METHODS
Different ways of knowing: a communicative turn toward
sustainability
Tony Meppem *, Simon Bourke
New England Ecological Economics Group,Centre for Water Policy Research,Uni6ersity of New England,Armidale,Australia
Received 8 December 1998; received in revised form 19 April 1999; accepted 3 May 1999
Abstract
Despite the urgency of the ecological crisis the steady continuation of environmental degradation suggests that new ways of interpreting problems and acting with environmental integrity may need to be considered. This paper draws on a broad range of contemporary theory to argue that the conventional conceptualization of environmental problems has remained a largely disciplinary-based exercise that has relied on abstracting the environmental issues from their real-world complexity. A practical articulation of the main environmental narratives reveals self-referential discourses whose disciplinary-based practices have insulated these approaches from a broad range of contemporary theorising and different ways of knowing. The dominance of these approaches in environmental policy development has led to the continued acceleration of environmental degradation despite widespread political and social interest in its abatement. This paper provides a critique of methodologies derived from the assumptions of instrumental rationalism, and contemplates the potential for alternative ‘communicative’ approaches and strategies for dealing with environmental policy development and implementation. It is argued that a communicative approach to planning for sustainability represents a more appropriate strategy for mobilising a currently impotent environmental movement. A communicative approach by explicitly dealing with the assumptions and motivations of contested positions in the sustainability debate, it is argued, offers the most pragmatic way of developing change strategies to deal with the complex issues surrounding environmental policy development and implementation. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Sustainability; Communication; Policy; Politics; Transdisciplinary; Process
www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
The problems we have created in the world today will not be solved by the level of thinking that created them. (Albert Einstein 1946: quoted in Thompson, 1995)
* Corresponding author. Tel.:+61-2-67732420; fax:+ 61-2-67733237.
E-mail address:ameppem@metz.une.edu.au (T. Meppem)
1. Introduction
Einstein’s observation suggests that ‘the prob-lems we have created’ are a consequence of cer-tain ways of thinking which, at least in Western discourse, we have tended to prioritize, and that these ‘problems’ of our own making cannot be adequately resolved by continuing to rely on the same ways of thinking and knowing which ‘cre-ated’ the problems in the first instance. Einstein’s proposition speaks of the need to explore ‘new’ or ‘alternative’ ways of thinking about problems. These alternative ways of thinking, not being so rigorously bound to the logic and epistemological premises of the dominant modes of thought, po-tentially offer new angles and perspectives on the character of the difficulties we are confronted with. In so doing, they offer us the prospect of new approaches and methods which will allow us to go to work on the problems with renewed energy and hope.
The idea that the process of resolving certain problems may be disabled because the resolution process is contaminated by the same ‘level of thinking’ endemic in the problem itself, is particu-larly relevant to the issue of environmental
‘sus-tainability’. This argument proposes that
sustainability be considered as a response to an environmental problem which is unable to extri-cate itself from the tensions which have effectively created that problem. In this respect, sustainabil-ity will be revealed as an ongoing problem of meaning and definition. It will be argued that the complexity and indeterminacy of the term is sel-dom taken into account by the sel-dominant agents within the environmental debate. Part of the difficulty is that sustainability as a conceptual notion is often limited and constrained by ‘ways of knowing’ which are discipline specific. A domi-nant scientific/economic discourse has played a significant role in ‘creating’ the environmental problems we face, and, therefore relying on this same discourse and its ways of thinking to define and initiate sustainable practices may be itself a dubious and ‘unsustainable’ practice.
In arguing this case, we hope to expound the proposition that there is a pressing need to think beyond the discipline-specific restraints of
scien-tific/economic discourse and to open up the sus-tainability issue to a transdisciplinary approach, which, because of its potential analytical range and diverse perspectives, offers the chance to break away from the mono-logical habits of en-trenched and specialized disciplines. What this offers is the potential for the new ways of think-ing about a problem which Einstein has in mind. The proposed transdisciplinary approach is in-formed by critical theory, communicative plan-ning theory, literary theory, ecological economics and postmodern philosophy. The implementation of this approach will help to reveal that the problem issue in the environmental discourse re-lates very precisely to the actual meaning
at-tributed to the term ‘sustainability’.
‘Sustainability’, rather than being a term which glibly offers a ‘solution’, or, at least, a mediatory position capable of abating the tide of environ-mental crisis, is, as we will argue, a term which merely ‘encodes’ the tensions which it aims to resolve. As a perceived solution ‘sustainability’ merely suspends the crisis and defers the real terms of conflict between the environment and economic development.
This investigation and critique of ‘sustainabil-ity’s’ meaning will draw on a communicative crit-ical position to negotiate the particular tensions of the environmental/sustainability debate. This crit-ical position aims to interpret the dominant ‘ways of knowing’ in the environmental debate by exam-ining an argument’s historical context, its use of theoretical methods, its political orientation and the textual language used to support a particular position. It is a position which has emerged from a desire to see the active and reciprocal relations between material forces (e.g. economic practices/
interpre-tation of sustainability. Rather than stressing the primacy of the material over the cultural, or vise versa, a communicative approach to sustainability concentrates on seeing the tensions between the two as ‘contesting narratives’ rather than contra-dictory or antithetical values. By proposing that the various positions within the environmental debate are narratives or stories within a discourse, ‘meaning’ is then not subject to a fixed and final interpretation, but can instead be understood as culturally derived and context dependent. Mean-ing, in the current environmental debate, is re-vealed to be contingent and often ambiguous, always available for subtle shifts in interpretation. Therefore, it would appear that a term like ‘sus-tainability’ is not set in concrete, but operates within a discursive process where shared meanings are negotiated and developed.
