A few weeks ago, one of my students asked if there existed any identifiable schools of thought that have put forth a world view completely outside of the idea of sustainability. This is a great question. The notion of sustainability the Brundtland Commission report articulated seems to frame the issue completely, to the extent that even those who would critique the notion do so within the contextual universe created by the Commission. Following Marshall McLuhan, this seems to be the proverbial water that the fish could not possibly have discovered, or, following Thomas Kuhn, the current paradigm in which “normal” science (and other work) is done.
After doing a bit of initial research, I haven’t been able to find any evidence that there is a school of thought that does not engage itself in fundamental ways with the Brundtland Commission Report’s definition of sustainability/sustainable development (If there’s anyone in the Internet universe that can provide evidence otherwise, please do comment below).
What I did find, however, seem to fall into two general categories: Critiques of the idea of sustainability itself, and critiques of implementation of Brundtlandian sustainability. (See sources below)
—-
SOURCES
Critiques of the Concept of Sustainability
Austin Williams, The Enemies of Progress,” Societas: Essays in Political and Cultural Criticism 34 (May 2008).
- “This polemical book examines the concept of sustainability and presents a critical exploration of its all-pervasive influence on society, arguing that sustainability, manifested in several guises, represents a pernicious and corrosive doctrine that has survived primarily because there seems to be no alternative to its canon: in effect, its bi-partisan appeal has depressed critical engagement and neutered politics. It is a malign philosophy of misanthropy, low aspirations and restraint. This book argues for a destruction of the mantra of sustainability, removing its unthinking status as orthodoxy, and for the reinstatement of the notions of development, progress, experimentation and ambition in its place.” [from Amazon.com]
“Towards a Critique of Sustainability,” Progressive Reactionary blog, Jan. 3, 2009 [accessed May 25 2010].
- “. . . that ever-elusive term “sustainability.” The very word, emptied of meaning through overuse, increasingly dominates architectural design and discourse, and—frankly—it drives me crazy. People use it all the time without really knowing what they are talking about. I always ask: sustainable of what? Too often the word becomes appropriated as a band-aid, cure-all additive that can be applied as environmental/ecological veneer to an architectural project, like icing on a cake. But the word has become such a all-encompassing buzzword, a signifier onto which so many different aspirations and agendas have been projected, that it doesn’t really mean anything anymore.”
Phil McManus, “Contested terrains: Politics, stories and discourses of sustainability,” Environmental Politics 5: 1 (Spring 1996), 48-73.
- “‘Sustainable development’ has become a dominant discourse for anything remotely environmental in the 1990s. While the term originated in a specific historical context, its apparent universality is an important reason for its mobilising power. However, is this likely to lead to ‘ecologically meaningful’ policies? This paper explores competing discourses of sustainability and then looks at what the author considers to be ecologically necessary, rather than what may be immediately politically achievable, in order to address sustainability effectively.”
Critiques of the Misuse of the Concept of Sustainability
Peter Marcuse, “Sustainability is not enough,” Environment and Urbanization 10: 2 (Oct. 1998), 103-111.
- Abstract: Critically reviews the concept of sustainability, especially as it has come to be applied outside of environmental goals. “Sustainability” should not be considered as a goal for a housing or urban programme – many bad programmes are sustainable – but as a constraint whose absence may limit the usefulness of a good programme. The promotion of “sustainability” may simply encourage sustaining the unjust status quo; the attempt to suggest that everyone has common interests in “sustainable urban development” masks very real conflicts of interest. [via Academic Search Premier database]
Benson, Peter, and Kirsch, Stuart. “Corporate oxymorons.” Dialectical Anthropology 34: 1 (2010), 45-48.
- Abstract: This article examines the promotion of corporate oxymorons that conceal the harm caused by corporations to people and environments. They are part of a larger set of strategies used by corporations to manage or neutralize critique. They often pair a desirable cover term such as safe or sustainable with a description of their product, for example cigarettes or mining. Repetition of the resulting contradictions–safe cigarettes or sustainable mining–renders the terms familiar and seemingly plausible. We suggest that the analysis of corporate oxymorons provides a valuable entry into the anthropology of capitalism. [via Academic Search Premier database]
Debashish Munshi, Priya Kurian, “Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics,” Public Relations Review 31: 4 (Nov. 2005), 513-520.
