Sustainability History Project

[Post written by – Noah Sharpsteen, John Stephenson, Nigel Peltier, Daniel Gray]

Works Under Discussion:

Ricketts, Glenn M. “The Roots of Sustainability,” Academic Questions (2010) 23: 20-53
Bonevac, Daniel. “Is Sustainability Sustainable?” Academic Questions (2010) 23: 84-101

The overarching discussion consists in the critique of the history and general concept of sustainability. Ricketts critiques sustainability by connecting it with radical movements in the 1960s and 1970s, comparing its general motivating influences to ‘catastrophe’ literature, recognizing the overly broad nature of the issues subsumed under the label ‘sustainability’ – stating that its inter-connected approach is “trivially true if true at all,” and ultimately locates its rationale in the sphere of a ‘religious’ dogmatism.[1] Bonevac critiques of a number of the definitions of sustainability used in contemporary practice.[2] The critiques range from stating that the definitions are too stringent and thus impossible to too weak and thus easily satisfied – even by the system in place today. The critique is sharp and insightful and provides a baseline both for further research into the definition (or purpose of a definition) of sustainability and also a model of critical approaches to sustainability in general. Rather than discuss the critical merits of Ricketts’ work, a work we feel to be awfully shallow, we believe that a discussion of Bonevac’s criticisms of the definition(s) of sustainability will prove more fruitful for developing an understanding and substantial critiques of sustainability in use today.

Bonevac established that the current definitions of sustainability are not theoretically possible to satisfy in an absolute sense. This notion of being absolutely possible to be satisfied is an important part of many of his criticisms. His idea of the definitions given are “all-or-none.” What is important to note, in our opinion, is that the definitions he gives – the ones actually given in the recent literature on sustainability – do demand the unsatisfiable criteria that Bonevac describes. We feel that his criticisms are important to understand, but they focus sharply on an issue that Bonevac misunderstands – namely, the apparently stringent criteria given by the definitions are focused on a different point. The motivation behind giving such definitions is not to set up absolute criteria, but to set up a framework for development, research, and improvement of the network of practices that have been labeled ‘sustainable.’ We believe that his criticisms stand as they are, but that has not ultimately stalled ‘sustainable’ practices and the efforts to further understand this concept and specify its ideological boundaries. This raises both an important question and important point. The question is, “What is the point of such a definition?” The point is that there is no common agreement that a definition of sustainability should have an idea of an ‘end-state’ or an eventual ultimate goal.

The fact that an ‘end-state’ is not a reasonable or desirable measure for a definition implies that, put simply, sustainability is viewed as a work in progress. Another way to say this is that the goal is the sustainable process itself – ultimately broadening the human understanding of the values expressed in the sustainability literature. We believe that the only way to actuate the incorporation of these values into our developmental process is a kind of ‘give-and-take’ operation with a consistent re-application and reevaluation of assessment criteria and empirical data which exemplifies the consequences of practices that are influenced by those criteria. This ‘give-and-take’ also needs to be actualized in the scope of assessment. You cannot singularly assess ‘sustainable’ practices at the macro-level – being subsumed by an over-arching, absolute definition. Most assessment will most likely be done at the micro-level – assessing individual practices according to the ‘sustainable’ criteria that are adequately connected to the overarching message of ‘sustainability’ but modified according to their specific practice.

We believe that this approach (an approach that is implicit throughout the ‘positive’ literature on sustainability) is a necessary condition for the assessment of progression. This allows for the incorporation of influence by both spheres on each other. The conceptual and empirical sides are constantly causing change in one another. Progress, in our opinion, is the most important objective to be achieved. But something important to note, is that ‘progress’ is not an end-state, it is the evaluation of a process. Therefore, we believe that while Bonevac makes some good suggestions (regarding a standard by which we should understand the point of a definition), he misses the point of the development of the understanding of sustainability as a whole.

—-
[1] Ricketts, Glenn M. “The Roots of Sustainability,” Academic Questions 23:1 (2010), 84-201.

[2] Bonevac, Daniel. “Is Sustainability Sustainable?” Academic Questions 23:1 (2010), 20-53.

–