Andy Stirling , Rose Cairns , Phil Johnstone , Joel Onyango
{"title":"Transforming imaginations? Multiple dimensionalities and temporalities as vital complexities in transformations to sustainability","authors":"Andy Stirling , Rose Cairns , Phil Johnstone , Joel Onyango","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Through interlinked theoretical and empirical analysis, this paper explores some important but neglected questions concerning efforts to achieve sustainability. To what extents do currently dominant forms of academic study and policy visions in this field, satisfactorily address the full political depth and scope of <em>vital complexities</em> in pathways for emerging social transformations? Are there dangers that common simplifications in mainstream ways of thinking about transformation, inadvertently help invisibly to reproduce entrenched patterns of privilege and power that drive focal problems of unsustainability? In particular, does a ‘<em>monothetic</em>’ focus on circumscribed sites or sectoral formations with notionally few clear-cut dimensions of distinction before and after, risk missing more multiple and messy ‘<em>polythetic</em>’ dimensionalities in which power and privilege can hide? What are the implications of common assumptions that pathways for change proceed ‘<em>monotonically</em>’ – neatly and cumulatively in a particular direction, if real world transformations actually unfold according to more plural, undulating and unruly ‘<em>non-monotonic</em>’ temporalities? In order to investigate these questions, the paper employs the concept of <em>sociotechnical imaginaries</em> to explore the constituting dimensions of contrasting understandings of ‘urban transformations’ in Kenya and ‘the nuclear renaissance’ in the UK. Q method and in-depth interpretive policy analysis are used to test patterns in relationships between imagined transformations and their unfoldings over time. The findings suggest that current mainstream approaches may indeed unduly simplify vital complexities in the ways these political dynamics play out – with potentially important practical implications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 102741"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378023001073/pdfft?md5=6f40215707d4cc8915d8bd1b95a2dcd4&pid=1-s2.0-S0959378023001073-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378023001073","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Through interlinked theoretical and empirical analysis, this paper explores some important but neglected questions concerning efforts to achieve sustainability. To what extents do currently dominant forms of academic study and policy visions in this field, satisfactorily address the full political depth and scope of vital complexities in pathways for emerging social transformations? Are there dangers that common simplifications in mainstream ways of thinking about transformation, inadvertently help invisibly to reproduce entrenched patterns of privilege and power that drive focal problems of unsustainability? In particular, does a ‘monothetic’ focus on circumscribed sites or sectoral formations with notionally few clear-cut dimensions of distinction before and after, risk missing more multiple and messy ‘polythetic’ dimensionalities in which power and privilege can hide? What are the implications of common assumptions that pathways for change proceed ‘monotonically’ – neatly and cumulatively in a particular direction, if real world transformations actually unfold according to more plural, undulating and unruly ‘non-monotonic’ temporalities? In order to investigate these questions, the paper employs the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries to explore the constituting dimensions of contrasting understandings of ‘urban transformations’ in Kenya and ‘the nuclear renaissance’ in the UK. Q method and in-depth interpretive policy analysis are used to test patterns in relationships between imagined transformations and their unfoldings over time. The findings suggest that current mainstream approaches may indeed unduly simplify vital complexities in the ways these political dynamics play out – with potentially important practical implications.
期刊介绍:
Global Environmental Change is a prestigious international journal that publishes articles of high quality, both theoretically and empirically rigorous. The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of global environmental change from the perspectives of human and policy dimensions. Specifically, it considers global environmental change as the result of processes occurring at the local level, but with wide-ranging impacts on various spatial, temporal, and socio-political scales.
In terms of content, the journal seeks articles with a strong social science component. This includes research that examines the societal drivers and consequences of environmental change, as well as social and policy processes that aim to address these challenges. While the journal covers a broad range of topics, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate, coasts, food systems, land use and land cover, oceans, urban areas, and water resources, it also welcomes contributions that investigate the drivers, consequences, and management of other areas affected by environmental change.
Overall, Global Environmental Change encourages research that deepens our understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and the environment, with the goal of informing policy and decision-making.