dispute rely upon and endorse differing conceptions of science. As she notes, “loggers prefer an applied science based upon common-sense empiricism of the ‘seeing-is-believing’ variety, while environmentalists prefer abstract science and the beauty associated with complexity and holistic systems.” (p. 12) In discussing the ambivalence of environmentalists toward science, Satterfield draws on the work of Steven Yearley.

Chapter 6 — “Theorizing Culture: Defining the Past and Imagining the Possible” — examines the ways in which the parties try to establish claims to authenticity and legitimacy, in part, by making parallels between themselves and Aboriginal peoples. Indeed, Satterfield spends some time considering conceptions about Aboriginal peoples. I can’t help but wonder whether this is an impulse to delve into the traditional subject matter of anthropology, or whether cognitive framing about Aboriginals is truly central to the dispute over ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest.

Chapter 7 — “Irrational Actors: Emotions, Ethics, and the Ecocentred Self” — explores how the actors deal with emotion in the context of the forest dispute. As Satterfield observes, both groups must contend with criticisms about their excessive emotionality. However, the two parties take different tacks regarding this issue; loggers try to disassociate themselves from expressions of emotion, while environmentalists appear more comfortable in drawing upon emotion (e.g. emotional language) as part of their repertoire of action.

The final chapter — “A Concluding Discussion: The Triangular Shape of Cultural Production” — examines theoretical and methodological issues pertaining to understanding cultural production, and also considers some policy implications that can be derived from this study.

The author returns to the central theme of understanding environmental conflict as cultural conflict, and notes that the construction of identities is central to understanding this particular cultural conflict. Satterfield nicely summarizes the relative identities and cultural perspectives of the contending parties as follows:

... loggers see themselves as members of historically rooted land-based communities whose experiential knowledge is sound and wise but who have nonetheless been cast unfairly as violent antagonists and treated without respect, despite their wood-producing contributions to society. Conversely, many ancient-forest activists lean towards, and derive insight from cultural arrangements that they imagine as resembling Aboriginal practices. They are wary of, though they also endorse, a science that stands metaphorically for nature as mystical, complex, enchanting, and vulnerable to disruption (Yearley 1993); and some are creatively resistant to emotional norms that interfere with a deeper bond between the human and biotic worlds. (pp. 160-161)

As the social scientific study of natural resource problems has tended to be dominated by economists, Satterfield’s focus on cultural production, and in particular on the importance of identity construction for understanding the conflict, is welcome.

In the context of discussing policy implications, Satterfield examines stake-holder value-elicitation processes. She rightly (in my view) criticizes the rational, economic valuation approach that is often applied to stakeholder processes. As she states,“the economistic model contradicts the fact that much of what stakeholder loggers and environmentalists have to say concerns moral and ethical meaning and not economics per se” (p. 170). While it is not exactly a weakness of the book, I think much more could be said about policy and public participation in forest management decision making than Satterfield provides. Hopefully she will expand upon this work in the future to focus more squarely on policy.

Also, in the final chapter she makes the important criticism that ethnographers of environmental and land-labouring communities have generally failed to deal with the position of more than one party simultaneously, except when such parties are explicitly linked through hierarchical relations. This is largely true of the social movements literature, despite the fact that several of the dominant theoretical perspectives (resource mobilization, political process theory) are oriented specifically to understanding the relations between contending groups. By focussing on the dialogue and interactions between two subordinate groups, Satterfield has made a substantial scholarly contribution.

On a minor note, Satterfield, as an ethnographer, undertakes the seemingly obligatory dismissal of quantitative survey research, and lauds the superiority of ethnography. Of course, these different approaches tend to be used to study different types of research questions, and often rest on different initial understandings of a given problem. Ethnographical interview research tends to be stronger in terms of validity while surveys tend to give researchers more power to make generalizations; and I think it is probably more useful to think of ways in which these two methods can complement one another, than to dismiss alternative approaches.

In general, this is an excellent work, and is essential reading for those engaged in the sociology of natural resources (a term contested by some), and perhaps for environmental sociologists more broadly. As someone who has a cross-appointment in a Faculty of Forestry, I think this should be required reading for students of forestry. However, I think it should also have broader appeal beyond the academy, to those citizens who are interested in the conflict over old-growth forests.

Satterfield draws upon a wide range of theoretical sources including social movement theory (of various stripes), identity theory, natural resource sociology, ethnography, science studies, discourse analysis, symbolic interactionism, and environmental thought. This book is indeed very theoretically and conceptually rich compared to much work in this genre.

As someone who studies the forest conflict in British Columbia, I see many parallels between Satterfield’s depictions of the dispute in Oregon, and what I have observed in British Columbia. This suggests that some comparative research might be in order. One of the themes that seems most similar to some of my own observations is that both parties superficially agree about the central issues (e.g., the importance of basing land use planning on science) but then disagree about the meaning of the concepts (environmentalists and forest workers conceptualize science differently, or at least emphasize different aspects of science). In my own experience, different conceptualizations (or constructions) also occur regarding the role of Aboriginals in ecosystem management, the role of parks, the effects of clearcutting, and understandings of nature, to name but a few.

