242
4 Discussion
to reflect and learn about their own evolution and engage in attempts (successful or not) to
guide it. Thus, one could study social formations as bounded ecological orders formed by
the co-presence of operationally autonomous systems and the lifeworld – with the structural
coupling and co-evolution of these systems and the lifeworld mediated by various competitive, cooperative and exploitative mechanisms. Ecological dominance would then refer to
the capacity of a given system in a self-organising ecology of self-organising systems to
imprint its developmental logic on other systems’ operations through structural coupling,
strategic coordination and blind co-evolution to a greater extent than the latter can impose
their respective logics on that system.
According to Jessop (2000, 2014), we need to take care not to apply the ecological
dominance epistemology without considering its ‘communicative’ and ‘discursive’
mediated systems. We also need to consider that social forces (municipal officials
and the epistemic community) reflect and learn about the evolutionary processes that
guide their epistemology. Jessop (2000) goes on to say that, for the ecological dominance epistemology to be present, there need to be autonomously operated systems
and an existing lifeworld. Both are present in eThekwini’s green and ecological
infrastructure policy landscape, for example, there is an interest group, municipal
officials, NGOs, members of the epistemic community, as well as the municipality
as a structural entity, which all exhibit autonomous preferences. Nevertheless, these
independent inclinations are not free from influencing factors. Cost-benefit analyses play an important part in the policy landscape, especially when considering the
establishment of a water fund and the role of liberal institutionalist practices, like
attaching economic value to natural resources through structures like D’MOSS.
If we consider D’MOSS further, Roberts (1994) states that it frames a novel
approach to public open space provisioning in Durban. Within these open spaces,
the municipality has integrated their use as amenities and for conservation. D’MOSS
envisions the creation of an open space network, which forms a permanent and
inherent part of Durban’s urban environment. The purpose of the policy is ‘…the
preservation of maximum sustainable indigenous biotic diversity’ (emphasis in
the original) (Roberts 1994: 14). Therefore, the overarching theoretical framing
of D’MOSS is sustainable development, with an apparent ecological dominance
present.
From Robert’s (1994) description of the vision and purpose of D’MOSS, we
notice several normative concepts (Callicot et al. 1999), such as biotic diversity and
conservation. The other normative concepts that interviewees identified, and which
are linked to D’MOSS, include biodiversity (p. 87), ecosystem services, rehabilitation, adaptation and sustainable development. From a functionalist perspective (a
sub-strand of neoliberalism) (p. 106), scholars comprehend ‘…nature primarily by
means of ecosystem ecology and considers Homo sapiens a part of nature’ (Callicot
et al. 1999). Another school of conservation philosophy is compositionalism, which
defines ‘…nature primarily by means of evolutionary ecology and considers Homo
sapiens separate from nature’ (Callicot et al. 1999: 22).
Biodiversity and biological integrity belong chiefly to the compositionalist
vocabulary, while adaptation, conservation, ecosystem services, rehabilitation and
sustainable development are part of the functionalist glossary (Callicot 1998).
4 Discussion
to reflect and learn about their own evolution and engage in attempts (successful or not) to
guide it. Thus, one could study social formations as bounded ecological orders formed by
the co-presence of operationally autonomous systems and the lifeworld – with the structural
coupling and co-evolution of these systems and the lifeworld mediated by various competitive, cooperative and exploitative mechanisms. Ecological dominance would then refer to
the capacity of a given system in a self-organising ecology of self-organising systems to
imprint its developmental logic on other systems’ operations through structural coupling,
strategic coordination and blind co-evolution to a greater extent than the latter can impose
their respective logics on that system.
According to Jessop (2000, 2014), we need to take care not to apply the ecological
dominance epistemology without considering its ‘communicative’ and ‘discursive’
mediated systems. We also need to consider that social forces (municipal officials
and the epistemic community) reflect and learn about the evolutionary processes that
guide their epistemology. Jessop (2000) goes on to say that, for the ecological dominance epistemology to be present, there need to be autonomously operated systems
and an existing lifeworld. Both are present in eThekwini’s green and ecological
infrastructure policy landscape, for example, there is an interest group, municipal
officials, NGOs, members of the epistemic community, as well as the municipality
as a structural entity, which all exhibit autonomous preferences. Nevertheless, these
independent inclinations are not free from influencing factors. Cost-benefit analyses play an important part in the policy landscape, especially when considering the
establishment of a water fund and the role of liberal institutionalist practices, like
attaching economic value to natural resources through structures like D’MOSS.
If we consider D’MOSS further, Roberts (1994) states that it frames a novel
approach to public open space provisioning in Durban. Within these open spaces,
the municipality has integrated their use as amenities and for conservation. D’MOSS
envisions the creation of an open space network, which forms a permanent and
inherent part of Durban’s urban environment. The purpose of the policy is ‘…the
preservation of maximum sustainable indigenous biotic diversity’ (emphasis in
the original) (Roberts 1994: 14). Therefore, the overarching theoretical framing
of D’MOSS is sustainable development, with an apparent ecological dominance
present.
From Robert’s (1994) description of the vision and purpose of D’MOSS, we
notice several normative concepts (Callicot et al. 1999), such as biotic diversity and
conservation. The other normative concepts that interviewees identified, and which
are linked to D’MOSS, include biodiversity (p. 87), ecosystem services, rehabilitation, adaptation and sustainable development. From a functionalist perspective (a
sub-strand of neoliberalism) (p. 106), scholars comprehend ‘…nature primarily by
means of ecosystem ecology and considers Homo sapiens a part of nature’ (Callicot
et al. 1999). Another school of conservation philosophy is compositionalism, which
defines ‘…nature primarily by means of evolutionary ecology and considers Homo
sapiens separate from nature’ (Callicot et al. 1999: 22).
Biodiversity and biological integrity belong chiefly to the compositionalist
vocabulary, while adaptation, conservation, ecosystem services, rehabilitation and
sustainable development are part of the functionalist glossary (Callicot 1998).