“Frankly, My Dear, I Don’t Want a Dam” in the US or in Iran: Environmental Movements and Shared Strategies in Differing Political Economies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-presented analysis drawn from the first author's PhD thesis. It compares water transfer dam resistance in two matched cases in the USA and Iran and uses framing theory to analysis how proponents and opponents present the case for and against the relevant dams. The theoretical resource are Polanyi and Gramsci but they are loosely presented with recognition that neither theorist described neoliberalism. Polanyi's double movement describes the epoch of liberalism, which ended with the suspension of the gold standard, and has only vague similarities to the neoliberal period. Gramsci is not cited by page, illustrated with early texts, and only loosely explores how the state in its integral sense comprises hegemony protected by the armour of coercion. This said, the analysis is compelling and demonstrates the similarities and differences between the two cases, being especially insightful on the Iranian case. The article could be published as is but it would be improved by a slightly expanded account of the Polanyian and Gramscian references.

Author Response

The reviewers’ comments and suggestions helped and improved our paper. We appreciate their time.

Based on the clarifications we have added in response to reviewer 2, we think we have also addressed reviewer 1’s concerns about the applicability of the ideas of Polanyi and Gramsci specifically mobilized by this study to illuminate the two compared cases and establish expectations for similarities and differences in the two social movements.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has the potential to be an important contribution to scholarship on environmental movements and their strategies. I especially appreciate how the author(s) examine case studies in the western US and Iran in parallel. This is original and can provide important insights. However, some additional work is needed, especially on the conceptual framework and linking it to the analyses of the cases.

Below are my specific comments and I've included the lines numbers along the edges to indicate where my comments apply.

*  lines 37-39 - The first sentence of this paragraph is overgeneralized, aspatial, and not especially useful.

* lines 54-58 - The paper covers an interdisciplinary topic and this is an interdisciplinary journal, so why justify the project in disciplinary terms? In other words, rework this so it is not limited to environmental sociology.

* lines 80-83 - I'm not entirely convinced about these last 2 sentences. Does the paper emphasize "the state's role in neoliberalism"? Is this research structured to analyze identity-based movements in the Global North in contrast to livelihood-based movements in the Global South? 

* lines 110-113 - Does Polanyi actually address environmental movements or social movements more broadly? Was he discussing contemporary environmental social movements? Write this more portion (and the rest of the discussion about Polanyi) carefully.

* lines 118-120 - The last sentence of this paragraph doesn't follow from the rest of the paragraph. That is, there seems to be a gap in logic between what Polanyi is saying and how this is relevant to your project. In the context of Polanyi's thinking, better explain why the similarities would be expected.

* lines 152-154 - Similar comment to the last one, but this one based on what was said about Gramsci. Tie the following with the statement with what was said before about Gramsci: "This theory generates some expectation therefore of similarities in framing and strategy across all counter movements."

* lines 154-160 - Discussion of Gramscian war of position and war of maneuver is interesting but a stronger explanation is needed for how this fits with the conceptual framework used in this project. 

* lines 165-168 - I've a similar comment to my 2nd question about lines 80-83. Did Polanyi and Gramsci directly address environmental social movements as they exist today? If not, then it's important to mention this and identify why the approaches remain relevant.

* lines 251-257 - I'm not convinced by this discussion about differences in research on environmental social movements in the Global North and Global South. Both of these literatures, as well as ones that blur the lines between North and South, emphasize issues of social injustice and loss of environmental attributes/natural resources by framing this as who has control, under what conditions, and why.   

* lines 285-289 - I appreciate your research questions but wonder if this is actually a comparative study or one that looks at the parallels between cases.

* lines 290-693 -  The sections 4. Cases and Methods and 5. Findings are strong overall. I especially appreciated subsection 5.1 and 5.2 and like the symmetry in organizing this between both projects. I also appreciate the way that 4 strategies and associated tactics are outlined: enhancing public awareness, bringing public pressure to bear on key decision-makers, providing an alternative, and relying on the judicial system. However, I wonder if it make sense to also develop a 5th one that addresses targeting legislative and executive office actions? 

* lines 699-701 - The last part of this sentence is confusing and possibly irrelevant.

* Rest of the section 6. Discussion and Conclusion is generally persuasive and follow well from the rest of the paper, except the last part on Gramscian and Polanyian frameworks, which don't seem well tied into the rest of the article and are not as persuasive as they could be.

Author Response

The reviewers’ comments and suggestions helped and improved our paper. We appreciate their time.

Review 2

This paper has the potential to be an important contribution to scholarship on environmental movements and their strategies. I especially appreciate how the author(s) examine case studies in the western US and Iran in parallel. This is original and can provide important insights. However, some additional work is needed, especially on the conceptual framework and linking it to the analyses of the cases.

