28
2.7 A Typology – Linking Science and Politics
Below we suggest a typology which links a scientific understanding of sustainability challenges with political and ideological beliefs. The typology is a device for
reframing research problems. By shifting them between distinctly different visionary categories we make theoretical, methodological, and other features visible. This
allows further scrutiny of complementarities and contradictions as well as an evaluation of the potential of these frames for tackling sustainability challenges. The
typology should be seen as a source of inspiration and discussion rather than a fixed
schema. Ultimately, the goal of such a typology is to increase the political awareness of scientific knowledge production as a basis for a more politically informed
sustainability science which is a prerequisite for social change.
As a basis for the typology, we postulate that a spectrum of visions – one and
each of which claims to promise sustainability – from continuing the ongoing modernisation to defying modernisation exists. Along this spectrum we define three
more or less distinct views supported by their own frame of science and reality,
theoretical and methodological approaches, and strategies for social change. In the
typology we call them ecological modernity, critical modernity and anti-modernity.
Inspired by York & Rosa’s theoretical analysis of ecological modernisation theory
(EMT) (York and Rosa 2003) we make a distinction between ecological modernity
and critical modernity. In their analysis they distinguish between observed
institutional changes and the efficacy and outcome of such changes. Proceeding
from this distinction, endeavours for achieving sustainability have clearly generated
a wide individual, institutional, and organisational response throughout society – at
least since the time of Our Common Future. To exemplify, states participate in international negotiations resulting in national targets towards sustainability such as the
Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. Firms and corporations
increasingly use sustainability claims in their communications such as Corporate
Social Responsibility. Municipalities initiate and promote recycling and waste management as well as public transports. Civil society exert pressure on the private and
public sectors and call for improved environmental performance while many individuals seek to adjust to these new norms. In all, these activities and processes are
recognised as contributing to and providing the basis for ecological modernisation.
In our view, these responses are necessary for achieving sustainability, but are they
sufficient, or is there need for more?
While categories under ecological modernity focus on promises of social change
rather than on outcomes, the categories under critical modernity are more concerned
about the outcomes. Ecological modernisation is characterised by a set of piecemeal
and incremental processes of change without any connection to a planetary whole.
Critical modernisation, however, takes the global whole as its point of departure in
sketching what is needed in terms of social change to achieve sustainability. AntiA. Jerneck and L. Olsson
2.7 A Typology – Linking Science and Politics
Below we suggest a typology which links a scientific understanding of sustainability challenges with political and ideological beliefs. The typology is a device for
reframing research problems. By shifting them between distinctly different visionary categories we make theoretical, methodological, and other features visible. This
allows further scrutiny of complementarities and contradictions as well as an evaluation of the potential of these frames for tackling sustainability challenges. The
typology should be seen as a source of inspiration and discussion rather than a fixed
schema. Ultimately, the goal of such a typology is to increase the political awareness of scientific knowledge production as a basis for a more politically informed
sustainability science which is a prerequisite for social change.
As a basis for the typology, we postulate that a spectrum of visions – one and
each of which claims to promise sustainability – from continuing the ongoing modernisation to defying modernisation exists. Along this spectrum we define three
more or less distinct views supported by their own frame of science and reality,
theoretical and methodological approaches, and strategies for social change. In the
typology we call them ecological modernity, critical modernity and anti-modernity.
Inspired by York & Rosa’s theoretical analysis of ecological modernisation theory
(EMT) (York and Rosa 2003) we make a distinction between ecological modernity
and critical modernity. In their analysis they distinguish between observed
institutional changes and the efficacy and outcome of such changes. Proceeding
from this distinction, endeavours for achieving sustainability have clearly generated
a wide individual, institutional, and organisational response throughout society – at
least since the time of Our Common Future. To exemplify, states participate in international negotiations resulting in national targets towards sustainability such as the
Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. Firms and corporations
increasingly use sustainability claims in their communications such as Corporate
Social Responsibility. Municipalities initiate and promote recycling and waste management as well as public transports. Civil society exert pressure on the private and
public sectors and call for improved environmental performance while many individuals seek to adjust to these new norms. In all, these activities and processes are
recognised as contributing to and providing the basis for ecological modernisation.
In our view, these responses are necessary for achieving sustainability, but are they
sufficient, or is there need for more?
While categories under ecological modernity focus on promises of social change
rather than on outcomes, the categories under critical modernity are more concerned
about the outcomes. Ecological modernisation is characterised by a set of piecemeal
and incremental processes of change without any connection to a planetary whole.
Critical modernisation, however, takes the global whole as its point of departure in
sketching what is needed in terms of social change to achieve sustainability. AntiA. Jerneck and L. Olsson