forces that find associated transformative emancipations so threatening? If so,
maybe the real questions are about whether authoritarian appropriations by
incumbent interests, can make environmentalism itself an ‘enemy’ of the very forms
of democratic struggle that it gave rise to?
In the above spirit of reflexivity, these queries require careful thought about
the forces and conditions under which the answers themselves are shaped. And
this is as true of general talk of ‘democracy’ and ‘sustainability’ as of more specific
concepts like ‘the nexus’, ‘the Anthropocene’ or ‘planetary boundaries’. In all
these areas, understandings supposedly informing practice are typically at least as
much formed by it. In other words, knowing and doing are not so much distinct
as insepa rable – especially when it comes to transformation.
One crucial initial reflection, then, concerns how to interpret ‘democracy’. It
is easy for loose usage to be misunderstood, appropriated – or strategically subverted
– by specific traditions, institutions or interests (Agamben et al., 2011). Any wider
understanding of democracy wishing to transcend such parochialisms (Li, 1997;
Sen, 2005; Leib and He, 2006) must relate at root to the general dynamics of power,
as featured prominently in the discussion so far. Here, the implications are as
profound for knowledge and discourse as for material practice.
In short, despite the plural, multidimensional and multiscale faces of power, a
constant common element shared across many different historical and cultural settings
is that power is about ‘asymmetrically structured agency’ (Stirling, 2014c). Social
norms, institutions and discourses concentrate diverse flows and experiences of social
agency in greatly varying ways. As a reaction to this, ‘democracy’ in the broadest
of senses can be seen not as any formal procedural end-state, but as a complex,
distributed never-ending struggle, for ‘access by the least powerful, to the capacities
for challenging power’ (Stirling, 2014c). Although the dynamics of power doom
any such success to be constantly provisional, the greater this access and the stronger
the capacities for challenge, the more effective the democratic struggle might be
judged.
Far from being in tension, then, this characterization of democracy as struggle
displays especially strong affinities with sustainability. Sustainability historically came
about through democratic struggle and remains formally defined by reference to
it (Brundtland, 1987). After all, sustainability was not elevated to the present highest
levels of global governance by the kinds of integrated, polite, orderly apolitical
procedures currently highlighted in elite planetary management literatures. Just
as in other transformative processes of democratic struggle for the emancipation
of classes, ethnicities, slaves, workers, colonies, women, young people and diverse
sexualities, this occurred through diverse, protracted, radically challenging and
overtly political agonistic struggles by subaltern social movements (Mouffe, 1999).
Take, for instance the development of issues around occupational hazards,
resource degradation, consumer chemicals, ionizing radiation, atmospheric pollu -
tion, water contamination and climate change (Gee et al., 2001; EEA, 2013b).
All were typically pioneered by subaltern communities of workers or affected
people, then picked up by social movements. In each case, it was recognition of
60 Andy Stirling
maybe the real questions are about whether authoritarian appropriations by
incumbent interests, can make environmentalism itself an ‘enemy’ of the very forms
of democratic struggle that it gave rise to?
In the above spirit of reflexivity, these queries require careful thought about
the forces and conditions under which the answers themselves are shaped. And
this is as true of general talk of ‘democracy’ and ‘sustainability’ as of more specific
concepts like ‘the nexus’, ‘the Anthropocene’ or ‘planetary boundaries’. In all
these areas, understandings supposedly informing practice are typically at least as
much formed by it. In other words, knowing and doing are not so much distinct
as insepa rable – especially when it comes to transformation.
One crucial initial reflection, then, concerns how to interpret ‘democracy’. It
is easy for loose usage to be misunderstood, appropriated – or strategically subverted
– by specific traditions, institutions or interests (Agamben et al., 2011). Any wider
understanding of democracy wishing to transcend such parochialisms (Li, 1997;
Sen, 2005; Leib and He, 2006) must relate at root to the general dynamics of power,
as featured prominently in the discussion so far. Here, the implications are as
profound for knowledge and discourse as for material practice.
In short, despite the plural, multidimensional and multiscale faces of power, a
constant common element shared across many different historical and cultural settings
is that power is about ‘asymmetrically structured agency’ (Stirling, 2014c). Social
norms, institutions and discourses concentrate diverse flows and experiences of social
agency in greatly varying ways. As a reaction to this, ‘democracy’ in the broadest
of senses can be seen not as any formal procedural end-state, but as a complex,
distributed never-ending struggle, for ‘access by the least powerful, to the capacities
for challenging power’ (Stirling, 2014c). Although the dynamics of power doom
any such success to be constantly provisional, the greater this access and the stronger
the capacities for challenge, the more effective the democratic struggle might be
judged.
Far from being in tension, then, this characterization of democracy as struggle
displays especially strong affinities with sustainability. Sustainability historically came
about through democratic struggle and remains formally defined by reference to
it (Brundtland, 1987). After all, sustainability was not elevated to the present highest
levels of global governance by the kinds of integrated, polite, orderly apolitical
procedures currently highlighted in elite planetary management literatures. Just
as in other transformative processes of democratic struggle for the emancipation
of classes, ethnicities, slaves, workers, colonies, women, young people and diverse
sexualities, this occurred through diverse, protracted, radically challenging and
overtly political agonistic struggles by subaltern social movements (Mouffe, 1999).
Take, for instance the development of issues around occupational hazards,
resource degradation, consumer chemicals, ionizing radiation, atmospheric pollu -
tion, water contamination and climate change (Gee et al., 2001; EEA, 2013b).
All were typically pioneered by subaltern communities of workers or affected
people, then picked up by social movements. In each case, it was recognition of
60 Andy Stirling