Sustainability History Project

[This post was written by Megan Foster, Grant Russ, and Tina Xiong, and complements previous students’ analysis of the question What is Sustainability?]

An elevated level of equity would be ideal through the aspect of civil society as the center piece placed in between the economy, the state, and environment. From this perspective, each neighboring sphere to civil society is still necessary to keep sustainability in balance. Appropriately, though, the state, operated by the means of democratic governance, would garner the most attention since it in turn largely manages equity to civil society. As civil society becomes more of the focal point by the democratic institution it would allow such equity of access and discourse on a large body of thought and literature for the civil body to express its interest and mediation on the path towards sustainability.

Democratic institutions also allow advantages for a larger portion of civil society to take part in political freedoms and participation, which is also needed during this long enduring trek towards sustainability. Sustainability itself nearly focuses on the following three similar dimensions as of civil society: the social, the environment and the economy. Equity would naturally gravitate to this central core of dimensions and thus produce a more dynamic, growing and accessible opportunities for civil society, and sustainability.

As Gary L. Larsen puts it, “where the actions of people or organizations are the central focus with constructs of sustainability being the explanatory variables.”[1] This setup may also allow for the movement toward sustainability appear more as a two-way street. The effort to address and focus in on basic human needs and improvements could lead to the many opportunities of transitioning to an enhanced position in sustainable developments. This idea coincides with Magis and Shinn’s recalibrating the compass of development to include human-centered processes and eliminate destructive processes.[2] In the occasion that equity in consumption and distribution amongst the people is reached, pushing an anthropocentric mindset could open up new gateways.

Once the means for sustainability are effectively coordinated, ideally facilitated predominately by actions of civil society, it will be necessary to evaluate the success of these means. Assessing a multifaceted goal such as sustainability requires tools capable of measuring qualitative and quantitative outcomes. A crucial distinction that should be employed for the duration of an evaluation would be one between growth and development, growth being quantitative and development being qualitative. An increase in growth is not always synonymous with an increase in development or equity for that matter.

To implement a proper model in place of the growth model requires replacing old indicators such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with new ones such as the Index of Social Health which measures the differences in wealth among the rich and the poor. Revised indicators should be aligned with human centered development and should assess equity regarding basic human needs and human freedoms as well as the degree to which social, economic, cultural, and political actions lead to goals of sustainable development. Trading in a growth model for a human development model creates a shift in focus that rather than singling out economic goals, encompasses ecological and equity goals as well for a completed outlook on sustainability.

—
[1] Gary L. Larsen, “An Inquiry into the Theoretical Basis of Sustainability,” in Jesse Dillard, Veronica Dujon, and Mary C. King, eds., Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability (London: Routledge, 2009), 45-82.

[2] Kristen Magis and Craig Shinn, “Emergent Principles of Social Sustainability,” in Jesse Dillard, Veronica Dujon, and Mary C. King, eds., Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability (London: Routledge, 2009), 15- 44.

–