Communicative approaches, which have
emerged from literary and cultural criticism, are concerned with exploring the ways in which the rhetoric of various narratives operate as a form of ‘persuasion’ which seeks to legitimize the ‘cer-tainty’ of particular propositions.1
Insights from literary and cultural criticism, which seek to inter-pret the socially mediated construction of ideas and practices, have informed the development of communicative approaches to policy and plan-ning. Communicative positions, through their recognition of the influence of cultural frame-works which lead to the social construction of ‘ways of knowing’, emphasize the need to unearth values associated with various arguments through participatory styles of decision making for effec-tive policy development.2
These developments have in turn provided creative stimulus for a culturally informed approach to sustainable pol-icy development, which is the focus of this paper. In doing so this research explores some of the
‘rhizomes unearthed’ in the earlier ground break-ing work of Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994) and O’Hara (1996) in applying discursive ethics to valuation in environmental policy.
It will be argued that the scientific/economic narrative, which dominates the environmental de-bate, is supported by self-referential analytical and instrumentalist tools, models and surveys, which consciously and coercively attempt to verify the certitude of their own a priori ‘truth claims’. However, these ‘truth claims’ are seen to be ques-tionable, or at least negotiable, when they are seen alongside other contesting narratives which posit (with equal vigour) their own claims for ‘seeing clearly’ and for ‘knowing the truth’. Just as scien-tific/economic ‘truth claims’ are constructed upon a ‘knowledge’ which is taken by its practitioners to be the appropriate basis for decision making, all other interest groups participating in the dis-course also provide data and methods which tend to confirm their own ‘preferred’ interpretation or narrative. So that the rhetoric of various stories, perspectives or narratives are viewed as ideologi-cal ‘forms of persuasion’. Analytiideologi-cal tools support and extend the rhetoric of a particular narrative, so that, surveys, models and forecasts can be thought of as rhetorical tropes (Throgmorton 1993). By thinking in this way the feedback of rhetoric and analysis is viewed as being constitu-tive of a narraconstitu-tive.
Each contesting narrative will rely on certain forms of rhetoric to substantiate its claims. As Foucault (1980) has implied, the rhetoric of a dominating narrative will reflect the rhetoric of the dominating power structure. In the same vein Healey (1997) notes that, ‘the language of envi-ronmental planning is that of the prevalent politi-cal power games’. Without close attention to the underlying assumptions of the rhetoric implicit in ‘information’ and then the use of this information to structure and support relationships, decision making is in danger of becoming an abstracted process within a cultural void. As such environ-mental policy is susceptible to being overly deter-mined by positions of power within the discourse. This may result in barriers capable of constraining the environmental assessment of policy. These barriers can include: a lack of clear objectives,
1Literary and cultural critics often referred to in
commu-nicative approaches include; Michel Foucault, Raymond Williams, Jacques Derrida, Frederic Jameson, Jergen Haber-mas, D. Harvey, E. Laclau, C. Mouffe, and C. Geertz
2Communicative policy theorists include; Patsy Healey,
insufficient political will to broaden the debate, the narrow definition of issues, the inability to question the authority of existing organisational structures, the absence of accountability, bureau-cratic politics, lack of integrated information and absence of incentives to participate in strategies for change (Brengha 1990).
The emphasis in this paper is to provide a detailed argument of how an environmental dis-course that recognizes and incorporates the social construction of meaning in communicative pro-cesses can more effectively accommodate the de-velopment of pragmatic environmental policy. In structuring this argument insights from a range of discourses will be integrated to support and ex-tend a culturally informed approach to sustain-able policy development processes.
2. Sustainability
There is a mass of normative literature offering prescriptions for the ideal approach to sustain-ability. Yet what is clear is that different concep-tions of sustainability tend to embody distinctive systems of meaning which vary in respect to their foundational premises (Meppem and Gill, 1998). This is reflected in the elastic quality of the cur-rent environmental debate that results in competi-tion among discourses and disciplines to dominate policy. The Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987: 43) attempted to unite environmental fac-tions by defining sustainable development as ‘de-velopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future gener-ations to meet their own needs’. However,
ambi-guity surrounding the seminal Brundtland
definition of sustainability has led some to conjure up images of revolution against a wasteful pollut-ing capitalist system or alternatively some inter-pret an image of the steering hand of technology modulating excess and allowing ‘business as usual’ (Giddens, 1990; Sagoff, 1988).
With Brundtland, a notion of sustainable opment was born that accommodates both devel-opment and environmental imperatives (Verburg and Wiegel, 1998). This plunged the environmen-tal discourse deeper into the veils of their various
disciplines to find recipes and definitions to show how this could be done and thus inherit the potential to dominate the discourse (see Pearce et al., 1989). This heightened political and academic awareness led to a conceptual shift within admin-istrations so that environmental degradation be-came an accepted problem for governments. Hajer (1995a) uses the term ecological moderniza-tion to describe this conceptual shift where prob-lem definitions compete for the focus of the debate. What has occurred is a confused response leading to the promotion of power struggles about ‘truths’ and definitions that neglects consid-eration of underlying epistemological founda-tions. As a consequence ‘[R]unning parallel with the process of defining environmental problems and their solutions is a whole agenda of social change that is effectively avoided by the prevailing policy making practices’ (Hajer 1995a: 276).
Discipline-specific approaches, which refer to schools of thought that are largely self-referential with a clearly bounded body of theory, have provided a huge range of innovations and tech-niques for documenting and measuring environ-mental degradation and some creative ideas for arresting this in certain cases. However, there is fairly general agreement in the environmental dis-course that more needs to be done. It is generally agreed that environmental degradation is continu-ing at an acceleratcontinu-ing rate globally (see, Korten, 1997). In addition there are severe limitations to scientific knowledge in the area of sustainability (see Blowers, 1993). Von Schomberg (1993, 21) points out that ‘in the analysis of the structure of epistemic discussions we have to establish the idea that there should be an acknowledgment of scien-tific disagreement’. Lack of scienscien-tific consensus is ignored by disciplinary approaches which habitu-ally favour the myth of ‘abstract certainty’.