There are many elements to this conflict that could have been focussed upon. Satterfield has made a conscious decision to focus on “subordinate groups”. Questions arise in my mind about the role of corporations, especially their relationship to “grassroots movements” like the Wise-use movement. Similarly, one could consider the relationships of external actors (e.g., private foundations) to the environmental movement, and their influence upon “grassroots environmental organizations”. This is not so much meant as a criticism — the author can’t be expected to study everything — but rather, is suggested as a topic that could receive further study in any future anatomy of this conflict.

D.B. Tindall
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
Department of Forest Resources Management
University of British Columbia
tindall@interchange.ubc.ca

D.B. Tindall is currently working on a set of interrelated research projects which examine values, attitudes, social networks, and behaviour related to the ongoing controversy over forestry and conservation in the old growth rainforests of British Columbia. These studies focus on people in environmental organizations, forestry organizations, and the general public in resource communities and urban centres.



		Canadian Journal of Sociology Online September - October 2003 Terre Satterfield. Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge, and Emotion in Old-Growth Forests. University of British Columbia Press/Michigan State University Press, 2002, 208 pp. $24.95 paper (0-7748-0893-4) $85.00 hardcover (0-7748-0892-6) This relatively short book is about the conflict over the old growth forest of the Pacific Northwest, namely, the forests of Oregon. It is a conflict between environmentalists (many, middle-class urbanites) and logging community members (working class, rural residents). Some of the supporting cast (whether actively involved, or invoked in discourse) include Aboriginals, scientists, policy makers, and politicians. While superficially, much of the debate over old growth forests is focussed on science and economics, Satterfield’s ethnographic account of the debate suggests that the core of the conflict is about culture and identity. The main organizational actors are: the Oregon Forest Community Coalition (a pseudonym for loggers and timber-dependent communities generally), the Ancient Forest Grassroots Alliance (a pseudonym for environmentalists), the Forest Community Movement (a pseudonym for organized loggers and residents of timber communities) and the Ancient Forest Movement (a pseudonym for grassroots environmentalists). The central questions that guide the analysis contained in this book, as outlined in the introductory chapter, are: “(1) In what sense can we be talking about a cultural battle when the terms of the debate appear to be driven solely by different legal, scientific, and land-management disputes? And (2) How do competing activists (loggers and environmentalists) operate as cultural producers who reflect and contest these formal terms of the debate.” (p. 10) Chapter 2 — “The Cycle of History: Public Lands, Forest Health, and Activist Histories in the American West” — compares contemporary definitions of old growth forests with historical accounts, and provides a history of public land policy and conservation ethics. Chapter 3 — “Disturbances in the Field and the Defining of Social Movements” — provides an ethnographic description of the Ancient Forest Movement, and the Forest Community Movement. Both groups (environmentalists, loggers) express strong connections to the forests, and concerns for nature. However, these expression take divergent forms. Loggers talk about their appreciation of regenerating forests, and their pleasure to be able to work in the woods. Environmentalists are connected to the forests through spirituality, aesthetics, and an appreciation of the intricate complexities of nature. In this chapter, Satterfield also provides some reflections on the strains of her role as an ethnographer moving back and forth between the two parties, and on the tensions between her own beliefs and those of her informants. Chapter 4 — “Negotiating Agency and the Quest for Grassroots Legitimacy” — deals with how the competing parties construct their own, and their opponents’ identities. Timber community members stress their stigmatization, and their role as victims. Environmentalists portray loggers as pawns of the forest industry, and describe timber communities as dysfunctional. Both groups make claims as authentic grassroots movements. In the eye of the storm over old growth forests is science. In chapter 5 — “Voodoo Science and Common Sense” — Satterfield explores how the parties to the dispute rely upon and endorse differing conceptions of science. As she notes, “loggers prefer an applied science based upon common-sense empiricism of the ‘seeing-is-believing’ variety, while environmentalists prefer abstract science and the beauty associated with complexity and holistic systems.” (p. 12) In discussing the ambivalence of environmentalists toward science, Satterfield draws on the work of Steven Yearley. Chapter 6 — “Theorizing Culture: Defining the Past and Imagining the Possible” — examines the ways in which the parties try to establish claims to authenticity and legitimacy, in part, by making parallels between themselves and Aboriginal peoples. Indeed, Satterfield spends some time considering conceptions about Aboriginal peoples. I can’t help but wonder whether this is an impulse to delve into the traditional subject matter of anthropology, or whether cognitive framing about Aboriginals is truly central to the dispute over ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest. Chapter 7 — “Irrational Actors: Emotions, Ethics, and the Ecocentred Self” — explores how the actors deal with emotion in the context of the forest dispute. As Satterfield observes, both groups must contend with criticisms about their excessive emotionality. However, the two parties take different tacks regarding this issue; loggers try to disassociate themselves from expressions of emotion, while environmentalists appear more comfortable in drawing upon emotion (e.g. emotional language) as part of their repertoire of action. The final chapter — “A Concluding Discussion: The Triangular Shape of Cultural Production” — examines theoretical and methodological issues pertaining to understanding cultural production, and also considers some policy implications that can be derived