3.5 Practice Theory as a Direction-Finding Beacon
219
that the epistocrats may have actually closed off an open-ended understanding of the
business community’s perspectives, by not including them from the start.
Based on these arguments, the implementation of green and ecological infrastructures through whatever type of mechanism it may be, be it a water fund, a twinning
agreement, DRAP or the UEIP, might succeed in a limited manner. In this sense, as
Respondent 7 indicated, eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructures face the
risk of becoming irrelevant, since the municipality does not adequately communicate
their benefits to the public. There is also the possibility that the public might view such
initiatives as illegitimate, since the epistocrats limit public participation, by closing
off public perspectives and opinions, in certain instances. Although public participation is present when the municipality contracts community members to reforest
certain areas, the community members act as a labour reserve (Van Klaveren 2018)
and not as active and equal participants. In other words, green infrastructures act as
an attraction for unifying environmental protection with economic growth (Lennon
2015; Van Klaveren 2018). The epistocrats could, therefore, be implementing a
green and ecological infrastructure initiative by using structural hegemonic processes
(Warner and Zawahri 2012; Van Klaveren 2018), as a vehicle of hegemonic control
that hides the structural inequalities (Van Klaveren 2019), since the experts focus
most of their empiricist practices on the environment and pay less attention to the
normativity of the social structures.
3.6 Conclusion
The PULSE
3 analysis indicates that there is a predominance of the positivist paradigm
in the interviews, with regard to both knowledge generation and the recommended
actions. The dominance of positivism is a function of the subject matter at hand,
namely, that green and ecological infrastructures relate to nature, and that the narrative around the infrastructure types is influenced by concepts that are ‘measurable’,
namely, biodiversity, climate change and sustainable development goals, among
other things. Municipal policies that relate directly to this, learn from these concepts.
Since the early 1990s, the municipality has been implementing D’MOSS as its policy
response to climate change adaptation and mitigation, especially with regard to adaptation. There is consensus about the types of infrastructure that fit neatly with empiricism and positivism, namely, that green and ecological infrastructures are something
in ‘reality’ that humans can study in an objective manner, such as mountains and
wetlands. This would also explain why the municipality promotes both infrastructure types to produce positive outcomes, since nature is controllable, to a certain
extent, and everything that is ‘natural’ is good for human well-being. What is noteworthy is that several respondents used the SANBI definition to define an ecological
infrastructure, which represents a positivist ontology. It is, therefore, not possible
for interpretation and construction to take place within a dominant positivist narrative. This happens by borrowing from other concepts and applying them to one’s
219
that the epistocrats may have actually closed off an open-ended understanding of the
business community’s perspectives, by not including them from the start.
Based on these arguments, the implementation of green and ecological infrastructures through whatever type of mechanism it may be, be it a water fund, a twinning
agreement, DRAP or the UEIP, might succeed in a limited manner. In this sense, as
Respondent 7 indicated, eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructures face the
risk of becoming irrelevant, since the municipality does not adequately communicate
their benefits to the public. There is also the possibility that the public might view such
initiatives as illegitimate, since the epistocrats limit public participation, by closing
off public perspectives and opinions, in certain instances. Although public participation is present when the municipality contracts community members to reforest
certain areas, the community members act as a labour reserve (Van Klaveren 2018)
and not as active and equal participants. In other words, green infrastructures act as
an attraction for unifying environmental protection with economic growth (Lennon
2015; Van Klaveren 2018). The epistocrats could, therefore, be implementing a
green and ecological infrastructure initiative by using structural hegemonic processes
(Warner and Zawahri 2012; Van Klaveren 2018), as a vehicle of hegemonic control
that hides the structural inequalities (Van Klaveren 2019), since the experts focus
most of their empiricist practices on the environment and pay less attention to the
normativity of the social structures.
3.6 Conclusion
The PULSE
3 analysis indicates that there is a predominance of the positivist paradigm
in the interviews, with regard to both knowledge generation and the recommended
actions. The dominance of positivism is a function of the subject matter at hand,
namely, that green and ecological infrastructures relate to nature, and that the narrative around the infrastructure types is influenced by concepts that are ‘measurable’,
namely, biodiversity, climate change and sustainable development goals, among
other things. Municipal policies that relate directly to this, learn from these concepts.
Since the early 1990s, the municipality has been implementing D’MOSS as its policy
response to climate change adaptation and mitigation, especially with regard to adaptation. There is consensus about the types of infrastructure that fit neatly with empiricism and positivism, namely, that green and ecological infrastructures are something
in ‘reality’ that humans can study in an objective manner, such as mountains and
wetlands. This would also explain why the municipality promotes both infrastructure types to produce positive outcomes, since nature is controllable, to a certain
extent, and everything that is ‘natural’ is good for human well-being. What is noteworthy is that several respondents used the SANBI definition to define an ecological
infrastructure, which represents a positivist ontology. It is, therefore, not possible
for interpretation and construction to take place within a dominant positivist narrative. This happens by borrowing from other concepts and applying them to one’s