130
therefore, as a situated political construct. This sensitises scholars not only
to the variety of justifications that have been mobilised in the name of
particular purposes and beneficiaries in the past but also to the ephemeral
nature of accountability criteria. What today may seem self-explanatory,
may tomorrow be questioned.
History can point us to times and places when crises of accountability
did challenge prevalent logics, policies or practices of energy provision.
Such critical junctures can reveal past attempts to delegitimate a hegemonic sociotechnical configuration and assess their achievements with the
benefit of hindsight. At the same time, history can generate an appreciation of the obduracy of argumentative tropes enrolled to legitimate the
predominant system. As the Berlin case illustrated, institutional norms can
prove just as path dependent as the material structures they regulate. The
fixation on energy security—and the capacity reserves this engendered—in
West Berlin during the Cold War era created a legacy of insularity with
which the city is still struggling to cope even 30 years after reunification.
Finally, history can direct attention to the roots of sustainability thinking in a particular space-time context. Sustainability as we know it was not
a term in use before the 1970s, but its origins can be instructive, such as
past efforts to save energy, use renewables or challenge supply-driven logics of supply. The social movements pioneering novel modes of accountable energy governance in Berlin today cannot be comprehended fully,
Moss argues, without reference to their forebearers and the historically
constructed sociotechnical regimes they challenged in bygone decades.
Christian Lund employs a conflict-centred approach anchored in a
reading of classic texts within development studies, political science and
political ecology to show how empirical examination of accountability is
linked with the constitution of authority and subjecthood. Lund’s (2016)
overall argument is that to treat the ‘state’ (or any other institution) as a
finished product gets in the way of understanding it. It is always in the
making. Political authority is (re)produced through its successful exercise;
especially when exercised over important issues in relation to the social
actors concerned.
Arguably, when institutions recognise claims to rights, they themselves
become recognised by the claimants of these rights. That is to say, rights
and authority are mutually and simultaneously established. Claims therefore invoke public authority and governing capacity in different institutions, be they statutory or not. And, conversely, those who can claim to
authorise people’s claims to rights acquire and exercise political authority.
S. SAREEN ET AL.
therefore, as a situated political construct. This sensitises scholars not only
to the variety of justifications that have been mobilised in the name of
particular purposes and beneficiaries in the past but also to the ephemeral
nature of accountability criteria. What today may seem self-explanatory,
may tomorrow be questioned.
History can point us to times and places when crises of accountability
did challenge prevalent logics, policies or practices of energy provision.
Such critical junctures can reveal past attempts to delegitimate a hegemonic sociotechnical configuration and assess their achievements with the
benefit of hindsight. At the same time, history can generate an appreciation of the obduracy of argumentative tropes enrolled to legitimate the
predominant system. As the Berlin case illustrated, institutional norms can
prove just as path dependent as the material structures they regulate. The
fixation on energy security—and the capacity reserves this engendered—in
West Berlin during the Cold War era created a legacy of insularity with
which the city is still struggling to cope even 30 years after reunification.
Finally, history can direct attention to the roots of sustainability thinking in a particular space-time context. Sustainability as we know it was not
a term in use before the 1970s, but its origins can be instructive, such as
past efforts to save energy, use renewables or challenge supply-driven logics of supply. The social movements pioneering novel modes of accountable energy governance in Berlin today cannot be comprehended fully,
Moss argues, without reference to their forebearers and the historically
constructed sociotechnical regimes they challenged in bygone decades.
Christian Lund employs a conflict-centred approach anchored in a
reading of classic texts within development studies, political science and
political ecology to show how empirical examination of accountability is
linked with the constitution of authority and subjecthood. Lund’s (2016)
overall argument is that to treat the ‘state’ (or any other institution) as a
finished product gets in the way of understanding it. It is always in the
making. Political authority is (re)produced through its successful exercise;
especially when exercised over important issues in relation to the social
actors concerned.
Arguably, when institutions recognise claims to rights, they themselves
become recognised by the claimants of these rights. That is to say, rights
and authority are mutually and simultaneously established. Claims therefore invoke public authority and governing capacity in different institutions, be they statutory or not. And, conversely, those who can claim to
authorise people’s claims to rights acquire and exercise political authority.
S. SAREEN ET AL.