Read on Twitter
Returning to my “differences between Environmental History and Environmental Justice” ponderings: a large amount of the old guard EH scholarship is so declensionist, which is understandable BUT...where are our action items? Our revolutionary vision for a new world?
I’ve been wondering if this is a result of history scholarship continually needing to prove—via data over a long period—that disparities/destruction/what have you exist, thus only leaving the “looking ahead” for the epilogue/last chapter.
^ this also has a lot to do with EH (and History writ-large)’s issue with presentism. If we can only take our studies up to, idk, the late-90s to maintain “objectivity” (a farce), how can we broach the modern-day manifestations of these disparities we’ve just “proven”?
Alternatively, EJ doesn’t seem to have this hang up with presentism or preoccupation with objectivity (or at least not to the same extent). My training is in EH and not EJ so I cannot claim to know for sure.
EJ, instead, applies history as theory to demonstrate the development of (and developers of) disparity/destruction over time, before turning to contemporary manifestations and what to do about them, how change them, etc.
These “theories of change” are active and offer real-time approaches for addressing issues like food justice, water access, the carceral state, chronic flooding, etc. NOW.
These theories have been largely developed by BIPOC leaders/activists/organizations who have acknowledged and addressed EJ issues for decades.
These theories are borne out of experience rather than “objectivity”, and cannot accept a declensionist narrative, because that would be accepting the status quo, accepting death. Rather, they are visionary, revolutionary, pursuing systemic change through radical incrementalism.
And, of course, many EH scholars ARE offering solutions, often borrowed from EJ scholars or community/grassroots orgs. And wow am I hopeful/thankful to join/learn from this generation of thinkers/researchers/activists.
I guess I am wondering, does EH have anything that would be the equivalent to “theory of change”? Are there any interdisciplinary theories you pull from other fields to inform your historical inquiry? Let’s go ahead and assume Marx is already accounted for—what/who else?
And of course, a shoutout to @maliniranga who introduced me to “theories of change” in the first place. Now back to writing my paper on theories of change re: food justice in Washington, D.C. Thanks @hazzardeuce for our enlightening/spiraling convo a few weeks back 
