In the last three decades, the notion of sustainability became, although it is not a new idea, one of the most used concepts in scientific, political, and societal debates. [...] Today, sustainability is used very diversely and to describe very different things, diluting the concept to a synonym for everything that is good and is used as a quasi-objective alternative to a subjective value judgment about what someone perceives as good or right. The term has been misused and abused, when companies such as ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin or Philip Morris describe their oil, tobacco or weapons business as sustainable and McDonald’s Canada advertises sustainable beef (Károly, 2011). Nevertheless, it is used for the most ambitious human development ideas such as the Agenda 2030 of the United Nations. This ambiguity and vagueness is facilitated by the two-fold nature of the term, as a positive scientific concept and a normative vision for the future of humankind.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Sustainability and science
2.1 Science and value-freedom
2.2 Sustainability as positive science
3. Sustainability and change
3.1 Sustainability as normative science
3.2 Sustainability as subversive action
4. Sustainability as transformative science
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to clarify the diverse and often ambiguous meanings of sustainability by contextualizing it within scientific and non-scientific discourses, ultimately proposing a vision for a transformative sustainability science that reconciles positive research with normative and societal goals.
- Analysis of sustainability as a positive, descriptive science
- Exploration of the normative dimensions and societal advocacy in sustainability research
- Examination of the subversive nature of ecological and sustainability thought
- Development of a conceptual framework for transformative sustainability science
- Integration of systems, target, and transformation knowledge
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Sustainability as subversive action
Not only does the newly created sustainability research go deliberately beyond the scope of pure research but for a long time and still today, working on the topics that constitute sustainability itself has been a revolutionary act. Paul Sears calls ecology “the subversive subject” (Sears, 1964) and Paul Shepard and Daniel McKinley defined ecology in their book The Subversive Science from 1969, as a resistance movement. They emphasise that “the Rachel Carsons and Aldo Leopolds are subversive. They challenge the public or private right to pollute the environment, to systematically destroy predatory animals, to spread chemical pesticides indiscriminately, to meddle chemically with food and water, to appropriate without hindrance space and surface for technological and military ends” and conclude that “truly ecological thinking […] does have an element of humility which is foreign to our thought” (Shepard & McKinley, 1969). Rachel Carson and Aldo Leopold were subversive in the sense that their ideas demythologised the dogma of man’s right to dominate and pollute the earth and so was, for example, the Club of Rome’s famous document, The Limits of Growth from 1972. Because the industrialised civilisation then and now stands in contrast to the findings of ecology and sustainability, working on these topics inevitably clashes with the prevailing worldview. The sustainability worldview of today, however, is clear that infinite growth of the economy and of personal wealth is neither theoretically possible not ecologically desirable. It questions much of the worldview underpinning the
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the rising importance of the sustainability concept and its current misuse, proposing the need for a transformative sustainability science.
2. Sustainability and science: This chapter examines the positivist ideal of value-freedom in science and how sustainability research attempts to function as a descriptive, positive discipline.
3. Sustainability and change: This section explores how sustainability operates as a normative science and a subversive force that challenges prevailing industrial worldviews.
4. Sustainability as transformative science: This chapter presents a conceptual framework for a new kind of science that integrates systems, target, and transformation knowledge to actively shape societal change.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion calls for modern science to transcend its ivory tower and integrate diverse meanings into a holistic, transformative approach to solve global problems.
Keywords
Sustainability, Sustainability Science, Positive Science, Normative Science, Transformative Science, Value-freedom, Social-ecological Transformation, Systems Knowledge, Target Knowledge, Transformation Knowledge, Transdisciplinarity, Ecology, Subversive Science, Sustainable Development, Science Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work primarily explores the conceptual tension between sustainability as a descriptive, positive science and its role as a normative, transformative agenda for societal change.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The paper covers the history of positivist science, the necessity of normative values in sustainability research, the historical role of ecology as a subversive movement, and the emergence of transformative science as a solution-oriented framework.
What is the main objective of the proposed framework?
The main objective is to establish a 'transformative sustainability science' that bridges the gap between academic knowledge creation and practical, evidence-based societal action.
What methodology does the author adopt?
The author uses a theoretical and analytical methodology, synthesizing existing literature on the philosophy of science, sustainability transitions, and transdisciplinary research to build a new conceptual framework.
What does the main body of the work address?
The main body breaks down sustainability into three functional modes: as a positive science, as a normative and subversive practice, and finally as an integrated, transformative science.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include sustainability science, transformative science, positivism, normativity, and transdisciplinarity.
How does the author interpret the term "Mickey Mouse model"?
The author uses the "Mickey Mouse model" as a visual metaphor to illustrate the overlap between positive science, the sustainable development agenda, and the emerging field of transformative sustainability science.
What is the significance of the "three categories of knowledge" presented?
These categories—systems, target, and transformation knowledge—form the analytical basis for how transformative science addresses complex real-world challenges while dealing with uncertainties.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Simon Valentin (Autor:in), 2018, Science for Change? Sustainability between positive science and normative agenda, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/491911