- Abstract: This article draws on postcolonial theory to critique ongoing neocolonial aspects of public relations theory and practice and especially the field’s recent appropriation of terms such as “corporate social responsibility” and “sustainable development.” It positions such appropriation as a continuation of the old colonial strategy of reputation management among elite publics at the expense of marginalized publics. Public relations can only begin to be ethical and socially responsible if it acknowledges the diversity of publics, breaks down the hierarchy of publics, and takes into account the resistance of peripheral publics. [via Academic Search Premier database]
Charles Francis, Roger Elmore, John Ikerd, and Mike Duffy, “Greening of Agriculture: Is It All a Greenwash of the Globalized Economy?” Journal of Crop Improvement 19: 1/2 (2007), 193-220.
- Condensed Abstract: There is growing concern about the environmental impacts of agriculture and the food system, and companies are eager to exploit this concern through advertising. There are legitimate ways to justify advertising green products; however, when a company attempts to present a responsible public image but does not change its practices we call this “greenwashing,” or use of disinformation to mislead consumers. It is difficult to distinguish between the two. This article explores two questions: is there a relationship between scale of farming and business and green activities, and does adoption of a multiple bottom line influence greening of agriculture and food systems? We are convinced that a business that measures success in terms of environmental soundness and social responsibility as well as economic returns will be greener than ones that only use economics. This is consistent with our discussions with farmers and observations in the U.S. Midwest. Many agree on the need for a greener future, but there are differences among decision makers in agriculture and food systems about how to achieve this goal. [via Academic Search Premier database]
“GREENWASH a guide to corporate eco-speak,” New Internationalist 347 (July 2002), 22. [Full text pasted here]
- Abstract: Focuses on the contents of the report ‘The Business Case for Sustainable Development.’ Highlights of the Johannesburg Earth Summit. [via Academic Search Premier database]
“Green or Greenwash? A Greenpeace Detection Kit,” Greenpeace, n.d. [accessed May 25, 2010].
- “While accepting that there will never be a perfect litmus test for “greenwash”, and in the hope of encouraging greater public debate on the issue, Greenpeace offers the following 4 Point ‘CARE’ check list. ‘CARE’ stands for Core business; Advertising record; Research & development funding; and Environmental lobbying. A corporation which fails on any of the four tests below is probably in the “greenwash” business.”
“Greenwash 101,” The Green Life, n.d. [accessed May 25, 2010].
- “In 1999, “greenwash” entered the official lexicon of the English language through its inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED defines greenwash as: ‘Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.’ In the marketplace, media and politics, greenwash serves several purposes, among them: fooling environmentally conscious consumers into buying environmentally destructive productst; generating positive press about a company’s environmental commitment; and resisting government environmental regulation through preemptive voluntary policies within an industry. Collectively, greenwash’s goals maintain the status quo of unsustainable consumption by deceiving and appeasing progressive parties.”
–
Sustainability History Project 
[…] on Sustainability History Project , James Hillagas reports an interesting question: one of my students asked if there existed any identifiable schools of thought that have put forth […]
Hi James, I started to comment here, but it got too long for the little box, so it’s here instead: A world without sustainability?
[…] Antecedants of Sustainability June 1, 2010 by jvhillegas In response to the post “Critiquing Sustainability,” Samuel Mann (Assoc. Prof., Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, NZ) wrote this thought-provoking […]
The term sustainability is undoubtedly quite ambiguous, and frankly I am skeptical that there will ever be an all-encompassing definition of sustainability that everyone agrees upon. But everyone has his or her own definition or idea of what sustainability means to them and that is just fine, in my opinion. I think the best definition of sustainability isn’t a definition at all, it’s more of a question; “Is what I am doing bettering the future of the Earth and everything within the planet?” If no, then it is not sustainable, if yes, then it is sustainable. If you are unsure, then it’s probably not sustainable.
The National Association of Scholars has published much critique of the sustainability movement in higher education. See the NAS journal Academic Questions, where the latest issue is devoted to this topic: http://springerlink.com/content/wr742tnx1760/?p=9d5eeedd57c34addae1766c121f26b9d&pi=1
[I have updated this comment on Aug. 23, 2010, to provide the current URL for the journal that Ashely linked to above: Academic Questions 23:1 (2010). — James V. Hillegas]
Ashley, thanks for bringing this information to our attention. I look forward to reading these articles — these are precisely the kinds of perspectives I’m personally keen to learn about and excited to expose my students to.
Some of my students have already incorporated one of the articles in this issue into their most recent reading response assignment; once I grade this assignment and read this articles myself, I will put up another post dedicated to this issue of the journal Academic Questions.
