It is here that preoccupations with ‘planetary boundaries’ further illuminate
Anthropocene narratives (UN, 2013). These define the ‘safe operating space’ within
which global governance must strive to navigate a path (Rockström et al., 2009).
Despite resting on the supposed indeterminacy of ‘catastrophic tipping points’ (Hoff
and Rockström, 2013), planetary boundaries are routinely asserted as determinate
and precisely known (Rockström et al., 2009). Indeed, they are typically presented
as ‘non-negotiable’ imperatives, raising ‘absolutely no uncertainty’ and brooking
‘no compromise’ (Rockström, 2010). It is on this basis that ‘manuals’ are issued
(Newton, 1998) for taking charge of the ‘control variables of the Earth’ (Rockström
et al., 2009) and so achieving not just governance in the loosely coordinated sense,
but unprecedentedly ambitious forms of ‘planetary management’ (Faroult, 2009).
Presumptions of undifferentiated controlling agency are reinforced. Ends are further
subordinated to means. The discursive constraints on space for democratic struggle
seem more restrictive even than the material boundaries.
It is by appreciating this discursive dimension that the paradox may be reconciled
that ‘control’ is viewed retrospectively as negative, but prospectively as positive,
for – as in the other political and religious doctrines mentioned above – this is
how a retrospective diagnosis of ‘planetary domination’ can be recruited seamlessly
into a narrative prescribing prospective ‘planetary management’. Of course, such
pre-laden politicized implications are not unique to Earth systems governance. Other
areas of policy-relevant science and ‘global assessment’ are also widely recognized
to be similarly shaped by the cultural conditions under which they are produced
(Scoones, 2009). The Anthropocene narrative is just one particularly acute instance
of a general pattern that emerges when knowledge itself is recognized as political.
So, it is not as if such dynamics are entirely avoidable, nor do they somehow
necessarily render the implicated science thereby invalid. In no way do these political
dynamics in the presentation and interpretation of contemporary Earth science
detract from the need to question very seriously contemporary economic and tech -
nological trajectories. Indeed, it is precisely where imperatives for political
transformation are taken most seriously that the lesson takes a different form. In
short, science for policy holds responsibilities not only to be accurately reflective
of the objective systems it is concerned to represent. It is at least equally obliged
to be reflexive about the ways these representations are conditioned by subjective
systems in which ‘the science’ is produced. Without this, there are dangers that
Anthropocene rhetorics of uncompromising leadership, non-negotiability, certainty
and control will be taken much too literally. Planetary management should be careful
what it wishes for.
Democracy, sustainability and emancipation
So what of the queries with which this chapter began? Is democracy really an
‘enemy’ of transformations towards sustainability – a ‘luxury’ that should be ‘put
on hold’? Or is it rather sustainability that is vulnerable to longstanding powerful
Emancipating transformations 59
Anthropocene narratives (UN, 2013). These define the ‘safe operating space’ within
which global governance must strive to navigate a path (Rockström et al., 2009).
Despite resting on the supposed indeterminacy of ‘catastrophic tipping points’ (Hoff
and Rockström, 2013), planetary boundaries are routinely asserted as determinate
and precisely known (Rockström et al., 2009). Indeed, they are typically presented
as ‘non-negotiable’ imperatives, raising ‘absolutely no uncertainty’ and brooking
‘no compromise’ (Rockström, 2010). It is on this basis that ‘manuals’ are issued
(Newton, 1998) for taking charge of the ‘control variables of the Earth’ (Rockström
et al., 2009) and so achieving not just governance in the loosely coordinated sense,
but unprecedentedly ambitious forms of ‘planetary management’ (Faroult, 2009).
Presumptions of undifferentiated controlling agency are reinforced. Ends are further
subordinated to means. The discursive constraints on space for democratic struggle
seem more restrictive even than the material boundaries.
It is by appreciating this discursive dimension that the paradox may be reconciled
that ‘control’ is viewed retrospectively as negative, but prospectively as positive,
for – as in the other political and religious doctrines mentioned above – this is
how a retrospective diagnosis of ‘planetary domination’ can be recruited seamlessly
into a narrative prescribing prospective ‘planetary management’. Of course, such
pre-laden politicized implications are not unique to Earth systems governance. Other
areas of policy-relevant science and ‘global assessment’ are also widely recognized
to be similarly shaped by the cultural conditions under which they are produced
(Scoones, 2009). The Anthropocene narrative is just one particularly acute instance
of a general pattern that emerges when knowledge itself is recognized as political.
So, it is not as if such dynamics are entirely avoidable, nor do they somehow
necessarily render the implicated science thereby invalid. In no way do these political
dynamics in the presentation and interpretation of contemporary Earth science
detract from the need to question very seriously contemporary economic and tech -
nological trajectories. Indeed, it is precisely where imperatives for political
transformation are taken most seriously that the lesson takes a different form. In
short, science for policy holds responsibilities not only to be accurately reflective
of the objective systems it is concerned to represent. It is at least equally obliged
to be reflexive about the ways these representations are conditioned by subjective
systems in which ‘the science’ is produced. Without this, there are dangers that
Anthropocene rhetorics of uncompromising leadership, non-negotiability, certainty
and control will be taken much too literally. Planetary management should be careful
what it wishes for.
Democracy, sustainability and emancipation
So what of the queries with which this chapter began? Is democracy really an
‘enemy’ of transformations towards sustainability – a ‘luxury’ that should be ‘put
on hold’? Or is it rather sustainability that is vulnerable to longstanding powerful
Emancipating transformations 59