from this study. The author returns to the central theme of understanding environmental conflict as cultural conflict, and notes that the construction of identities is central to understanding this particular cultural conflict. Satterfield nicely summarizes the relative identities and cultural perspectives of the contending parties as follows: ... loggers see themselves as members of historically rooted land-based communities whose experiential knowledge is sound and wise but who have nonetheless been cast unfairly as violent antagonists and treated without respect, despite their wood-producing contributions to society. Conversely, many ancient-forest activists lean towards, and derive insight from cultural arrangements that they imagine as resembling Aboriginal practices. They are wary of, though they also endorse, a science that stands metaphorically for nature as mystical, complex, enchanting, and vulnerable to disruption (Yearley 1993); and some are creatively resistant to emotional norms that interfere with a deeper bond between the human and biotic worlds. (pp. 160-161) As the social scientific study of natural resource problems has tended to be dominated by economists, Satterfield’s focus on cultural production, and in particular on the importance of identity construction for understanding the conflict, is welcome. In the context of discussing policy implications, Satterfield examines stake-holder value-elicitation processes. She rightly (in my view) criticizes the rational, economic valuation approach that is often applied to stakeholder processes. As she states,“the economistic model contradicts the fact that much of what stakeholder loggers and environmentalists have to say concerns moral and ethical meaning and not economics per se” (p. 170). While it is not exactly a weakness of the book, I think much more could be said about policy and public participation in forest management decision making than Satterfield provides. Hopefully she will expand upon this work in the future to focus more squarely on policy. Also, in the final chapter she makes the important criticism that ethnographers of environmental and land-labouring communities have generally failed to deal with the position of more than one party simultaneously, except when such parties are explicitly linked through hierarchical relations. This is largely true of the social movements literature, despite the fact that several of the dominant theoretical perspectives (resource mobilization, political process theory) are oriented specifically to understanding the relations between contending groups. By focussing on the dialogue and interactions between two subordinate groups, Satterfield has made a substantial scholarly contribution. On a minor note, Satterfield, as an ethnographer, undertakes the seemingly obligatory dismissal of quantitative survey research, and lauds the superiority of ethnography. Of course, these different approaches tend to be used to study different types of research questions, and often rest on different initial understandings of a given problem. Ethnographical interview research tends to be stronger in terms of validity while surveys tend to give researchers more power to make generalizations; and I think it is probably more useful to think of ways in which these two methods can complement one another, than to dismiss alternative approaches. In general, this is an excellent work, and is essential reading for those engaged in the sociology of natural resources (a term contested by some), and perhaps for environmental sociologists more broadly. As someone who has a cross-appointment in a Faculty of Forestry, I think this should be required reading for students of forestry. However, I think it should also have broader appeal beyond the academy, to those citizens who are interested in the conflict over old-growth forests. Satterfield draws upon a wide range of theoretical sources including social movement theory (of various stripes), identity theory, natural resource sociology, ethnography, science studies, discourse analysis, symbolic interactionism, and environmental thought. This book is indeed very theoretically and conceptually rich compared to much work in this genre. As someone who studies the forest conflict in British Columbia, I see many parallels between Satterfield’s depictions of the dispute in Oregon, and what I have observed in British Columbia. This suggests that some comparative research might be in order. One of the themes that seems most similar to some of my own observations is that both parties superficially agree about the central issues (e.g., the importance of basing land use planning on science) but then disagree about the meaning of the concepts (environmentalists and forest workers conceptualize science differently, or at least emphasize different aspects of science). In my own experience, different conceptualizations (or constructions) also occur regarding the role of Aboriginals in ecosystem management, the role of parks, the effects of clearcutting, and understandings of nature, to name but a few. There are many elements to this conflict that could have been focussed upon. Satterfield has made a conscious decision to focus on “subordinate groups”. Questions arise in my mind about the role of corporations, especially their relationship to “grassroots movements” like the Wise-use movement. Similarly, one could consider the relationships of external actors (e.g., private foundations) to the environmental movement, and their influence upon “grassroots environmental organizations”. This is not so much meant as a criticism — the author can’t be expected to study everything — but rather, is suggested as a topic that could receive further study in any future anatomy of this conflict. D.B. Tindall Department of Anthropology and Sociology Department of Forest Resources Management University of British Columbia tindall@interchange.ubc.ca D.B. Tindall is currently working on a set of interrelated research projects which examine values, attitudes, social networks, and behaviour related to the ongoing controversy over forestry and conservation in the old growth rainforests of British Columbia. These studies focus on people in environmental organizations, forestry organizations, and the general public in resource communities and urban centres. http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/cjscopy/reviews/oldgrowth.html September 2003 © CJS Online Click here to download PDF file < Back to Current Table of Contents