My reflections are primarily based on the reading of the topics “On different conceptions of sustainability” and “On different futures”, as well as the talk by Douglas Hine in the webinar, and a talk by Sander van der Leeuw at Arizona State University and Santa Fe Institute from a webinar about Hope in the Antroposcene.
Many views on sustainability
Concerning how the reasoning presented in the literature and during the seminar inform my thinking about future scenarios, it has given me new insight. I used to think that there was more consensus on what sustainable development is, but from reading the literature I realize that there are many views of sustainability, and they are pointing in quite different directions. Hopwood et al (2005) described several areas of debate concerning the concept of sustainable development, and one such area is weak versus strong sustainability, that I found particularly interesting. In weak sustainability, the view is that natural and manufactured capital is interchangeable with technology able to fill human produced gaps in the natural world. In its most radical form, weak sustainability means that we can substitute other factors for natural resources, so that the world can get along without natural resources. Strong sustainability on the other hand, points out that human made capital cannot replace all the processes that are vital to human existence, such as photosynthesis, the water cycle etc.
Hopwood et al (2005) goes on to map all the different views/approaches towards sustainability in a model to see where they are placed when it comes to how we will attain sustainability, by status quo, reform or transformation (see figure below). This model helped me realize that there is no such thing as one united view on sustainability, and that there are many views on how we should work to achieve it.
The nested model for sustainable development
I also found the article by Block & Paredis (2019) very interesting and as a follow-up of the Hopwood-article. Block & Paredis (2019) examine four common misunderstandings about sustainable development and transitions; ‘(1) ‘Sustainability is about ecological concerns’; (2) ‘We need a waterproof and objective definition of sustainability’; (3) ‘Every change leads to a transition’; and (4) ‘We can easily plan and manage sustainability transitions’.
The authors also argue for going away from the iconic model of the three circular areas environment, economy and society (‘people, planet and profit’), as it makes an assumption that all three areas can win, while neglecting the link between degradation of the environment due to economic growth. They argue for a nested hierarchy model, where the environment is the basis for the society and economy. I liked this model very much, and think it is more realistic in terms of how we should build a sustainable future.
At work in the ruins
In the webinar in week 1 of topic 1 we had a talk by Douglas Hine. Hine is the author of the books Dark Mountain and At work in the ruins. His talk was quite dark, suggesting that sometimes you are born into the ending of the world. But at the same time his talk pointed to something that we could do to help us in this situation; “looking for ways to making good ruins”. He suggested some tasks for us, such as saving the good things - the achievements from modern society that are worth saving, mourning the things that cannot bring along and tell stories about them, and also noticing things that in fact were never as good as we assumed they were. Hine's talk also resonated well with an article on our reading list by ecobuddhist scholar Joanna Macy (2016). She says that although it looks bleak now, we can think that we are alive, together with others in this moment, and that the situation is also an adventure.
From plural visions to closed categories that stifle change
In week 2 of topic 1 we were encouraged to see a video recording from a webinar about Hope in the Antroposcene, arranged by the The Royal Swedish Academy Of Sciences. I saw the presentation by Sander van der Leeuw, Arizona State University, and I found that he had some interesting points that made me look at the problem of sustainability in a new way. Van der Leeuw says that there has been a shift in how we store information, or organize phenomena. We have gone from from creating open categories to closed categories, from anticipation (imagining the future), to knowledge (looking at what has been acquired in the past). This has been unfortunate for us, as open categories assume uncertainty and ambiguity, they express plural visions one might hope for, whereas closed categories stifles change.
In other words; Western thinking has led us into an imaginary very closed space, a small room where we do not see any openings or hope. However, it is all in our minds, and if we can free our minds we can tear down the invisible walls around us and see that we have lots of opportunities. Hope can be the force that tears down the walls, shift the balance in our society towards open categories. Van der Leeuw has published an open access book Social Sustainability, Past and Future.
Consequences for higher education
Concerning how this relates to higher education, I am wondering if we give students enough insight into the different views on sustainability, and whether we should. On one side it would be useful for them to have some understanding on the diversity of views on sustainability, as it would help them understand and meet other views in their future jobs or in discussions in the society. On the other hand one could argue that including this in the teaching of sustainability adds to the already complex topic, and might be contra productive concerning their learning.
Education could also benefit from trying to challenge traditional ideas and try to open up for more plural visions on the future. And promote hope!
