
Brian Doherty
Brian Doherty is a Professor of Political Sociology at Keele University in the UK.
Address: Politics
Keele University
Address: Politics
Keele University
less
Related Authors
Olga Onuch
The University of Manchester
Benjamin Isakhan
Deakin University
Remo Caponi
University of Cologne
Caroline J . Tully
University of Melbourne
Morten Tønnessen
University of Stavanger
Marlene Laruelle
The George Washington University
Mischa Gabowitsch
University of Mainz
Volodymyr Ishchenko
Freie Universität Berlin
Cosmin Sebastian Cercel
Ghent University
Mario Arnaud
UFPA - Federal University of Pará
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Papers by Brian Doherty
XR’s strength has been to create a new public agency amongst people who are not ‘natural’ protesters, and perhaps even less so natural law-breakers, but who were already persuaded of the rightness of the climate cause, and frustrated with the inability of both ‘politics as usual’ and lifestyle environmentalism to bring about the kind of transformative political change that the climate emergency demands. Mobilising this group enabled XR to significantly expand the numbers of people willing to engage in environmental direct action, broadening its age profile, and bringing non-violent direct action on climate change into the centre of political life in the UK.
The report comes with an Afterword from Sian Vaughan, a first-time Extinction Rebellion activist.
between the Environment Agency and special interest groups, a term used here to
describe non-governmental non-profit-making groups with a special interest in areas or
issues in which the Environment Agency is involved. The report is aimed primarily at staff
who work with special interest groups at the local or national level.
A statutory objective of the Environment Agency is to develop close and responsive
relationships with stakeholders. Much communication and contact with non-institutional
stakeholders is with special interest groups. When relationships with these groups become
polarised, interactions can absorb significant resources and cause considerable stress to
staff. This report therefore seeks to understand the characteristics and roles of special
interest groups and their relationships with the wider community and to identify principles
and practices that will enable staff to engage with them more effectively.
The research process involved a series of semi-structured interviews with both
Environment Agency staff and with representatives of special interest groups. The themes
that emerged from these interviews were discussed at a series of five internal workshops.
This enabled a wide range of staff to provide feedback on the results of the research as it
developed and ensured that the emerging themes were relevant to the organisation’s
practice.
The report explores some of the ways in which special interest groups understand the
Environment Agency. It outlines six main areas in which the special interest group’s trustcan be undermined. These are set within the broader context of declining trust in
authorities and cover:
• perception of a lack of coherence and consistency in the Environment Agency’s remit;
• perceptions of the degree of power that the Environment Agency has to influence
policy;
• differences between special interest group and Environment Agency values;
• the limits to interpersonal trust;
• perceptions of the Environment Agency’s relationships with industry; and
• belief that internal fractures can undermine activities.
The research shows that while the Environment Agency needs to communicate well with
special interest groups, this may not be sufficient for good relationships. Special interest
groups are communicating and networking with each other in new ways and the
implications of this need to be understood.
There are a number of barriers to staff developing better relationships with special interest
groups:
• special interest groups may be seen as not representative of the broader public;
• the scientific expertise of special interest groups may be questioned; and
• special interest groups may be seen as NIMBY (‘Not In My Back Yard’)
XR’s strength has been to create a new public agency amongst people who are not ‘natural’ protesters, and perhaps even less so natural law-breakers, but who were already persuaded of the rightness of the climate cause, and frustrated with the inability of both ‘politics as usual’ and lifestyle environmentalism to bring about the kind of transformative political change that the climate emergency demands. Mobilising this group enabled XR to significantly expand the numbers of people willing to engage in environmental direct action, broadening its age profile, and bringing non-violent direct action on climate change into the centre of political life in the UK.
The report comes with an Afterword from Sian Vaughan, a first-time Extinction Rebellion activist.
between the Environment Agency and special interest groups, a term used here to
describe non-governmental non-profit-making groups with a special interest in areas or
issues in which the Environment Agency is involved. The report is aimed primarily at staff
who work with special interest groups at the local or national level.
A statutory objective of the Environment Agency is to develop close and responsive
relationships with stakeholders. Much communication and contact with non-institutional
stakeholders is with special interest groups. When relationships with these groups become
polarised, interactions can absorb significant resources and cause considerable stress to
staff. This report therefore seeks to understand the characteristics and roles of special
interest groups and their relationships with the wider community and to identify principles
and practices that will enable staff to engage with them more effectively.
The research process involved a series of semi-structured interviews with both
Environment Agency staff and with representatives of special interest groups. The themes
that emerged from these interviews were discussed at a series of five internal workshops.
This enabled a wide range of staff to provide feedback on the results of the research as it
developed and ensured that the emerging themes were relevant to the organisation’s
practice.
The report explores some of the ways in which special interest groups understand the
Environment Agency. It outlines six main areas in which the special interest group’s trustcan be undermined. These are set within the broader context of declining trust in
authorities and cover:
• perception of a lack of coherence and consistency in the Environment Agency’s remit;
• perceptions of the degree of power that the Environment Agency has to influence
policy;
• differences between special interest group and Environment Agency values;
• the limits to interpersonal trust;
• perceptions of the Environment Agency’s relationships with industry; and
• belief that internal fractures can undermine activities.
The research shows that while the Environment Agency needs to communicate well with
special interest groups, this may not be sufficient for good relationships. Special interest
groups are communicating and networking with each other in new ways and the
implications of this need to be understood.
There are a number of barriers to staff developing better relationships with special interest
groups:
• special interest groups may be seen as not representative of the broader public;
• the scientific expertise of special interest groups may be questioned; and
• special interest groups may be seen as NIMBY (‘Not In My Back Yard’)
In common with the other chapters in this volume, our argument here is about “breaking down the state”, about thinking through the relationships of power and agency which define the interactions between state and non-state players. If the state is, in the classic definition offered by Stepan, “the continuous administrative, legal, bureaucratic and coercive systems that attempt not only to structure relationships between civil society and public authority in a polity but also to structure many crucial relationships within civil society as well” (in Skocpol, 1985, p.7), our goal here is to contribute to understanding these relationships by focusing on the legal-judicial systems which uphold the social order, and the institutions which embody the state’s coercive power to maintain these systems. In so doing, we seek to go beyond conceptualizations of state-movement relationships which might cast criminal trials merely as “state repression”, setting out the architecture of the court as an arena for political interaction and tactical choice, identifying the players who act within it, and arguing that more attention be given to the courts in analyses of social movement protest action.
The author argues that 'greens' share a common ideological framework but are divided over strategy. Using social movement theory and drawing on research from many countries, he shows how the green movement became more differentiated over time, as groups had to face the task of deciding what kind of action was appropriate.
In the breadth of its coverage and its novel focus on the relationship between green ideas and action, this book makes an important contribution to the understanding of green politics.