Alternative sustainability conceptions, drawing on insights from communicative planning and critical theory, reflect very different epistemologi-cal and ontologiepistemologi-cal assumptions. Instead of the technocratic/technocorporatist forms characteris-tic of disciplinary approaches, communicative
ap-proaches promote discursive process forms
the widely cited Brundtland definition of sustain-ability leading to a drift into approaches that recognize multiple discourses, diversity of cultures and freedom (democracy) as essential elements of the sustainability debate (Myerson and Rydin, 1994). Harou et al. (1994: 15) emphasize the prag-matics of these alternative approaches, suggesting that ‘new policies established through a consulta-tion process which determines the values given by citizens of a given society would be reflected in new environmental standards’. It will be argued that the meaning of sustainability represents the contested ground between development interests and environmental concerns. So that sustainabil-ity represents a site of conflict rather than a mediating ‘metaphor’ that accommodates all in-terests. New participatory and communicative policy processes need to be developed for effective environmental policy which can accommodate the idiosyncratic attributes of sustainable develop-ment, which include: (1) the lack of a clearly defined goal for strategy; (2) the value-based na-ture of defining strategy goals; and; (3) diverse and unclear stakeholder interest in terms of power, representation and organization.
3. Dominant sustainability narratives
Healey (1997: 183) describes the current envi-ronmental discourse as having four main narra-tives; (1) the environment as a ‘stock of assets’ (see Glasson et al., 1994; Costanza et al., 1998); (2) environmental systems and carrying capacity (see Rees, 1992); (3) the environment as ‘our world’ (see Lovelock, 1979; Naess, 1989); and (4) the environment as a cultural conception (see Blowers, 1993). The aim of promoting a reflexive grand narrative for sustainability is to promote the consideration of the environmental debate as a contested space based on conflicting stories. A grand narrative refers to a dominant ‘world view’ or ‘belief system’ which permeates all social inter-action justifying, reinforcing and moulding change. This encourages the broadening of the historical and theoretical context of environmen-talism which is necessary for more effective strat-egy development (Wallace et al. 1996: 27). Each
sustainability narrative is taken to represent a broad sectional interest group. This discursive approach aims to place each narrative within a broader historical context in a bid to reveal their underlying belief systems and value sets. These stories describe different ‘world views’ of common concepts (Dryzek, 1997). A discursive approach promotes a reflexive communicative rationality for the development of shared meaning in sustain-ability planning. The revealed narratives of the environmental discourse display a commonality in seeking universal ‘truth claims’ which, therefore, overlooks much contemporary theorising.
agencies value criteria as the foundational premise of the analysis (Meppem and Gill, 1998).
However, the central plot of this sustainability narrative posits the analyst as a value-free methodological technician who manipulates fac-tual data, allowing the avoidance of structural subjectivity. Such utilitarian planning processes seek to maximize the ‘public good’ which they claim is determined exclusively in the representa-tive political domain. The homogeneity of their quantifying applications is assured through re-course to myriad assumptions that implicitly structure the acceptable range of ‘ways of know-ing’ open to this narrative. This posture of moral neutrality of course reinforces and protects the value parameters of the status quo, preventing any creative or effective environmental change strategies. Clearly, such a stance is unreflective of its historical and social construction. This sustain-ability storyline could be described as a belief in a quantified unitary value appraisal system which subsumes dominance over multiplicity and diver-sity to posit a ‘world view’ that excludes effective representation, promotes top down strategies, re-inforces hegemony and dictates acceptable ‘ways of knowing’. This narrative excludes the very attributes that we argue here are central to devel-oping meaning in sustainability. While the quan-tifying techniques used by those who support a stocks and assets ‘world view’ have some potential for contributing to a more broadly defined discur-sive environmental planning process, the unreflec-tive and exclusive application of these techniques within the bounds of the stocks and assets narra-tive act as a barrier to effecnarra-tive environmental change strategies.
The environmental systems and carrying capac-ity narrative encapsulates a broad range of scien-tifically orientated research in the environmental discourse. These narratives rely on the rhetorical tropes of the ‘scientific method’ to assert their influence. In an argument informed by a broad range of contemporary ideas, Haraway (1992: 6) asserts that ‘scientific practice is literary practice, writing based on jockeying for the power to stabi-lize definitions and standards for claiming some-thing to be the case’. These sustainability narratives are characterized by incremental steps
toward a knowable ‘truth’. While it must be em-phasized that scientific insights have been crucial in alerting ‘society’ to the nature and extent of ecological degradation, it has not proved an effec-tive medium for social and political change to contain this degradation. In one sense it has as-sisted to polarise the sustainability debate through it’s own internal lack of unity.
Scientific environmental disciplines have not been explicit in recognising the implications for science emanating from the sociology of science, in particular the notion of a scientific paradigm as popularized by Kuhn (1962). These insights posit scientific ‘truth claims’ within their broader social context (Jacobs, 1996). Mostly instead, a complex environmental issue is shrunk into a computer simulation by an environmental systems and car-rying capacity story of the issue. This simulation then becomes a ‘world view’ that reinvents itself. Policy advice on sustainability enjoined by this narrative does not recognize the interconnected nature of social, environmental and economic considerations and is therefore dislocated from the issues-integrated complexity. Baudrilland (1975) proposes the impossibility of escaping this simulated reality which is reinforced by media ‘bites’ that entrench and at the same time define the arguments. So that simulation defines the boundaries of the sustainability problem, which is only an abstraction from the problems’ social complexity. Without the effective integration of simulations in the political, socio-cultural policy process, through the explicit recognition of the interplay of power and knowledge (Gale, 1998), a communicative position is supportive of Bau-drilland regarding the simulations’ potential to
effect societal change and, therefore,
sustainability.
