The canonized knowledge that comes with education impacts rational search
strategies for alternatives and becomes part of our mind-sets. These encompass
basic assumptions about what we say exists, what its characteristics are and which
development solutions seem possible or rational, including guiding values.
In scientific contexts this is what paradigms entail: epistemological questions
surrounding what we can know and ontological ones on the state of the world will
be combined into methodological approaches to capture reality or seek truthful
answers. Some researchers explicitly add axiological value questions when presenting their research designs.
Worldviews or paradigms serve as central reference frameworks for epistemic
communities in research but also for the pioneers or situated groups that transition
researchers observe taking action on strategic change. The worldviews and paradigms inform the narratives of where this social system or economy is heading,
what its purpose is and why a particular ordering of roles, technologies, remuneration structures, and infrastructures are promising, or at least acceptable for this
destination. Reflexive theory sees them as the mediating ‘glue’ between actors and
structures in a society.
We have seen that all the pioneering practitioners reviewed above started with
principles, guidelines, indicators and measuring tools to express the purpose of their
particular initiative and how it can be enacted. Gradually, such enacting is changing
the productive processes and system setups that people encounter in their ‘reality,’
which will foster different experiences of how life ‘is.’ The imaginary space of possible human–human, human–nature and human–technology relations is widened and
thus creativity and courage expand in the innovation of systems organizing economic
activities. As a consequence of learning from such experimental test cases, it becomes
easier to change regime rules and path dependencies, which all transition and transformation scientists agree is necessary for lasting changes. This potentially virtuous
spin on the materiality of ideas (Fig. 2.5) is summarized in the UNEP GEO-5 report:
Coordinating deep and enduring system change is neither a single pathway nor a linear
process. For example, the rules of a system often arise from a change in mindset, but in turn
help support mindset shifts. At this level of system intervention the emphasis is on getting
the signals right. Because rules and incentives can institute structural change, they represent
the game changers that can catalyse and retain a strong influence on system behaviour over
time (UNEP 2012: 422).
In democratic societies in particular, individual and collective sense-making and
narratives are crucial for an understanding of which rules and incentives are put in place
and accepted. They create the “discursive face of politics” (Fraser 2013) and influence
the development of “consciousness-personality-structures” (Hahnel 2002), both of
which will determine how policies and technologies are innovated and which solutions
appear as economically sensible or normatively justified. Low leverage points that can
accelerate or balance feedback in a system—and thus also existing development trajectories—involve tweaking technological solutions or economic incentives. But they
will not be the source of any intentional bend of a trend. This requires a deeper
repurposing on the levels of imaginary and sociocultural belief systems.
150
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations
strategies for alternatives and becomes part of our mind-sets. These encompass
basic assumptions about what we say exists, what its characteristics are and which
development solutions seem possible or rational, including guiding values.
In scientific contexts this is what paradigms entail: epistemological questions
surrounding what we can know and ontological ones on the state of the world will
be combined into methodological approaches to capture reality or seek truthful
answers. Some researchers explicitly add axiological value questions when presenting their research designs.
Worldviews or paradigms serve as central reference frameworks for epistemic
communities in research but also for the pioneers or situated groups that transition
researchers observe taking action on strategic change. The worldviews and paradigms inform the narratives of where this social system or economy is heading,
what its purpose is and why a particular ordering of roles, technologies, remuneration structures, and infrastructures are promising, or at least acceptable for this
destination. Reflexive theory sees them as the mediating ‘glue’ between actors and
structures in a society.
We have seen that all the pioneering practitioners reviewed above started with
principles, guidelines, indicators and measuring tools to express the purpose of their
particular initiative and how it can be enacted. Gradually, such enacting is changing
the productive processes and system setups that people encounter in their ‘reality,’
which will foster different experiences of how life ‘is.’ The imaginary space of possible human–human, human–nature and human–technology relations is widened and
thus creativity and courage expand in the innovation of systems organizing economic
activities. As a consequence of learning from such experimental test cases, it becomes
easier to change regime rules and path dependencies, which all transition and transformation scientists agree is necessary for lasting changes. This potentially virtuous
spin on the materiality of ideas (Fig. 2.5) is summarized in the UNEP GEO-5 report:
Coordinating deep and enduring system change is neither a single pathway nor a linear
process. For example, the rules of a system often arise from a change in mindset, but in turn
help support mindset shifts. At this level of system intervention the emphasis is on getting
the signals right. Because rules and incentives can institute structural change, they represent
the game changers that can catalyse and retain a strong influence on system behaviour over
time (UNEP 2012: 422).
In democratic societies in particular, individual and collective sense-making and
narratives are crucial for an understanding of which rules and incentives are put in place
and accepted. They create the “discursive face of politics” (Fraser 2013) and influence
the development of “consciousness-personality-structures” (Hahnel 2002), both of
which will determine how policies and technologies are innovated and which solutions
appear as economically sensible or normatively justified. Low leverage points that can
accelerate or balance feedback in a system—and thus also existing development trajectories—involve tweaking technological solutions or economic incentives. But they
will not be the source of any intentional bend of a trend. This requires a deeper
repurposing on the levels of imaginary and sociocultural belief systems.
150
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations