The appropriation of the meaning of sustainable development in the United States: Understanding one dimension of hegemony

This dissertation focuses on the appropriation of the meaning of “sustainable development” (SD) by hegemonic forces. It looks at why, how, and the extent to which the original idea of SD has been distorted by actors within the United States federal government, acting in the interests of capital, to embody “sustained economic growth.” It views this distortion as part of a process of “appropriation” that seeks to eternalize the goals and motivations of the “technological growth development project” (TGDP) and the existing social order within it. In this framework, the environmental and social dimensions of SD, a potential paradigmatic challenger, have been manipulated to reinforce the TGDP, the dominant development paradigm, predicated on technological advance and economic growth.; SD has been proposed as the newest means to solve the severe environmental, social, economic and health crises that confront society. The extent to which policies/programs offered in its name truly embody alternatives, however, has been the subject of much debate. This study uses Roland Barthes' (1972) appropriation of meaning as a valuable methodology to examine the fate that has befallen SD. It notes that analysis of the appropriation of meaning has primarily focused on its use as a hegemonic tool by the private sector—far less attention has been given to its use by the public sector. SD and its appropriation in the United States is examined through two national programs designed to address the dismal plight of urban centers—the EZ/EC Program and Brownfields Initiatives.; Analysis demonstrates that the appropriation of the meaning of SD represents the latest incidence in which private and public hegemonic forces have attempted to close off the universe of discourse (thought and language) to inhibit the possibility of social change. The dissertation underscores the need to further understand and identify this important dimension of hegemony. It also identifies the role of the “critical consciousness” in individuals, along with the need for enhanced democracy, “true” SD policy criteria and ecology and sociology in education as important elements in overcoming hegemonic forces and opening up the universe of discourse to empower alternative society/nature and internal societal relations.