transition. Instead, they involve more emergent distributed realignments around
diverse, but spontaneously shared aims. The parallels between ecology and society
strike another chord, for the transformative results quite closely resemble the
exquisitely abrupt shifts in direction arising in the autonomous and internally directed
flocking behaviours observable in many animals.
Similar patterns are arguably visible in culture change, where comparably radical
alterations of direction can occur without any overarching framework (either
of codified knowledge or structured action) simply by emergent coordination.
Indeed, this is arguably more characteristic of crucial dynamics in the most im -
pressively progressive of historical transformations also mentioned in this chapter
– in struggles for emancipating excluded classes, ethnicities, slaves, workers,
colonies, women, young people and diverse sexualities. Recognizing that such
processes are more like the dynamics of grassroots culture than high policy – and
more active than determined – the processes of transformation envisioned here
might be thought of more as the ‘culturing’ than the controlling of radical social
change.
Conclusions
This chapter took its cue from growing tendencies for high-profile actors in
sustainability governance debates to question (not only implicitly) the value of
democratic struggle. With unfeasibly short periods to ‘save the planet’, participation
is seen as a threat. Acknowledging any uncertainty is a weakness. Scepticism is a
pathology, dissent an unaffordable ‘luxury’. Responsibility is increasingly external -
ized away from particular political and economic structures and towards ‘human
behaviour’ in general – or humanity in an undifferentiated sense. Emphasizing
multiple kinds of catastrophe, there is a suggestion ‘to put democracy on hold’.
This chimes with emerging scientific discourses that emphasize and assert
the need for various kinds of domination and control. The Anthropocene is
expressly defined in these terms. Associated planetary boundaries are described as
the ‘control variables’ of the Earth. This is a world of ‘non-negotiable’ imperatives,
raising ‘absolutely no uncertainty’, brooking ‘no compromise’ and requiring strong
leadership. Governance is addressed not as a political process, but as a more instru -
mental procedure for ‘planetary management’ . . . ‘taking control of Nature’s realm’.
Democracy, in this light, can become the ‘enemy of nature’.
However, this emerging picture is strikingly at odds with the realities of
sustainability and the progressive social dynamics that gave rise to it. Both in its
prioritized outcomes and its constituting processes, sustainability has always been
centrally about democratic struggle. And though the two are mutually conditioning,
this is more about rudely unruly political contention against power than the kinds
of power-driven (and -constrained) ‘integrated knowledges’, ‘invited engagements’
and polite policy etiquettes of ‘planetary management’. Just as it was arguably only
in agonistic contention by social movements that high-level recognition of
66 Andy Stirling
diverse, but spontaneously shared aims. The parallels between ecology and society
strike another chord, for the transformative results quite closely resemble the
exquisitely abrupt shifts in direction arising in the autonomous and internally directed
flocking behaviours observable in many animals.
Similar patterns are arguably visible in culture change, where comparably radical
alterations of direction can occur without any overarching framework (either
of codified knowledge or structured action) simply by emergent coordination.
Indeed, this is arguably more characteristic of crucial dynamics in the most im -
pressively progressive of historical transformations also mentioned in this chapter
– in struggles for emancipating excluded classes, ethnicities, slaves, workers,
colonies, women, young people and diverse sexualities. Recognizing that such
processes are more like the dynamics of grassroots culture than high policy – and
more active than determined – the processes of transformation envisioned here
might be thought of more as the ‘culturing’ than the controlling of radical social
change.
Conclusions
This chapter took its cue from growing tendencies for high-profile actors in
sustainability governance debates to question (not only implicitly) the value of
democratic struggle. With unfeasibly short periods to ‘save the planet’, participation
is seen as a threat. Acknowledging any uncertainty is a weakness. Scepticism is a
pathology, dissent an unaffordable ‘luxury’. Responsibility is increasingly external -
ized away from particular political and economic structures and towards ‘human
behaviour’ in general – or humanity in an undifferentiated sense. Emphasizing
multiple kinds of catastrophe, there is a suggestion ‘to put democracy on hold’.
This chimes with emerging scientific discourses that emphasize and assert
the need for various kinds of domination and control. The Anthropocene is
expressly defined in these terms. Associated planetary boundaries are described as
the ‘control variables’ of the Earth. This is a world of ‘non-negotiable’ imperatives,
raising ‘absolutely no uncertainty’, brooking ‘no compromise’ and requiring strong
leadership. Governance is addressed not as a political process, but as a more instru -
mental procedure for ‘planetary management’ . . . ‘taking control of Nature’s realm’.
Democracy, in this light, can become the ‘enemy of nature’.
However, this emerging picture is strikingly at odds with the realities of
sustainability and the progressive social dynamics that gave rise to it. Both in its
prioritized outcomes and its constituting processes, sustainability has always been
centrally about democratic struggle. And though the two are mutually conditioning,
this is more about rudely unruly political contention against power than the kinds
of power-driven (and -constrained) ‘integrated knowledges’, ‘invited engagements’
and polite policy etiquettes of ‘planetary management’. Just as it was arguably only
in agonistic contention by social movements that high-level recognition of
66 Andy Stirling