It’s so refreshing to see this engagement with critics.
Once sustainability has claimed for itself things like “justice” and the “environment” (not to mention the “universe” and the “future”), it’s hard to see what could be left; it’s a totalizing system. It will overlap with other totalizing systems rather than being completely divorced from them.
But here are some possible alternatives that might overlap only a little with sustainability. Take, for instance, an orientation around self-aggrandizing power, such as is demonstrated perhaps by Nietzsche’s Superman or by Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic; the alternative to concern for others and the world is simply concern for oneself, or total unconcern. A benign alternative is, say, the mathematician who simply wants to do her math and be left alone. Individualism is worth considering in this context–those who say, why not let each other alone, even the selfish ones? There are also the Epicureans, as popularly conceived.
Another alternative is the radical skeptic who might care about others and the world, but think that knowledge about what to do is too difficult to even try since, after all, well-intentioned efforts often make things worse. Also one might think of a not uncommon religious worldview in which humans are “totally depraved” and have no hope of saving themselves from their future. Similarly, from the scientific side there are determinists who see only matter & energy but no great principles behind it; or as Nietzsche suggests, morality is a mirage. Then there’s Pangloss: we’re in the best of all possible worlds already, and suffering is just a natural part of it.
@Adam Kissel: Thanks for this comment, and for the intriguing historical and philosophical overview of concepts that may contain critiques of Brundtlandian sustainability . . . much food for thought.
The phrase “totalizing system” is along the lines of what I was trying to articulate in this post: A system that purports to fill all possible intellectual space so that supporters and critics alike are compelled to use the same terms & concepts (and, by extension, “facts”).[1] This concept seems related to the idea of framing, as well as to Kuhn’s “paradigms” and McLuhan’s fish/water analogy.
You bring up many specific examples that sound intriguing but that are outside of my area of expertise (me being but a humble historian of 20th century urban environmental history). From your email address, I take it that you are affiliated with the U. of Chicago, which leads me to theorize that you may know more than I on this matter; if ever you’re in the mood to cite or link to some specific sources for one or more of the items you comment on, the SHP community would be interested in them!
—-
[1] Regarding the use of the word “purport” in this sentence, I owe a significant intellectual debt to Kurt Gödel and realize that “totalizing system” only exists in an abstract sense; for this I am, in turn, indebted to Douglas Hofstadter.
This weekend, I have been able to take a closer look at the journal issue linked in Ashley’s post above, and I found that you authored one of the articles (here).
Yes, that’s me. I think you’re right that the more helpful critiques of sustainability come from totalizing systems that overlap with it, rather than ideas that are completely outside of it. Some things to be looking for would be alternative views of justice, such as with competitive rather than cooperative models of problem-solving (might makes right; survival of the fittest is the truly natural way); economic theories that presume endless positive development rather than merely meeting presently defined needs (consumerism as a spur to innovation, development, and overcoming obstacles); voluntarism rather than government imposition of norms; epistemological humility in not presuming to know for sure what is best for oneself, much less for others now and least of all for others in the future; religious views that suffering is what is natural or that humans are naturally too evil to overcome their differences; humanistic pursuits where the point is to show off human greatness or to live in the moment rather than to worry about other people, times, and places. (I realize that I’m not distinguishing so well between my first list and the present list.)
A really approachable book for getting the lay of the land of the huge variety of alternative frames of reference is Walter Watson’s The Architectonics of Meaning, which includes specific texts for the alternatives.
Thanks for the additional thoughts & the source.
I’d like to ask for some additional clarification on your follow-up comment regarding where the emphasis lies in your series of repeated dyads. For example, are we to understand that your distinctions above suggest a preference for the former example you present, or the latter? Do you intend to suggest that one can find fruitful critiques of sustainability as a result of researching “”alternative views of justice” that involve “competitive . . . models of problem-solving,” or will fruitful critiques be found by researching “cooperative models of problem-solving?”
To clarify further, regarding the former half this particular dyad, are you suggesting that we all may find insight by pursuing perspectives positing that “might makes right; [and] survival of the fittest is the truly natural way?” Or, are you suggesting the opposite?
I ask the above before I’ve had any chance at all to research, let alone read, Watson, so I appreciate the clarification; additionally, I’m sure that clarifying this point will help me and my current and future students immensely!
Many thanks!
