3.5 Practice Theory as a Direction-Finding Beacon
211
knowledge that informs governance (Min 2015; Lucky 2019) and politics. Based on
this argument, the link between politics and eThekwini’s green and ecological policy
arena is not difficult to comprehend.
Nevertheless, epistocrats desire a certain shape of society and long for ends,
rather than means (Wissenburg 2019). Tremmel (2018) and Wissenburg (2019) argue
that we should make a distinction between an epistocracy and a technocracy. A
technocracy is the rule of those that are most skilled in a practice, or those who
use a means. In this section, I will only discuss the concept of epistocracy, as it is
manifested in eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. Even
so, we cannot completely ignore the concept ‘technocracy’, since Tremmel (2018)
and Wissenburg (2019) tie it explicitly to the practices that have been mentioned in
the previous sections of this chapter.
In South Africa, the concept, forms and implications of epistocratic rule in society
and in the global realm (Tremmel 2018 and Wissenburg 2019) have gained significant
traction in recent years. This was especially evident after 2016 when the 35th International Geological Congress in Cape Town unofficially proclaimed a new geological epoch, namely, the Anthropocene, or the Epoch of Man (Wright and Simpson
2015; Tremmel 2018). Since the concept embodies the notion of human activity
reshaping all parts of the earth’s system, with its negative consequences manifesting
themselves in anthropogenic climate change, scholars started asking whether society
should overhaul democracy as a practice, since the Anthropocene redefines the place
of humans in the world, for it speaks of humans in a different way (Tremmel 2018).
We now see ourselves as a species with a geological force that is altering the earth’s
biosphere, and the Anthropocene, as a concept, encapsulates human transformation
that is based on industrial, urban and technological change. Scientists have linked
these developments to global climate change and the earth’s sixth mass extinction
event (Wright and Simpson 2015), which resonates with the idea of modernity as a
juggernaut, as was mentioned during my discussion on a risk society (p. 146). We
can link the influence of the Anthropocene concept with the rise of epistocracies
in the following mantra: ‘geological imagination influences political imagination’
(Chakrabarty 2009; Wright and Simpson 2015). In other words, a scientific concept
constitutes the rise of epistocracies as the subject matter in Philosophy and Politics.
Epistocratic forms
Anne Jeffrey (2018: 412) identified a form of epistocracy, which she terms a ‘limited
epistocracy’ or the ‘rule by institutions housing expertise in non-political areas
that become politically relevant’. The doctrine of a limited epistocracy follows
Rehg’s (2011: 386, cited in Jeffrey 2018: 412) argument that ‘the multidisciplinary
complexity of the technical issues exceeds the technical expertise of one person’.
Rehg (2011) used climate change as an example. Limited epistocracies exist where
government institutions outsource political power to institutions or corresponding
groups, like the IPCC, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Migration
Policy Institute (MPI), which have the relevant expertise to solve urgent and complex
problems, such as climate change, virus outbreaks and refugee crises. Governments
do this because the problems outstrip democratic decision-making (Jeffrey 2018).
211
knowledge that informs governance (Min 2015; Lucky 2019) and politics. Based on
this argument, the link between politics and eThekwini’s green and ecological policy
arena is not difficult to comprehend.
Nevertheless, epistocrats desire a certain shape of society and long for ends,
rather than means (Wissenburg 2019). Tremmel (2018) and Wissenburg (2019) argue
that we should make a distinction between an epistocracy and a technocracy. A
technocracy is the rule of those that are most skilled in a practice, or those who
use a means. In this section, I will only discuss the concept of epistocracy, as it is
manifested in eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. Even
so, we cannot completely ignore the concept ‘technocracy’, since Tremmel (2018)
and Wissenburg (2019) tie it explicitly to the practices that have been mentioned in
the previous sections of this chapter.
In South Africa, the concept, forms and implications of epistocratic rule in society
and in the global realm (Tremmel 2018 and Wissenburg 2019) have gained significant
traction in recent years. This was especially evident after 2016 when the 35th International Geological Congress in Cape Town unofficially proclaimed a new geological epoch, namely, the Anthropocene, or the Epoch of Man (Wright and Simpson
2015; Tremmel 2018). Since the concept embodies the notion of human activity
reshaping all parts of the earth’s system, with its negative consequences manifesting
themselves in anthropogenic climate change, scholars started asking whether society
should overhaul democracy as a practice, since the Anthropocene redefines the place
of humans in the world, for it speaks of humans in a different way (Tremmel 2018).
We now see ourselves as a species with a geological force that is altering the earth’s
biosphere, and the Anthropocene, as a concept, encapsulates human transformation
that is based on industrial, urban and technological change. Scientists have linked
these developments to global climate change and the earth’s sixth mass extinction
event (Wright and Simpson 2015), which resonates with the idea of modernity as a
juggernaut, as was mentioned during my discussion on a risk society (p. 146). We
can link the influence of the Anthropocene concept with the rise of epistocracies
in the following mantra: ‘geological imagination influences political imagination’
(Chakrabarty 2009; Wright and Simpson 2015). In other words, a scientific concept
constitutes the rise of epistocracies as the subject matter in Philosophy and Politics.
Epistocratic forms
Anne Jeffrey (2018: 412) identified a form of epistocracy, which she terms a ‘limited
epistocracy’ or the ‘rule by institutions housing expertise in non-political areas
that become politically relevant’. The doctrine of a limited epistocracy follows
Rehg’s (2011: 386, cited in Jeffrey 2018: 412) argument that ‘the multidisciplinary
complexity of the technical issues exceeds the technical expertise of one person’.
Rehg (2011) used climate change as an example. Limited epistocracies exist where
government institutions outsource political power to institutions or corresponding
groups, like the IPCC, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Migration
Policy Institute (MPI), which have the relevant expertise to solve urgent and complex
problems, such as climate change, virus outbreaks and refugee crises. Governments
do this because the problems outstrip democratic decision-making (Jeffrey 2018).