92
crisis. The crisis stems from lack of institutional alternatives. What is scarce
is coordination capacity. We do not have proven, practical institutional
responses to what ails us, or at minimum, the switching costs and the
learning challenges make transition frightening’ (Wolf and Bonanno 2014:
287). In these terms, a crisis of legitimacy has the potential to catalyse a
transition, some forms of which might be called sustainable.
1
This transition will entail both technical and institutional state variables. We have not
advanced very far in some imagined transition towards sustainability (e.g.,
reduced reliance on fossil fuels and reduced CO 2 flux and reductions in
economic stratification), and so it is possible to suggest that there is no
legitimation crisis. In other words, people do not interpret the situation in
terms of institutional failure. Consumer capitalism appears quite sustainable, and core debates are framed in technical (i.e., post- political
(Swyngedouw 2009)) terms. Dominant institutions, dominant actors, and
dominant material practices are able to reproduce their legitimacy despite
social and ecological contradictions (Piketty 2013; Rockström et al. 2009).
For this reason, this book is focused on questions about how this legitimacy is maintained and how new accountability practices might alter flows
of legitimacy and advance a sustainability transition.
Science and technology studies has developed the concept of sociotechnical systems, highlighting the mutual embeddedness of social processes
and technology. This integrated perspective is rather central to the sustainability transitions literature. In trying to make sense of sociotechnical
change and processes of regulation, I identify flows of legitimacy and
accountability ‘tests’ as essential considerations (see top right in Fig. 8.1).
Such tests can take the form of laws, administrative rules, professional best
practices, technical standards, cultural conventions, investment and consumption behaviours, and other social processes that structure discrimination routines (i.e., processes of selection within an ecological model).
Processes of selection, or regulation, are central to an analysis of mechanisms that might produce a sociotechnical transition or rapid ‘flip’ (i.e.,
state change) into something we might identify as sustainability. They are
also central to the analysis of how sustainability imperatives are blunted
and co-opted. Blühdorn (2007) has emphasised the need to analyse how
we ‘sustain the unsustainable’. The reproduction of selection mechanisms/environments—that is, standards of legitimacy and mechanisms of
1
Authoritarianism is a possible outcome, and the relationship between authoritarianism
and sustainability requires reflection.
S. WOLF
crisis. The crisis stems from lack of institutional alternatives. What is scarce
is coordination capacity. We do not have proven, practical institutional
responses to what ails us, or at minimum, the switching costs and the
learning challenges make transition frightening’ (Wolf and Bonanno 2014:
287). In these terms, a crisis of legitimacy has the potential to catalyse a
transition, some forms of which might be called sustainable.
1
This transition will entail both technical and institutional state variables. We have not
advanced very far in some imagined transition towards sustainability (e.g.,
reduced reliance on fossil fuels and reduced CO 2 flux and reductions in
economic stratification), and so it is possible to suggest that there is no
legitimation crisis. In other words, people do not interpret the situation in
terms of institutional failure. Consumer capitalism appears quite sustainable, and core debates are framed in technical (i.e., post- political
(Swyngedouw 2009)) terms. Dominant institutions, dominant actors, and
dominant material practices are able to reproduce their legitimacy despite
social and ecological contradictions (Piketty 2013; Rockström et al. 2009).
For this reason, this book is focused on questions about how this legitimacy is maintained and how new accountability practices might alter flows
of legitimacy and advance a sustainability transition.
Science and technology studies has developed the concept of sociotechnical systems, highlighting the mutual embeddedness of social processes
and technology. This integrated perspective is rather central to the sustainability transitions literature. In trying to make sense of sociotechnical
change and processes of regulation, I identify flows of legitimacy and
accountability ‘tests’ as essential considerations (see top right in Fig. 8.1).
Such tests can take the form of laws, administrative rules, professional best
practices, technical standards, cultural conventions, investment and consumption behaviours, and other social processes that structure discrimination routines (i.e., processes of selection within an ecological model).
Processes of selection, or regulation, are central to an analysis of mechanisms that might produce a sociotechnical transition or rapid ‘flip’ (i.e.,
state change) into something we might identify as sustainability. They are
also central to the analysis of how sustainability imperatives are blunted
and co-opted. Blühdorn (2007) has emphasised the need to analyse how
we ‘sustain the unsustainable’. The reproduction of selection mechanisms/environments—that is, standards of legitimacy and mechanisms of
1
Authoritarianism is a possible outcome, and the relationship between authoritarianism
and sustainability requires reflection.
S. WOLF