[…] critical of sustainability July 5, 2010 by jvhillegas In comments to a previous SHP post (Critiquing Sustainability), Ashley Thorne brought our attention to a special issue of the journal Academic Questions devoted […]
If the point is to thoughtfully consider challenges to a sustainability perspective, I think there’s a lot to think about by examining competition-based, power-based, and win-lose models, and how they either overlap with or reject various sustainability principles. Let’s discuss more after you take a look at Watson.
Adam,
I read Watson and processed his insights, generally, on my personal blog (here), so that I could respond more fully to your comments.
In my understanding, Watson puts forth the idea of the archic matrix as a way to identify the fundamental elements of texts (broadly speaking) so that one can better understand the ideas in the texts by comparing and contrasting their fundamental elements. In spite of how a given text emphasizes or de-emphasizes these fundamental elements, texts are not mutually exclusive — Watson’s notion of reciprocal priority illustrates how the archic elements are present in a text even when they’re not being emphasized. In this way, texts do not allow for a single, unified understanding of the world, but “are different ways of knowing one thing” (Watson, 160). Therefore, pluralism is the true state of the world in spite of those who would assert any given unified philosophy.
I haven’t taken the time — nor do I feel qualified — to identify the archic elements of the Brundtland Commission report, and I’m not sure which specific texts you refer to when you write about “competition-based, power-based, and win-lose models,” nor, therefore, sure about what these texts’ archic elements would be. However, based on my reading of Watson, I find myself returning to a particular question. I will go to an extreme in the interest of trying to formulate a clear question:
How can equity possibly be achieved in models that focus on competition, power, winners & losers, and other such zero-sum outcomes?
For example, if one takes it as a given that the definition of sustainability includes eradicating poverty so that all people have at least basic opportunities for life, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness, and if eradicating poverty will involve various measures of wealth distribution (that some groups will likely see as an abridgment of their own life, liberty, etc.), how could a competition-, power-, or win-lose-based approach help us achieve this goal of sustainability?
(As an aside — and perhaps this needs to be the subject of a post of its own — my reading of Brundtlandian sustainability is that it seems to assert a totalizing approach to world affairs in one sense while concurrently stressing that any given “sustainable practice” can only be implemented within the specific local, regional, and/or national context. Therefore, the approach provides for a general framework within which plurality abounds.)
A bunch of good things to respond to here, and sorry to be slow in responding. Since the overall question was about critiquing sustainability, the most fundamental critiques might reject some of sustainability’s central ideas and major goals. So, yes, not everyone believes in “equity” and not everyone believes that there is any particular duty to eradicate other people’s poverty, and some people believe that there are more important things to spend resources on than eradicating poverty even though they do want to eradicate poverty also. Those groups of people are coming from various philosophical and moral backgrounds that would seem justify, at least to them, their points of view, which is why they all might have ways of critiquing sustainability that could be worth looking at. If one starts from the premise that a critique is not good if it ultimately does not work to achieve the goals one started out with, then one is not really looking for a strong critique. A win-lose model of equity in the world might result in a lot of poverty rather than its eradication, yet seem fair so long as everyone plays by the same rules, for example. I’m not saying I’m agreeing or disagreeing with any of these points of view, but to show where serious critiques of sustainability might come from.
Adam, thanks for the thoughts. You bring up some great points to consider.
When I teach this course, I spend the first few sessions with my students breaking-down the idea of “sustainability” and then building-up an operational definition of the concept that will guide us through the quarter. By “guide” I mean something that will serve as a point of reference for students to compare, contrast, critique, refine, challenge, support, etc.
Regarding a definition of sustainability, I stress to my students three fundamental things. First, that there are definitions of sustainability — sustainability can be more than a trendy catch-phrase. Second, that whenever one comes across the use of the concept of sustainability, there are implicit and/or explicit values, assumptions, etc., associated with this definition. Third, to understand how the concept of sustainability is being used in any given context, one must be aware of the implicit and explicit values, assumptions, etc., wrapped-up in the term. Having this understanding, students (or anyone, really) will be better prepared to evaluate the repercussions of “sustainability.”
The comment thread on this post and the articles in Academic Questions 23:1 have provided my students and I some great material for achieving the goals above.
I agree! Those are important definitional issues.
[…] correct in this regard, as we’ve discussed in class and in some places on the SHP website (here and […]
[…] in this special issue of the journal Academic Questions. Ashley Thorne’s comment to the post Critiquing Sustainability alerted us to the publication of this special journal issue. I plan to post on other articles in […]