‘[c]alculations and computer assisted simulations of non-linear dynamics are limited in principle’. These contemporary scientific insights recognize and emphasize relationships and set aside predic-tion, thus displaying transdisciplinary characteris-tics. This has led Mainzer (1996: 8) to additionally assert that in so doing ‘personal subjectivity is saved’. This statement reflects a recognition that many scientific concepts, for instance, the criteria for a healthy ecosystem, are essentially value judgements (Norton, 1992: 35). Tacconi (1998) in a far reaching essay points out the complementar-ities between post-normal science and construc-tivist methodologies and highlights the need to further explore this potential in ecological eco-nomics. This consideration is completely over-looked by much of today’s environmental science which ‘has become increasingly utilitarian and reductionist in nature’ (Wallace et al., 1996: 22). So that a communicative policy stance argues that the potential of the environmental systems and carrying capacity narrative to contribute to sus-tainability planning becomes dependent on their adherents internalising a broader range of con-temporary thinking to couch their simulations within a broader societal framework (see Holling, 1978; MacIntyre, 1984).
The ‘our world’ narrative is supported by those in the environmental debate with a pre-disposition toward metaphysics and eco-religion. This narra-tive supports the idea that there is something outside us with cognitive capacity, a ‘truth claim’. In doing so, this narrative displays an essentialism that neglects diversity in ‘ways of knowing’. Much of postmodern philosophy, especially the work of Derrida (1981), has focused on the deconstruction of Western metaphysics to reveal the socially and linguistically mediated nature of meaning. Rather than drawing on the linguistic turn in philosophy the ‘our world’ narrative draws on pre-Enlighten-ment thought characterized by religious
domina-tion of societal interaction to promote
environmental awareness. Additionally, this sus-tainability narrative is informed by unreflective modern philosophy through its reliance on the ability of the existence of the objective observer describing ‘objective’ physical phenomena, while not caught up in the milieu of their times. Thus
the ability for pure thought uncontaminated by cultural conditioning operates in the domain of the conventionally ‘modern’. This purity of thought in turn informs the construction of a ‘nature’ uncontaminated by human influence. Deleuze and Parnet (1987) describe attempts for such a ‘return to nature’ as a ‘grotesque’ gesture. ‘Deleuze clearly holds that all of nature, including its human elements, is in constant flux and there is no essential, foundational, or sacred state of na-ture to be found’ (Hayden, 1997: 197). The ‘our world’ sustainability narrative is doomed to be assigned ‘cult’ status without the ability to more effectively draw out the underlying values es-poused by this position. Essentially the values, until explicitly articulated in a particular context, cannot be effectively incorporated in discursively orientated environmental policy development pro-cesses. Rather embedding these values within the veils of ‘eco-religion’ makes them inaccessible in a broader socially constructed environmental policy context which then allows the values of more dominant sustainability narratives to maintain their hegemony.
commenta-tors have limited influence in defining contempo-rary environmental problems in policy processes. This critique of the dominant environmental narratives is informed by a discursive approach that categorizes sustainability narratives in an at-tempt to reveal the implicit political/cultural de-bate in environmentalism as being a barrier to effective policy development. These narratives are shown to be competing for authority in a complex web of relationships woven together by the use and abuse of power and knowledge (see Foucault, 1980). Using a discursive construction of these phenomena additionally leads us to see that ‘any given arrangement is non-essential except within a particular sociohistorical regime of practice,’ (Sampson, 1993: 1223). The result being that while the sustainability narratives of the environ-mental discourse have ‘captured’ much of the policy agenda the confusion emanating from con-tradictory narratives and value laden assumptions has led to an impotent politics. This has led Rein and Schon (1993: 145) to ask, ‘what can possibly be the basis for resolving conflicts of frames (dis-ciplines, narratives, worldview) when the frames themselves determine what counts as evidence and how evidence is interpreted’, and how success is evaluated. Here we look to the common reflective criteria of critical theory and communicative plan-ning with their transdisciplinary orientations for insight. These approaches promote processes for the articulation of shared meaning as a prelimi-nary and ongoing part of sustainable development activity (see Brown, 1997). Disciplinary-based rec-ommendations remain largely inactivated or inef-fective because these have inadequate processes
for developing socially shared meaning of
sustainability.
These alternative sustainability narratives select and highlight different features of the contested issue. Hajer (1995b) provides a valuable insight into the way environmental policy narratives de-velop. The political agenda is challenged to
facili-tate processes to grapple with the deeply
embedded desire of the search for shared meaning which the sustainability concept implies. Without this, ‘technofix’ is largely left as the dominant environmental policy option as it appeals to the uncontested values of the dominant sustainability
narratives. Even amidst the more widespread recognition of the need for creative innovation, the environmental discourse is still dominated by calls for ‘solutions’ based on ‘objective quantified data’ and ‘rational’ decision making. Myerson and Rydin (1996a,b) have termed such thinking the ‘answer culture’ and support the argument that this orientation relies on outmoded problem structuring epistemology. Without the potential to deal with complexity, arising from a range of transdisciplinary discourse insights which are in-clusive of cultural diversity, the ‘answer culture’ perpetuates an impotent environmental politics.
The traditionally dominant sustainability narra-tives are predominantly insensitive to cultural infl-uences, which has led to sustainability being a largely confused and inoperable concept. This oc-curs due to the perceived need to work within a framework to make problems manageable. The dominant instrumental rationalist approaches to sustainability are motivated by a desire to gain more knowledge within the bounds of a particular cultural/disciplinary framework. Such approaches neglect the importance of cultural diversity in sustainability planning. Essentially these ap-proaches become increasingly isolated within their own cultural context leading to little opportunity for their effective integration into sustainable de-velopment activity (see Brown, 1997).
incorporates diversity. This non-essentialist grand narrative of sustainability rejects theoretical frameworks as the basis for a problem definition; instead attention is focused ‘on the arguments that are reasonable and persuasive to the partici-pants in the relevant communities of inquiry’ Hoksbergen (1994: 686). These communities of inquiry, of course, include the diverse array of stakeholders that have been identified here through the revealed sustainability narratives, as well as others that fall outside this particular categorization. These ‘discursive communities’ more imply an orientation for action that pro-motes diversity in participation than requiring certain representative groups. Sustainability ‘calls for open communication and decision-making, community and organizational learning, and co-operative approaches to management that cross jurisdictional boundaries’ (Wallace et al., 1996: 18). Recognition of the importance of language is essential as it ‘is a representation of the culture in which we live and, as such, frames the possibilities and meanings that are available to us’ (Murphy, 1995: 212). This is the non-essentialist ‘grand nar-rative’ of sustainability whose quest is the contin-ual enhancement of processes for culturally defining meaning as a way of articulating the effective and efficient development of environ-mental strategies.