Below are my specific comments and I've included the lines numbers along the edges to indicate where my comments apply.

*  lines 37-39 - The first sentence of this paragraph is overgeneralized, aspatial, and not especially useful.

We appreciate the suggestion that the first two sentences here are not necessary and have deleted them. 

* lines 54-58 - The paper covers an interdisciplinary topic and this is an interdisciplinary journal, so why justify the project in disciplinary terms? In other words, rework this so it is not limited to environmental sociology. 

We have restated the more interdisciplinary nature of the contribution both here and in other locations in the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer pointing this need out to us.

* lines 80-83 - I'm not entirely convinced about these last 2 sentences. Does the paper emphasize "the state's role in neoliberalism"? Is this research structured to analyze identity-based movements in the Global North in contrast to livelihood-based movements in the Global South? 

In order to not detract from our main arguments, we have deleted the last sentence here, but we want to retain the second-to-last sentence as part of our main arguments. We believe we have addressed in the results the state's role in two different types of neoliberalism. 

* lines 110-113 - Does Polanyi actually address environmental movements or social movements more broadly? Was he discussing contemporary environmental social movements? Write this more portion (and the rest of the discussion about Polanyi) carefully.

We believe that this point and the next one can be answered together. Please see the answer in the next point.

* lines 118-120 - The last sentence of this paragraph doesn't follow from the rest of the paragraph. That is, there seems to be a gap in logic between what Polanyi is saying and how this is relevant to your project. In the context of Polanyi's thinking, better explain why the similarities would be expected.

Polanyi's theory argued that as a result of  the market movement in nature and society, which caused negative impacts, people formed social movements to protect their society and nature (this is the double movement in his theory). The expected similarity is the movement emergence.  However, he did not explain how social movements develop and work. So, we used Gramsci's theory to help understand social movements and their strategies. To clarify these points, we made minor text revisions and added two sentences to the end of the paragraph.

* lines 152-154 - Similar comment to the last one, but this one based on what was said about Gramsci. Tie the following with the statement with what was said before about Gramsci: "This theory generates some expectation therefore of similarities in framing and strategy across all counter movements."

We added to the text to highlight the contrast the reviewer notes here.

* lines 154-160 - Discussion of Gramscian war of position and war of maneuver is interesting but a stronger explanation is needed for how this fits with the conceptual framework used in this project. 

This discussion relates to expected differences in strategies and tactics specifically related to whether or not a social movement converts from a “war of position” to a “war of maneuver.”  We have made a minor addition to the text to clarify this point.

* lines 165-168 - I've a similar comment to my 2nd question about lines 80-83. Did Polanyi and Gramsci directly address environmental social movements as they exist today? If not, then it's important to mention this and identify why the approaches remain relevant.

We have made a minor addition to the text to address this suggestion. We show in this study how their theories can be used for environmental movements.  theories help us understand the two movements in this study..

* lines 251-257 - I'm not convinced by this discussion about differences in research on environmental social movements in the Global North and Global South. Both of these literatures, as well as ones that blur the lines between North and South, emphasize issues of social injustice and loss of environmental attributes/natural resources by framing this as who has control, under what conditions, and why. 

We share the reviewer’s skepticism of this binary but in our analysis this binary has been present and persists in the literature.. 

* lines 285-289 - I appreciate your research questions but wonder if this is actually a comparative study or one that looks at the parallels between cases.

We are unsure of the distinction drawn here by the reviewer. The methodological approach sought to compare the two cases, to identify both similarities and differences. 

* lines 290-693 -  The sections 4. Cases and Methods and 5. Findings are strong overall. I especially appreciated subsection 5.1 and 5.2 and like the symmetry in organizing this between both projects. I also appreciate the way that 4 strategies and associated tactics are outlined: enhancing public awareness, bringing public pressure to bear on key decision-makers, providing an alternative, and relying on the judicial system. However, I wonder if it make sense to also develop a 5th one that addresses targeting legislative and executive office actions? 

We appreciate this suggestion but would like to keep this theme of targeting legislative and executive office actions as part of the existing theme of bringing public pressure to bear on key decision-makers.

* lines 699-701 - The last part of this sentence is confusing and possibly irrelevant.

We have deleted this sentence.  

* Rest of the section 6. Discussion and Conclusion is generally persuasive and follow well from the rest of the paper, except the last part on Gramscian and Polanyian frameworks, which don't seem well tied into the rest of the article and are not as persuasive as they could be.

We are unsure what changes the reviewer is expecting in response to this comment. We believe as written the discussion does reference back to the conceptual framework and demonstrates the continued application of these theories to contemporary social movements, including environmental counter-movements.