Challenges and Critiques in Environmental History: Methodological Debates

Environmental history faces three principal methodological weaknesses, influenced by questions of language, training, and scholarly inclination. First is its awkward compatibility with the nation-state as the primary unit of analysis. Most historians are socialized into national frameworks—such as historians of Japan or Mexico—a practice reinforced by publishing markets, job structures, and state-organized archives. Specializing in a global theme across time often seems impractical due to the necessity of mastering multiple languages. However, this preference fits poorly with environmental history, as natural phenomena like migrating elephants or sulphur dioxide plumes ignore political borders. Cultural trends, such as modern environmentalism, also spread transnationally. Only in policy and political environmental history does the national frame remain largely coherent, making this entrenched focus particularly problematic for the field.

A second critique is that environmental history often presents a single, repetitive ‘declensionist’ narrative of loss. In the 1970s and 1980s, many scholars produced ‘degradation narratives,’ locating a past era of ecological prudence or intact ecosystems, followed by relentless decline. Over time, however, historians have grown more nuanced, writing about environmental change rather than simple degradation. They recognize that change benefits some people and species while harming others. Inspiring stories, like reduced urban air pollution post-1965 or the Montreal Protocol banning chlorofluorocarbons, complicate the declensionist model. Furthermore, degradation narratives are now scrutinized for potentially colonialist implications, especially when they question the ecological stewardship of African or Indigenous societies, thereby undermining their sovereignty.

The third major fault is the charge of environmental determinism. Scholars remain sensitive to explanations that over-emphasize environmental or biological factors, a reaction to early 20th-century excesses and Nazi abuses of biological determinism. Works like Alfred W. Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism (1986) have been criticized for arguing that pathogens, plants, and animals were pivotal in enabling European imperialism, seemingly attributing agency to non-human forces and potentially exculpating human actors. Similarly, Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997)—often associated with the field—faces sharp criticism for explaining global inequalities through environmental factors, which some argue minimizes human agency and social structures.

These interconnected challenges highlight the field’s ongoing struggle to define its scales, narratives, and explanatory balance. Moving beyond the nation-state, avoiding simplistic declensionism, and navigating the pitfalls of determinism require environmental historians to embrace transnational frameworks, nuanced storytelling, and complex causality. This reflexive critique ultimately strengthens the discipline, ensuring it remains rigorous, ethically aware, and relevant to understanding the dynamic interplay between societies and the natural world.