{"title":"Sustainability Knowledge Politics: Southeast Asia, Europe and the Transregional History of Palm Oil Sustainability Research","authors":"Evelien de Hoop, Erik van der Vleuten","doi":"10.3197/ge.2022.150202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"So far, the field of sustainability history has insufficiently addressed the tricky politics of academic sustainability knowledge making. In response, this paper studies how scientific research on palm oil sustainability, when defining sustainability problems and solutions, enacted\n a postcolonial politics of difference between Southeast Asia and Europe. Iterating between quantitative database queries (2,500+ sources) and close reading, we found that voices of scientists from both regions were amply represented in palm oil sustainability research, but presented different\n types of narratives. Research originating from Southeast Asia predominantly foregrounded situated problems originating, experienced and to be redressed within the region itself. By contrast, diverse strands of research led by scholars from Europe addressed universalised global sustainability\n problems for humanity, notably global deforestation and climate change. This research framed palm oil farmers in Southeast Asia as responsible for causing and solving such problems while attributing to European actors the responsibility of ensuring Southeast Asian actors' compliance with global\n sustainability standards through certification schemes. Critically, European actors were thereby acquitted of their own historical and future responsibilities, even though the latter had long deforested their own territories and contributed significantly more to climate change, played a pivotal\n role in establishing palm oil cultivation and trade, and constituted leading importers of soy in the twentieth century. To open up for more equitable and inclusive future sustainability imaginaries, we encourage historical research that studies, situates and unpacks diverse sustainability\n knowledges and narratives across the globe in a symmetrical manner.","PeriodicalId":42763,"journal":{"name":"Global Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3197/ge.2022.150202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
So far, the field of sustainability history has insufficiently addressed the tricky politics of academic sustainability knowledge making. In response, this paper studies how scientific research on palm oil sustainability, when defining sustainability problems and solutions, enacted
a postcolonial politics of difference between Southeast Asia and Europe. Iterating between quantitative database queries (2,500+ sources) and close reading, we found that voices of scientists from both regions were amply represented in palm oil sustainability research, but presented different
types of narratives. Research originating from Southeast Asia predominantly foregrounded situated problems originating, experienced and to be redressed within the region itself. By contrast, diverse strands of research led by scholars from Europe addressed universalised global sustainability
problems for humanity, notably global deforestation and climate change. This research framed palm oil farmers in Southeast Asia as responsible for causing and solving such problems while attributing to European actors the responsibility of ensuring Southeast Asian actors' compliance with global
sustainability standards through certification schemes. Critically, European actors were thereby acquitted of their own historical and future responsibilities, even though the latter had long deforested their own territories and contributed significantly more to climate change, played a pivotal
role in establishing palm oil cultivation and trade, and constituted leading importers of soy in the twentieth century. To open up for more equitable and inclusive future sustainability imaginaries, we encourage historical research that studies, situates and unpacks diverse sustainability
knowledges and narratives across the globe in a symmetrical manner.
期刊介绍:
The half-yearly journal Global Environment: A Journal of History and Natural and Social Sciences acts as a forum and echo chamber for ongoing studies on the environment and world history, with special focus on modern and contemporary topics. Our intent is to gather and stimulate scholarship that, despite a diversity of approaches and themes, shares an environmental perspective on world history in its various facets, including economic development, social relations, production government, and international relations. One of the journal’s main commitments is to bring together different areas of expertise in both the natural and the social sciences to facilitate a common language and a common perspective in the study of history. This commitment is fulfilled by way of peer-reviewed research articles and also by interviews and other special features. Global Environment strives to transcend the western-centric and ‘developist’ bias that has dominated international environmental historiography so far and to favour the emergence of spatially and culturally diversified points of view. It seeks to replace the notion of ‘hierarchy’ with those of ‘relationship’ and ‘exchange’ – between continents, states, regions, cities, central zones and peripheral areas – in studying the construction or destruction of environments and ecosystems.