uncertainties that advanced progressive causes, not assertions of ‘uncompromising’,
‘non-negotiable’ certainties. Indeed, these imperatives were at each stage strongly
contested by precisely the authoritarian language now used by the kinds of main -
stream science and high-level governance institutions, which currently profess to
champion sustainability as ‘planetary management’.
The same is typically true not only of the problems highlighted by sustainability
concerns, but also of the prescriptions. Innovations such as wind turbines, ecological
farming, super-efficient buildings and green chemistry all owed their pioneering
origins and early development to subaltern social movements (Smith et al., 2013).
All were systematically marginalized, if not actively suppressed, by incumbent
interests in science, government and industry. These transformative responses were
nurtured not by controlling management, but by adversarial struggle. That so many
of these innovations have now become central elements in prospective trans -
formations to sustainability is despite, rather than because of ‘sound scientific’,
‘evidence-based’ elite policy discourse.
It was for all these reasons that early visions of sustainability went beyond merely
highlighting environment and social justice as outcomes. Increasingly forgotten
nowadays is that the Brundtland Commission, for instance, also made direct
reference to the agonistic processes through which these ends are best pursued.
For Brundtland, the entire sustainability vision was about achieving ‘greater
democracy’ (26: 16) through ‘effective citizen participation’ (26: 58). This was picked
up and strongly developed in the subsequent Agenda 21 programme. However,
this theme of democratic struggle has become increasingly subordinated to local
level implementation. Contemporary instruments like the Millennium Develop -
ment Goals (MDGs) also sideline this crucial process of agonistic struggle, amidst
the clamouring instrumental concerns with metrics and outcomes (Griggs et al.,
2012).
In conclusion, the links between democracy and sustainability are not just
contingent. At root, both are driven by, and towards, emancipation. And this is
as true of knowledge and discourse as of material practice. It is in this light that it
looks most dissonant, that contemporary high-profile debates about ‘sustainability
transitions’ should display such increasing preoccupations with contradictory
attributes like ‘certainty’, ‘leadership’ and ‘control’. It seems that the greatest need
is to emancipate understandings of transformation itself.
From transition to transformation
So much for the background in the general history and practice of sustainability,
but what has all this got to do with particular real-world prospective ‘sustainability
transitions’ on the ground? Even if the above account is right, does it really matter
that environmental authoritarianism tends to emphasize control over accountability?
What is the harm in a little over-egging of notions of Anthropocene ‘planetary
domination’? Might not a measure of over-assertiveness concerning the certainty
Emancipating transformations 61
‘non-negotiable’ certainties. Indeed, these imperatives were at each stage strongly
contested by precisely the authoritarian language now used by the kinds of main -
stream science and high-level governance institutions, which currently profess to
champion sustainability as ‘planetary management’.
The same is typically true not only of the problems highlighted by sustainability
concerns, but also of the prescriptions. Innovations such as wind turbines, ecological
farming, super-efficient buildings and green chemistry all owed their pioneering
origins and early development to subaltern social movements (Smith et al., 2013).
All were systematically marginalized, if not actively suppressed, by incumbent
interests in science, government and industry. These transformative responses were
nurtured not by controlling management, but by adversarial struggle. That so many
of these innovations have now become central elements in prospective trans -
formations to sustainability is despite, rather than because of ‘sound scientific’,
‘evidence-based’ elite policy discourse.
It was for all these reasons that early visions of sustainability went beyond merely
highlighting environment and social justice as outcomes. Increasingly forgotten
nowadays is that the Brundtland Commission, for instance, also made direct
reference to the agonistic processes through which these ends are best pursued.
For Brundtland, the entire sustainability vision was about achieving ‘greater
democracy’ (26: 16) through ‘effective citizen participation’ (26: 58). This was picked
up and strongly developed in the subsequent Agenda 21 programme. However,
this theme of democratic struggle has become increasingly subordinated to local
level implementation. Contemporary instruments like the Millennium Develop -
ment Goals (MDGs) also sideline this crucial process of agonistic struggle, amidst
the clamouring instrumental concerns with metrics and outcomes (Griggs et al.,
2012).
In conclusion, the links between democracy and sustainability are not just
contingent. At root, both are driven by, and towards, emancipation. And this is
as true of knowledge and discourse as of material practice. It is in this light that it
looks most dissonant, that contemporary high-profile debates about ‘sustainability
transitions’ should display such increasing preoccupations with contradictory
attributes like ‘certainty’, ‘leadership’ and ‘control’. It seems that the greatest need
is to emancipate understandings of transformation itself.
From transition to transformation
So much for the background in the general history and practice of sustainability,
but what has all this got to do with particular real-world prospective ‘sustainability
transitions’ on the ground? Even if the above account is right, does it really matter
that environmental authoritarianism tends to emphasize control over accountability?
What is the harm in a little over-egging of notions of Anthropocene ‘planetary
domination’? Might not a measure of over-assertiveness concerning the certainty
Emancipating transformations 61