4. Transdisciplinary sustainability
The proposed communicative approach in-volves listening carefully to the different stories or narratives in the environmental discourse (see Mandelbaum, 1991). Additionally, it requires ‘a different and complimentary way of organising our intellectual activities that is non-territorial, cooperative, collaborative and focused on solving the many problems attendant on designing a sus-tainable and desirable way for humans to live on this planet and share it with other species’ (Costanza, 1997: xiv). Essentially this approach promotes a transdisciplinary focus that depends on the mutual consideration of economic, socio-cultural and environmental issues for effective policy formulation.
Transdisciplinary notions aim to ‘unmake’ con-ventional ideas, conceptions and mindsets about sustainability. In practice this enables discussions of sustainability to be shaped by theories in fields other than the traditional scientific/economic dis-course. Jameson (1984: vii) has described such a transdisciplinary style of approach as ‘a kind of crossroads in which a number of different themes intersect and problematize each other’. These in-tersections occur socially, and Geertz (1983: 161) advocates the development of conversations where ‘people inhabiting different life worlds [can] have a genuine and reciprocal impact on one another’. Geertz recommends a series of steps to help foster social interaction. The first step is to accept the depth of differences that exist within our social structure. The second is to understand what these differences are; and the third is to construct some sort of vocabulary in which the differences can be publicly formulated. This social interaction represents the contested terrain for developing the meanings within sustainability.
Communication requires explicit attention to the role of language and therefore social relations, as communication is based on social relations rather than ‘things’. This centering of relation-ships through communicative strategies dissolves the traditional reliance on cause and effect reason-ing in environmentalism as ‘absence’ can be a ‘cause’, but in a different, non-physical relational sense. With their emphasis on communications, and consequently language and relationships, transdisciplinary orientations seek critical self-reflective theory rather than objective theory. These transdisciplinary themes when applied to policy constitute discursive approaches that focus explicitly on values that underpin various argu-ments and therefore promote diverse disciplinary involvement in the policy process. Without the capacity for discussion of differing value-based assumptions, arguments representing a broader range of disciplinary and special interest insights are largely devoid of potential for direct policy engagement.
Communicative strategy requires that the con-cept of sustainability be articulated through par-ticipatory context-dependent processes for the development of shared meaning. In this respect the culturally derived, context-dependent meaning of sustainability becomes the focus for collective attention. So that sustainability can be defined as a process for defining meaning in environmental policy engagements and from this process emerges environmental strategy (Meppem and Gill, 1998). We believe that a transdisciplinary approach to sustainable policy development will be cognisant of the shortcomings of self-referential disciplinary approaches, which by their structure, thinking, and orientation, have led to sustainable develop-ment being a largely inoperable concept. It is further postulated that a transdisciplinary propen-sity is a way of thinking that broadly encompasses many discourses which interact to invent and define creative approaches to understanding issues within a discourse. As Costanza puts it, disci-plinary borders prevent problems being
inter-preted in ‘their broadest possible sense’
(Costanza, 1991).
At this point an alternative conception of sus-tainability is formulated that relies on the
devel-opment of ‘discursive communities’ of
stakeholders to articulate context-dependent strategies for sustainable development. This posi-tion rejects all forms of universal dictate for sus-tainability. Instead it promotes the development of discursive practices for articulating shared meaning. This questioning orientation for think-ing is different, we think, from a truth. It is argued that sustainability is the embodiment of processes for developing shared meaning, and from these processes emerge environmental strat-egy. This is proposed as an alternative to conven-tional ‘truth’ seeking contests of sustainability with their implicit power inequities which have largely demonstrated complicity in the mainte-nance of ineffective environmental policy.
5. Background to discursive practice in planning
The purpose of this section is to provide a supportive argument as to why an alternative communicative approach is more suitable to envi-ronmental planning than instrumentally rational disciplinary-based planning approaches. Through-out the discussion the term instrumentally ratio-nal (IR) will be used to describe a style of thinking that focuses specifically ‘on relating means (how to do things) to ends (what could be achieved) in logical and systematic ways’ (Healey, 1997: 9). However, this ‘means to ends’ paradigm relies very heavily on a predetermined set of val-ues, the supposition of a neutral language, the belief in an unproblematic objective reality and a reductive ‘positivist’ strategy for discovering this essence. Best and Kellner (1991) provide an exten-sive survey of philosophical critiques of this way of thinking and these ideas will be elaborated on in support for an alternative communicative ap-proach to sustainability.
Partidario, 1996). In contrast, communicative ap-proaches to planning will reflect critically on plan-ning practice throughout the planplan-ning process, to learn ‘in progress’, and therefore raise awareness of such concerns. Those who support this commu-nicative prominence for planning argue that the ‘policy analysis tradition is seeking both to escape from its predominant emphasis on instrumental reason and scientific knowledge to incorporate greater understanding of how people come to have the ways of thinking and ways of valuing that they do, and how policy development and policy implementation processes can be made more interactive’ (Healey, 1997: 28). Such her-meneutic approaches are being labelled argumen-tative, reflective, communicative or interpretative planning theory (see Friedmann, 1987; Fischer and Forester, 1993).
