30
2.8 The Way Forward
At this point, we challenge the notion of coupled social-ecological systems.
Ontologically, we therefore separate nature, often represented by systems or models
based on a system representation, and society – here represented by strategic action
fields – for the purpose of creating a methodological opportunity to unite (the best
available) knowledge from each in a process of integrative research.
Sustainability science has a strong focus on action-oriented research; hence,
politics is essential for sustainability science. Social fields theory is a way to make
the politics of sustainability visible and actionable, and by linking strategic action
fields to natural systems we are able to identify the leverage points of the natural
system.
To make the political dimensions visible, and to facilitate framing and reframing,
we suggested a typology whereby the sustainability challenge can be placed in a
spectrum of sustainability visions, from ecological modernity, through critical
modernity, to anti-modernity.
References
Agrawal A (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowldege. Dev
Chang 26:413–439
Barth M, Michelsen G (2013) Learning for change: an educational contribution to sustainability
science. Sustain Sci 8(1):103–119
Blumer H (1986) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. University of California
Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles
Brown K (2014) Global environmental change I: a social turn for resilience? Prog Hum Geogr
38(1):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513498837
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003)
Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
104(6):1737–1738
Clarke S, Walsh A (2009) Scientific imperialism and the proper relations between the sciences. Int
Stud Philos Sci 23(2):195–207
Dessler D (1989) What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate? Int Organ 43(03):441–473
Devia GK, Ganasri BP, Dwarakish GS (2015) A review on hydrological models. Aquat Proc
4:1001–1007
Diamond J (1999) Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. W.W. Norton & Company,
New York
Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin, New York
Dupre J (1991) Reflections on biology and culture. In: Sheehan JJ, Sosna M (eds) Boundaries of
humanity: humans, animals, machines. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 125–131
Dupré J (1994) Against scientific imperialism. Proc Bienn Meet Philos Sci Assoc 1994(2):374–381
Dupré J (2001) Human nature and the limits of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Eckersley R (2004) The Green State. Rethinking democracy and sovereignty. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson
2.8 The Way Forward
At this point, we challenge the notion of coupled social-ecological systems.
Ontologically, we therefore separate nature, often represented by systems or models
based on a system representation, and society – here represented by strategic action
fields – for the purpose of creating a methodological opportunity to unite (the best
available) knowledge from each in a process of integrative research.
Sustainability science has a strong focus on action-oriented research; hence,
politics is essential for sustainability science. Social fields theory is a way to make
the politics of sustainability visible and actionable, and by linking strategic action
fields to natural systems we are able to identify the leverage points of the natural
system.
To make the political dimensions visible, and to facilitate framing and reframing,
we suggested a typology whereby the sustainability challenge can be placed in a
spectrum of sustainability visions, from ecological modernity, through critical
modernity, to anti-modernity.
References
Agrawal A (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowldege. Dev
Chang 26:413–439
Barth M, Michelsen G (2013) Learning for change: an educational contribution to sustainability
science. Sustain Sci 8(1):103–119
Blumer H (1986) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. University of California
Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles
Brown K (2014) Global environmental change I: a social turn for resilience? Prog Hum Geogr
38(1):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513498837
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003)
Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
104(6):1737–1738
Clarke S, Walsh A (2009) Scientific imperialism and the proper relations between the sciences. Int
Stud Philos Sci 23(2):195–207
Dessler D (1989) What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate? Int Organ 43(03):441–473
Devia GK, Ganasri BP, Dwarakish GS (2015) A review on hydrological models. Aquat Proc
4:1001–1007
Diamond J (1999) Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. W.W. Norton & Company,
New York
Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin, New York
Dupre J (1991) Reflections on biology and culture. In: Sheehan JJ, Sosna M (eds) Boundaries of
humanity: humans, animals, machines. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 125–131
Dupré J (1994) Against scientific imperialism. Proc Bienn Meet Philos Sci Assoc 1994(2):374–381
Dupré J (2001) Human nature and the limits of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Eckersley R (2004) The Green State. Rethinking democracy and sovereignty. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson