reflecting
'Sustainability' has been a central topic for discussion - as my underlying motivation - throughout my academic life (e.g. Dempster 1995,ref 1998, 2005). I have favorite definitions and correlated expressions; some I have carried along for years, others I have added more recently. In reflecting on them, I note two themes that resonate across them: 1) attempting to 'get to the bottom' [e.g.] and 2) inclusion of ethical concerns [e.g.]. [Closer consideration would likely draw forward more themes. Something to return to...]
[R2] Pursuit of the 'perfect' definition, however, has remained elusive - a situation I am sure many will be familiar with. Is it possible to find or develop a statement that simply, yet comprehensively defines sustainability? One that is readily understood, yet covers essential elements? One that gets to the heart of the question without getting bogged down in quagmire of components, values, perspectives? A tall order. For me, it continues unresolved. However, I recently came across a rephrasing of the question that struck me in a way no others have:
The nub of my argument is that the ideal of sustainability - the focus of so much thinking about our ecological predicament - beckons us toward the now unfamiliar yet still morally resonant question of what sustains us... (Davison 2001:ref ix).
[R3] What sustains us? A simple question. Yet it carries a connotation (in my culture, at least) that immediately delves into particulars that are often neglected in the 'sustainability' discussion. More specifically, it draws in considerations that I believe should be fundamental and integral aspects of sustainability. Rather than agonizing over qualities and components that would fill out the interconnected three-circle diagram, this simple question raises questions relevant to psycho-social well-being on a fundamenal level, yet it does not leave out questions related to biophysical health and well-being.
[R4] For myself, reading the question immediatly brought to mind the sense of deep calm I experience when I am out in the wild, especially on a beach on the wild west coast. Another feeling was the comraderie evident in a good philosophical argument over simple food shared with close friends. Admittedly, I already have a propensity for living - quite happily and comfortably - a simple lifestyle (relative to most others in my society). I also have a propensitiy, as noted above, for drawing attention to such aspects of sustainability. However, this phrasing so readily draws factors relevant to psycho-social well-being into the debate - and it also draws other, more standard, factors into consideration. Ecological services are also part of what sustains us - although this phrasing (almost?) places the latter ancilliary to the more 'basic' questions of well-being.
[R5] I am left, then, There is almost a sense that this question requires a recanting, a deletion, of all the other definitional exploration and debate. Such awkward and convoluted machinations do little to move discussion forward to the critical issues. Do I keep it then, simply because I have already written much of it? because it is expected (required?) that I perform a 'literature review'? because such debate is expected and the only way for some to reach an understanding of the phrasing expressed here? Or do I let it go and reform the debate on this simpler, more fundamental question...?
skeptical
[Needs updating to fit with skeptical framing. This may provide foundation for node on 'sustainability theory'...]
Twenty or thirty years ago, theoretical discussion of 'sustainability' could have been rather dry. With little literature to draw upon, I would have fallen back on meanings of the two root words - ability and sustain - as a place to start. Today, such a starting point seems prudent for the opposite reason: there is so much literature on the subject to make comprehensive commentary or summary impossible. The term "sustainability' is applied in policy and in protest; by conservatives, socialists and anarchists. It has been used as an argument for technology - and against technology; for development - and against development. Often linked with the latter as 'sustainable development', it is used by individuals and coalitions from the multiple 'sides' of social-environmental issues - and entails enough ambiguity to provide rational defense for each of them.
[T2] At its simplest, sustain-ability refers to having the capacity to continue. A simple enough concept, which has generated considerable debate. I provide samples of the definitional debate, but, here, consider why this simple concept has garnered such attention - and why it has happened recently. [Although this raises to my mind a question about the originality of this debate. Surely there was a rise of protest among the ancient Aztecs and Romans.] Today, I think the reasons are quite straightforward: Our species and many of our cultures have achieved a scale of influence whereby we affect the ecology of the planet as well as individual and collective human health. Further, we have reached a state where the combination of population levels, cultural norms and biophysical habits are compromising the resources we depend on. Regardless of what, exactly, sustainability means, and how, exactly, it might be assessed or measured, and who, exactly, believes it to be a problem, the notion points toward a concern about the sustain-ability of the human species. Although a rather simplistic and tautological argument: sustainability has gained popularity and become a topic of discussion because enough people in enough places feel it is an issue.
[T2] Going back to the notions of sustaining human development, we begin to see cracks in the armour: what does it mean to sustain the ability for development - in a world that appears to have limited resources?
some definitions
Sustainability is a relationship between dynamic human economic systems and larger dynamic, but normally slower-changing, ecological systems in which: (1) human life can continue indefinitely; (2) human individuals can flourish; (3) human cultures can develop; but in which (4) the effects of human activities remain within bounds, so as not to destroy the diversity, complexity, and function of the ecological life-support system (Costanza 1992:ref 111 and Norton 1992ref).
empirical
Considerable evidence indicates that our species is behaving in a manner that is not sustainable. While many claim that we are "heading for environmental/ecological disaster", it seems equally reasonable to claim that we are already there. As noted at the beginning, current conditions are inequitable and unsustainable across many scales and dimensions. Environmentally, ecologically, economically, socially, ethically, our species is reaching the extent of its longevity, the planet that sustains us, reaching the extent of its capacity. My intention in this hypertext dissertation is to raise questions and make suggestions around the manifestation of change. I do not intend to describe the litany of problems - or the arguments against them (see: brown, soe, millenium study, skeptical envst). Yet - as in any good planning process - it is necessary to understand the problem before one can design approaches to resolve it. I sketch an outline, primarily drawing attention to or making reference to the work of others.
To this end, I present the following:
- discussion around definitions of sustainability
- from the literature
- from online, with links to multiple statements and projects .
critiquing
Sustainability is a concept with myriad definitions, especially when taken as consistent with its contested sibling "sustainable development". Much discourse revolves around concepts such as ecological integrity, environmental degradation, shared decision-making and similar eco- and euro-centric notions. As such, sustainability (and sustainable devleopment) must be recognized as a strategy of empire; as a conceptual tool of the dominating class that reinforces their position of power and promulgates subjugation of the marginalized - and does so through a damnably agreeable concept. The gross inequities that are evident call for immediate and drastic change in thought and behaviour, yet such action is weakly called for and seldom manifest.
Surprisingly, critical theory, as a specific theoretical construct, seldom enters the sustainability debate, although it filters into debate and action through some routes. For example, through critical approaches in planning and resource management, most specifically via shared decision-making and participatory process (e.g. Healey 1997,ref Murry 2005)ref. Additionally, but less theoretically, the tenor of a critical perspective is carried through activism - and through the writing that emerges from this direction (e.g. Shiva).
In taking the critical perspective noted in the opening paragraph, "sustainability" should either been abandoned as a corrupt concept or, as I will argue here, should be broadened through critique. In particular, critiques of power and power/kowledge. Additionally it should be broadened to include more social considerations, in which case application of a critical approach in many disciplines can be considered relevant.
A familiarity with discussions around sustainability will aid in understanding the necessary nature and direction of critique. From here, consider the following:
- discussion around definitions of sustainability.
And another thought:
The fact that sustainability is a normative ethical principle means that its interpretation in practice is necessarily a political act (Robinson et al. 1990:ref 43)...
manifesting
Merely describing sustainability - or attempting to understand the factors involved in its presence or lack - may represent one of the more henious examples implied by the negative connotation of an 'academic exercise'. The need to consider the implications of its presence/lack and actions that might adress the circumstances, seem imperative - and might form tha basis of a more positive view of an 'academic exercise'. For myself, the intermingling of understanding and action - on personal and academic levels - motivates my studies. The questions, challenges, possibilities and conundrums involved in manifesting a more sustainable world frame my 'academic exercise'. They lead to my chosen research themes; to the topics and examples that seem most important; and, in particular, they lead to my reason for doing studies in planning - an adacemic discipline that is also a professional discipline. In addition, the questions, challenges, possibilities and conundrums lead to the actions I manifest in my 'real life' and to my argument against the notion that there can be any such separation between 'academic life' and 'real life'.
Rather than attributing environmental destruction to the actions of a relatively small number of thoughtless and careless individuals, or to some passing phase of industrial recklessness that accompanies an otherwise benign evolutionary process of economic development, the destruction described here is attributed to driving forces that are pervasive, persistent, and deeply ingrained in our values, lifestyles, and institutions (Hempel 1996:ref 52).
The themes of the future, which are now on everyone's lips, have not originated from the farsightedness of the rulers or from the struggle in parliament - and certainly not from the cathedrals of power in business, science and the state. They have been put on the social agenda against the concentrated resistance of this institutionalized ignorance by entangled, moralizing groups and splinter groups fighting each other over the proper way, split and plagued by doubts (Beck in Beck et al. 1994:ref 9).
and some links:
- a 'to do' list for a sustainable civilization... (from worldchanging)
- sustainability leadership principles
- some discussion on trying to initiate an equity co-op
...
Page info
this page created: 2003.09.29
substantive revisions: 2005.11.16,
most recent substantive revisions: 2006.05.05
2003 - 2007