In conventional instrumentally rational plan-ning and strategic management approaches the continued belief in a knowable ‘truth’ that can be discovered through techniques relying on posi-tivism, results in the creative discursive practices of policy formulation being generally ignored (see Dryzek, 1987; Mintzberg, 1994). This is an issue of concern since positivism is, as Gustavsen (1992: 7) points out, a school of thought which is ‘dead in theory’. This position is supported in a critique of contemporary philosophy by Baynes et al. (1987) who mark the complete disappearance of philosophers who rely on self-evident givens or ultimate foundations characteristic of positivism. McCarthy (1996) additionally notes that all of the assumptions of positivism have been undermined by contemporary philosophy; these include the idea of the neutral language; of the disinterested observer; of the unequivocal observation point; of the binding logic linking knowledge fragments in the formation of unified theories; and of essential-ism where ‘truth’ is said to be systematically dis-coverable. Rejecting this, most contemporary philosophy treats with disdain any practice which asserts the possibility of achieving an objective and panoptical overview. The idea that we can achieve an ideologically free objectivity has been dismantled by thinkers such as Foucault (1980), who by constructing histories of the ‘objectifica-tion of objectivities’ dissolves the apparent unity
of seemingly self-evident concepts with which so-cial scientists and environmental policy theorists usually begin. In fact, the real legitimacy of posi-tivism lies in its ability to contribute to a particu-lar context and not as a superior epistemology for dealing overall with complex problems (see Adorno, 1983).
The conventional approach to developing prob-lem definitions in the environmental discourse relies on IR approaches that incorporate a range of implicit assumptions and consequent value judgements which includes how the solution will be evaluated. This greatly impedes the potential for different ways of thinking about environmen-tal problems. The problem – solution paradigm proposed by instrumentally rational approaches has led problems to be seen primarily in terms of pre-determined solutions (see Hajer, 1995a). The ‘technocratic’ policy analysts who support such a framework have been socialized to work within the worldview of a particular institutionalized dis-course or discipline. This has led to the reliance on the technical tools of experts to resolve value-based issues. This fragmented and skewed inter-pretation has led some policy theorists to suggest that ‘policy analysts should balance their atten-tion to technique with a more reflective contem-plation of the rationales underlying their interventions in the policy process’ (Bobrow and Dryzek, 1987: 3). Insights into practical planning contexts from Innes (1995: 185) have led her to claim that the linear stepwise model of instrumen-tal rationality, where policymakers set goals and ask questions and experts and planners answer them, is an abstraction designed to fit predeter-mined theoretical constructs that do not apply in practice. In contrast communicative approaches suspend the closure of a problem definition through a focus on a process designed to ‘tease out’ the multiplicity of dimensions of complex issues.
entity and is capable of changing under certain social and historical conditions. They insist that ‘meaning’ (like that of sustainability) is subject to external conditions and power relations which have become encoded in contemporary lan-guage. This linguistic approach emphasizes the social construction of meaning and consequently rejects assumptions of a neutral language. In this respect a broad range of contemporary phi-losophy repudiates the epistemological basis of ‘positivism’. Leading the way, the archaeological and genealogical investigations of Michel Fou-cault’s ‘history of the present’ have provided an historical analysis of fundamental ideas and in-stitutionally supported power relationships which constitute our relationships with ourselves and our environment.
Recognising the power relations encoded in discourse, Jurgen Habermas, a very significant contemporary critical philosopher, has concerned himself with how such power can be effectively harnessed, and how the notion of a communica-tive rationality can disestablish the hierarchies of idiom and create an environment that allows for the prospect of a participatory democracy. Habermas (1984) proposes this be done through processes which illuminate the ‘life world’ or the context in which cultures, social relations and individuals are formed and interact. Such an emphasis is closely aligned with communicative planning theory and its search for the creative reconstruction of a social and political agenda; however, communicative planning is also influ-enced greatly by postmodern approaches that emphasize being cognisant of power relations and social diversity in structuring communica-tive relations. An alternacommunica-tive and more complex conception of sustainable development can be articulated through transdisciplinary insights gained from postmodern philosophy, discourse theory, critical theory, cultural theory, ecological economics and communicative planning theory. The emphasis in these coalitions is on enhancing the understanding of the relationships that derive meaning as a process for sustainable pol-icy development.
5.1. Communicati6e planning approaches
The recognition of the constitutive role of language within social relations has led analysts such as Innes (1995: 185) to conclude that the ‘information that influences is information that is socially constructed in the community where it is used’. Communicative approaches recognize that knowledge and value do not have some kind of external existence but are actively constituted through social relations, and thus demand a more self-reflexive orientation for policy (Berger and Luckman, 1967; Latour, 1987; Shotter 1993). Such thinking promotes discursive practices which provide the potential for people to learn about the multiplicity of available points of view and to more closely reflect on their own. Healey (1997: 37) describes this approach as being culturally informed, moving beyond the notion of value as ‘individual subjective preferences’. In this respect, ‘practical discourse starts with the very terms in which the participants themselves construe the issue in question, their respective interests, and their moral commitments’ (Kettner, 1993: 167). This discursive practice, of course, invites scientific and economic participation into the reflective
stakeholder framework, but questions the
hegemony of conventional hierarchy through
critical questioning of the assumptions
underpinning ‘truth claims’. Such a learning framework for interaction is aimed at the development of strategy to address complex and integrated environmental problems (Meppem and Gill, 1998).
This focus leads to the pursuit of a ‘discursive
community’ by advocates of communicative
planning approaches as the basis for policy formulation. A communicative emphasis aims to position policy to explicitly deal with motivations, assumptions, values and power relationships. The ability of the environmental discourse to come to understand community, not as an autonomous ‘thing’ but as something constituted from culturally relative and contingent social interactions, will influence the ability and capacity of policy
processes to scrutinise and revise social
recognizes this as an ‘arduous policy task, but the alternative is the destructive approach of adopting criteria external to contextual reality’.
