25
In rational choice theory as the foundation of neoclassical economic theory, individuals make decisions based on maximising their own utility. The assumption of
rational choice provides a reductionist basis for modelling the economy as a selforganising system. It also provides a scientific justification for the current proliferation of market-based instruments for ecosystem management. This is epitomised by
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB) aiming to ‘help
decision-makers recognise, demonstrate and capture the values of ecosystem services & biodiversity’ (Kumar 2010; Brown 2014).
Rational choice theory is widely used but contested in the social sciences. Other
and more elaborated theories for explaining social behaviour have been formulated
in sociology, such as various institutional theories and symbolic interactionism. In
institutional theory, different scholars stress different aspects of social and economic interaction and relations (Mahoney 2000; Mahoney and Thelen 2010; Taylor
2011). In sharp contrast to rational choice theory, symbolic interactionism stresses
social relations, contextual conditions, and subjective interpretation (Blumer 1986).
2.6 An Integrative Framework – Social Fields and Natural
Systems
Inspired by American and French sociologists Neil Fligstein, Paul DiMaggio, Pierre
Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, we suggest a new analytical framework for integrating knowledge across the natural and social sciences. As for now, we call it Social
Fields and Natural Systems thus juxtaposing two ontological assumptions: the
natural environment can be described in terms of systems, the social sphere is better
described in terms of social fields (Olsson and Jerneck 2018). We argue that the
approach has the potential to help researchers overcome ontological barriers
between the social and natural sciences, and is particularly useful for avoiding the
three common weaknesses in knowledge integration across the natural and social
sciences that we mentioned earlier: the use of environmental determinism, functionalism, and rational choice as three theories attempting to explain social change.
In Earth System Science, the fundamental ontological assumption is that the
world is a system. As long as the system is understood in primarily natural science
terms such as an ecosystem, this is usually uncontroversial. Some ecologists claim
that ‘ecological and social domains of social-ecological systems can be addressed
in a common conceptual, theoretical, and modelling framework’ (Walker et al.
2006). This is the situation where a system ontology may come into conflict with
ontological assumptions in the social sciences.
To Bourdieu, a field is a network of relations among actors and objects and their
objective positions in the field (Ritzer 2011). John Levi Martin is another contemporary scholar who theorises fields. This quote describes his view (Martin 2003):
I make the case that field theory is something quite different that has the potential to yield general but nontrivial insights into questions rightly deemed theoretical and to organize research in
a productive fashion. Finally, field theory allows for the rigorous reflexivity that is necessary in
all cases in which sociology attempts large-scale political and institutional analyses.
2 Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in Sustainability Science
In rational choice theory as the foundation of neoclassical economic theory, individuals make decisions based on maximising their own utility. The assumption of
rational choice provides a reductionist basis for modelling the economy as a selforganising system. It also provides a scientific justification for the current proliferation of market-based instruments for ecosystem management. This is epitomised by
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB) aiming to ‘help
decision-makers recognise, demonstrate and capture the values of ecosystem services & biodiversity’ (Kumar 2010; Brown 2014).
Rational choice theory is widely used but contested in the social sciences. Other
and more elaborated theories for explaining social behaviour have been formulated
in sociology, such as various institutional theories and symbolic interactionism. In
institutional theory, different scholars stress different aspects of social and economic interaction and relations (Mahoney 2000; Mahoney and Thelen 2010; Taylor
2011). In sharp contrast to rational choice theory, symbolic interactionism stresses
social relations, contextual conditions, and subjective interpretation (Blumer 1986).
2.6 An Integrative Framework – Social Fields and Natural
Systems
Inspired by American and French sociologists Neil Fligstein, Paul DiMaggio, Pierre
Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, we suggest a new analytical framework for integrating knowledge across the natural and social sciences. As for now, we call it Social
Fields and Natural Systems thus juxtaposing two ontological assumptions: the
natural environment can be described in terms of systems, the social sphere is better
described in terms of social fields (Olsson and Jerneck 2018). We argue that the
approach has the potential to help researchers overcome ontological barriers
between the social and natural sciences, and is particularly useful for avoiding the
three common weaknesses in knowledge integration across the natural and social
sciences that we mentioned earlier: the use of environmental determinism, functionalism, and rational choice as three theories attempting to explain social change.
In Earth System Science, the fundamental ontological assumption is that the
world is a system. As long as the system is understood in primarily natural science
terms such as an ecosystem, this is usually uncontroversial. Some ecologists claim
that ‘ecological and social domains of social-ecological systems can be addressed
in a common conceptual, theoretical, and modelling framework’ (Walker et al.
2006). This is the situation where a system ontology may come into conflict with
ontological assumptions in the social sciences.
To Bourdieu, a field is a network of relations among actors and objects and their
objective positions in the field (Ritzer 2011). John Levi Martin is another contemporary scholar who theorises fields. This quote describes his view (Martin 2003):
I make the case that field theory is something quite different that has the potential to yield general but nontrivial insights into questions rightly deemed theoretical and to organize research in
a productive fashion. Finally, field theory allows for the rigorous reflexivity that is necessary in
all cases in which sociology attempts large-scale political and institutional analyses.
2 Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in Sustainability Science