A call for participatory decision making in the search for a shared meaning for sustainabil-ity, through the development of a ‘discursive community’, is aimed at surfacing the hidden assumptions and myths of disciplinary-based ‘truth claims’ to reveal value-based positions. ‘Such public and articulated acknowledgment of conflicting and pressing values does not solve a problem; it works ritualistically to re-build rela-tionships and to prepare the social basis for fu-ture practical action’ (Forester, 1996: 329). This ideal of a ‘discursive community’ is embraced cognisant of the power conflicts, special inter-ests, institutional structures, unreflective cultural conditioning and limits to governance systems that constitute the complexities of the environ-mental discourse. This alternative approach is aimed at collectively ‘asking questions about ap-propriate modes of governance, our arenas and forms of governance, who these privilege and who these marginalize; what they are effective in achieving and what they seem unable to cope with; and to evolve modes of governance more appropriate to the ways we now think about economics, social life and nature’ (Healey, 1997: 201). The imperative of developing a ‘discursive community’ to derive meaning for sustainability is supported by contemporary trends in philoso-phy, and aims to re-establish the thinking be-hind an ‘idealized community’ that co-opts and distorts the potential for alternative coalitions to evolve.
6. Conclusion
In proposing a communicative approach to the ‘conflict of interpretations’ in planning for sustainability we have attempted to highlight the importance of recognising contesting interest group knowledge and their consequent values for effective environmental planning. In doing so, we are not promoting a relativist position, but rather our use of rhetorical strategies is used to promote the idea that a worldview
con-structed and reinforced within the bounds of a self-referential discipline limits the potential for creative stimulation and consequent effective ac-tion. ‘The interdependence among good science, good civic dialogue, good local knowledge, and good learning have not always been well-accom-modated by natural resource management orga-nizations’ (Daniels and Walker, 1996: 72).
Transdisciplinary approaches are far more ambitious than disciplinary approaches in inter-acting with each other about their issues, inspi-rations and processes. Without self-reflexive theory, such as that which is promoted through a transdisciplinary emphasis, the environmental discourse becomes fixated on promoting various instrumentally rational sustainability narratives which jockey for dominance of the discourse. Ecological economics was established to investi-gate issues relating to sustainability in ‘their broadest possible sense’ (Costanza, 1991). The ethos of ecological economics further recognizes and promotes ‘methodological pluralism’ (Nor-gaard, 1989).
The alternative communicative orientation proposed does not structure a theory but appro-priates a way of thinking that accommodates diversity ‘in ways of knowing’ and thus provides a conceptual framework for the complex task of valuation in environmental decision making pro-cesses. This cultural attitude leads to the
recog-nition and promotion of diversity both
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Roderic Gill, Crispen Butter-iss and Adrian Walsh for their interest in this research. In addition we would also like to thank three anonymous referees for their comments.
References
Adorno, T.W., 1983. Against Epistemology. Blackwell, London.
Baynes, K., Bohman, J., McCarthy, T. (Eds.), 1987. After Philosophy: End or Transformation. MIT Press, Cam-bridge, MA.
Baudrilland, J., 1975. The Mirror of Production. Telos Press, St Louis, MO.
Berger, P., Luckman, T., 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Best, S., Kellner, D., 1991. Postmodern Theory: Critical Inter-rogation. The Guilford Press, New York.
Blowers, A. (Ed.), 1993. Planning for a Sustainable Environ-ment. Earthscan, London.
Bobrow, D.B., Dryzek, J.S., 1987. Policy Design by Analysis. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Bohm, D., Peat, D., 1987. Science, Order and Creativity. New York, Bantam.
Bookchin, M., 1994. Which Way for the Ecology Movement. San Francisco, AK Press.
Brengha, F. 1990. The Integration of Environmental Consider-ations into Government Policy. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Hull, Quebec.
Brown, A.L. 1997, ‘The environmental overview as a realistic approach to strategic environmental assessment in develop-ing countries’. In: Porter, A., Fittapaldi, J. (Eds.), Environ-mental Methods Review. Army EnvironEnviron-mental Policy Institute and IAIA, London.
Capra, F., 1997. The Web of Life. Flamingo, London. Costanza, R. (Ed.), 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science
and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York.
Costanza, R., 1997, Frontiers in Ecological Economics: Trans-disciplinary Essays by Robert Costanza. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Costanza, R. et al., 1998. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 25(1), 3 – 16. Daly, H.E., Cobb J.B. Jr., 1989. For the Common Good:
Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Envi-ronment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Daniels, S.E., Walker, G.B., 1996. Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based manage-ment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 16, 71 – 102.
Deleuze, G., Parnet, C. 1987., Dialogues, trans. Tomlinson, H., Habberjam, B. Columbia University Press, New York.
Derrida, J., 1981. Positions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, New York. Dryzek, J.S., 1990. Discursive Democracy. Politics, Policy and
Political Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dryzek, J.S., 1987. Rational Ecology: Environment and
Politi-cal Economy. Blackwell, Oxford.
Fischer, F., Forester, J. (Eds.), 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press, London.
Forester, J., 1996. Beyond dialogues to transformative learn-ing: how deliberate rituals encourage political judgement in community planning processes. In: Esquith, S.L. (Ed.), Political Dialogue: Theories and Practices. Rodopi, Amsterdam.
Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge. Pantheon Books, New York.
Francis, G., 1993. Ecosystem management. Nat. Res. J. 33, 315 – 345.
Friedmann, J., 1987. Planning in the Public Domain. Prince-ton University Press, New Jersey.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1994. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol. Econ. 10, 197 – 207.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-nor-mal age. Futures 25 (7), 739 – 755.
Gale, F.P. 1998. Theorising power in ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 27 (2), 131 – 138.
Geertz, C., 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Inter-pretative Anthropology. Basic Books, New York. Giddens, A., 1990. Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Glasser, H., Craig, P.P., Kempton, W., 1994. Ethics and values in environmental policy. In: van den Bergh, J., van den Straaten, J. (Eds.), Toward Sustainable Development: Concepts, Methods and Policy. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., 1994. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. UCL Press, London. Gustavsen, B. 1992, Dialogue and Development: Theory of
Communication, Action Research and the Restructuring of Working Life. Arbetslivscentrum, Assen/Maastricht. Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action.
Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Hajer, M., 1995a. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: a study of the acid rain controversy in Great Britian and the Netherlands. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hajer, M.A., 1995b. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Claren-don Press, Oxford.
Haraway, D., 1992. Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Na-ture in the World of Modern Science. Verso, London. Harou, P., Daly, H., Goodland, R. 1994. Environmental
Harper, T.L., Stein, S.M., 1992. The centrality of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning theory. J. Plan. Ed. Res. 11, 105 – 116.
Hayden, F.G. 1995. Instrumentalist policymaking: policy criteria in a transactional context. J. Econ. Issues 29(2) June 380 – 391.
Hayden, P., 1997. Gilles Deleuze and naturalism: a conver-gence with ecological theory and politics. Environ. Ethics.
Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Macmillan, Hampshire, vol 18 (2), 192 – 202.
Hoksbergen, R. 1994, ‘Postmodernism and institutionalism: toward a resolution of the debate on relativism. J. Econ. Issues 28(3) September 682 – 694.
Holling, C.S., 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, London.
Innes, J., 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: com-municative action and interpretive practice. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 14 (3), 183 – 190.
Jacobs, M., 1996. What is Socio-Ecological Economics? Ecol. Econ. Bull. 1 (2), 14 – 16.
Jameson, F., 1984. Forward to J.F. Lyotard, The Postmod-ern Condition. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Kettner, M., 1993. Scientific knowledge, discourse ethics,
and consensus formation on public policy issues. In: Von Schomberg, R. (Ed.), Science Politics and Morality: Sci-entific Uncertainty and Decision Making. Kluwer, Boston.
Korten, D.C., 1997. When Corporations Rule the World. Earthscan, London.
Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Lovelock, J., 1979. Gaia: a New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
MacIntyre, A., 1984. After Virtue. Notre Dame Press, Indiana.
Mainzer, K., 1996. Thinking in Complexity: the Complex Dynamics of Matter, Mind and Mankind. Springer-Ver-lag, Berlin.
Mandelbaum, S., 1991. Telling Stories. J. Plan. Educ. Res 10, 209 – 214.
McCarthy, T. 1996. Pragmatising communicative reason. In: Toulmin, S., Gustavsen, B. (Ed.), Beyond Theory: Changing Organisations Through Participation, Ch. 10. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Meppem, T., Gill, R. 1998. Planning for sustainability as a
learning concept. Ecol. Econ. J. 26 (2).
Mintzberg, H., 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic ning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans and Plan-ners. The Free Press, New York.
Murphy, K. 1995, Generative coaching: a surprising learning odyssey. In: Chawla, S., Renesch, J. (Ed.), Learning Or-ganisations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Work-place, Ch. 13. Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Myerson, G., Rydin, Y., 1994. environment and planning: a tale of the mundane and the sublime. Soc. Space 12, 437 – 452.
Myerson, G., Rydin, Y., 1996a. Sustainable development: the implications of the global debate for landuse plan-ning. In: Buckingham-Hatfield, S., Evans, B. (Eds.), En-vironmental Planning and Sustainability. Wiley, London. Myerson, G., Rydin, Y., 1996b. The Language of
Environ-ment: a New Rhetoric. UCL Press, London.
Naess, A. 1989. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy; trans. D. Rothenberg. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge.
Norgaard, R.B. 1989. The case for methodological plural-ism. Ecol. Econ. 1, 35 – 57.
Norton, B., Costanza, R., Bishop, R.C., 1998. The evolution of preferences: Why sovereign preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecol. Econ. 24(2, 3).
Norton, B.G. 1992. A new paradigm for environmental management, ecosystem health: new goals for environ-mental management. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell, B.D. (Eds.), Ecosystem Health, Island Press, Covelo, CA.
O’Hara, S.U., 1996. Discursive ethics in ecosystems valua-tion and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 16, 95 – 107. Papadakis, E., 1996. Environmental Politics and Institutional
Change. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. Pearce, D., Markandya, A., Barbier, E., 1989. Blueprint for
a Green Economy. Earthscan, London.
Pressman, J., Wildavsky, A., 1984. Implementation, 3rd edi-tion. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Prigogine, I., Stengers, I., 1984. Order Out of Chaos. Ban-tam, New York.
Rees, W. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carry-ing capacity. Environ. Urban. 4, 32 – 41.
Rein, M., Schon, D., 1993. Reframing policy discourse. In: Fischer, F., Forester, J. (Eds.), 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press, London.
Sagoff, M., 1988. The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sampson, E.E., 1993. Identity politics: challenges to psychol-ogy’s understanding. Am. Psychol. 48 (12), 1219 – 1230. Shotter, J., 1993. Conversational Realities: Constructing Life
through Language. Sage, London.
Tacconi, L., 1998. Scientific methodology for ecological eco-nomics. Ecol. Econ. 27(1).
Therivel, R., Partidario, M.R., 1996. The Practice of Strate-gic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan, London. Thompson, J.W. 1995, The renaissance of learning in
busi-ness. In: Chawla, S., Renesch, J. (Ed.), Learning Organi-sations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace, Ch. 5. Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Verburg, R.M., Wiegel, V. 1998. On the compatibility of sustainability and economic growth. Environ. Ethics 19(3).
Von Schomberg, R. 1993, Controversies and political deci-sion making. In: R. Von Schomberg (Ed.), Science Poli-tics and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making, ch. 1. Kluwer, Boston.
Wallace, M.G., Cortner, H.J., Moote, M.A. Burke, S. 1996. Moving toward ecosystem management: examining a change in philosophy for resource management. J. Politi-cal Ecol. 3, 18 – 32.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987, Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York.
