Framing the alternative: socio-political Dynamics toward sustainability

Framing the alternative: socio-political dynamics toward sustainability João Mourato Alexandra Bussler Adrien Krauz Mónica Truninger 3. 90 the diverse worlds of sustainability introduction With the arrival of the xxi century the relationship between humans and nature is reaching a critical stage. At stake are the planetary liveability patterns of both human and most non-human life forms. Despite the sometimes conflicting data on the urgency of the need to rethink this relationship, there is a growing consensus that we face an unsustainable status quo (Capra 2004; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2013). As a result of this socio-ecological crisis and overall public inability to address it glocally, there has been a substantial increase, over the past decades, in the number and variety of social movements favouring sustainability, commonly self-referred to as alternatives (Barry and Quilley 2009; Alexander and Rutherford 2014). In this chapter we propose a framework of inquiry into these emergent alternatives. We first contextualize the socio-political alternatives toward sustainability debate by briefly examining why these emerge in the “Root of the Alternative” section. In the “Frameworks, dynamics and dimensions of change” section, we inquire into what ethos underpins them, and what their potential role in the wider transition to sustainability debate is. From a conceptual standpoint, we advance an interpretation matrix (Figure 3.3) to help the reader navigate the different and often overlapping dynamics of change that socio-political movements toward sustainability embody. Third, in the section “Socio-political mobilization” we explore the theoretical origins of the Deep Green Alternatives, the highly committed green ethics-based set of social movements that sits at the forefront of the implementation of transition toward sustainability practices. We systematize (Table 3.1) the main constituent trends within the Deep Green Alternatives, their proposals, and desired futures. Thus, the main contribution of this chapter is to serve as a “one-stop shop” for both students and scholars who are interested in navigating the troubled waters of alternatives debates within the context of transitions to sustainability. root of the alternative: crises and the perception of futures There is a growing consensus that we face an unsustainable socio-ecological status quo (Capra 2004; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2013). This scenario underpins the conceptual birth of the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2002; Barry and Maslin 2016; socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 91 Steffen et al. 2007), Earth’s newest epoch, in which humankind has turned into a (to different extents, cf. Biermann et al. 2015) collective geological force able to irreversibly influence the Planet’s future. The Anthropocene sets a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability (Rickards 2015; Olsson et al. 2017) in the sense that social and political perceptions surrounding the aforementioned ecological crisis fuel the emergence of multiple catastrophist discourses of a potential global collapse that directly challenge our modern vision of progress and economic development (Diamond 2006; Servigne and Cochet 2015). As a result, there is a growing call for alternatives aiming at radically changing our present actions in order to attain different, more sustainable, futures (Barry and Quilley 2009; Alexander and Rutherford 2014). The redefinition of a collective idea of future is at the centre of the Anthropocenic sustainability debate. As Gaston Berger (1957) once outlined: “the future is the raison d’être of the present”, in the sense that our actions today are explained and justified by the images of the future we wish to achieve. This begs the question: what ends (Futures) are steering our present actions? This is a crucial query with deep rooted implications. François Hartog explores it through the concept of society’s “regimes of historicity” (2014), the way we relate to the Past, Present, and Future. He argues that we tend to experience a heterogenous presentist present depending on our societal role. This presentism reflects the planetary globalization and its accelerated flows, in which we struggle to relate to the past, radically different, and the future, strongly uncertain and out of reach. According to Hartog (2014), “The present is therefore experienced as emancipation or enclosure, and the perspective of the future is no longer reassuring, since it is perceived not as a promise, but as a threat”. This notion of threat, of an eschatological foresight, a possible end, an undesirable future, is the epicentre of the alternatives debate and the booming revival of a future’s literacy (issc and unesco 2013), in which people are prompted to directly define their desired future while breaking away from their presentist present. change as a super wicked problem In the face of the aforementioned future framing challenges, the promotion of socio-ecological sustainability is an issue of extreme complexity that tests contemporary decision-making and policy design processes. Given the specific challenges of a large-scale transition toward sustainability, and climate change management in particular, many authors have come to christen it as 92 the diverse worlds of sustainability a super wicked problem (Lazarus 2008). A super wicked problem has four key defining features (Levin et al. 2012): time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution (i. e. governments perpetuate a dual behaviour promoting to some extent policy pathways toward sustainability while allowing its very causes to persist, for example, by encouraging fossil fuels exploitation); the central authority needed to address it is weak or nonexistent (i. e. there are no global executive authorities); and, partly as a result, policy responses discount the future incautiously (i. e. impossibility to secure a relevant degree of policy coherence over time). These four problems combined crystalize the transitional policy processes in the sense that existing decisionmaking and governance solutions, available data, and institutional capacity all fall short of providing the brick walls for game-changing solutions. To make matters worse, the prevailing policy design focuses primarily on short-term objective achievement, which is insufficient to leverage long-term structural changes toward sustainability. In the face of this dynamic, Levin et al. (2012) argue that the way forward is to rethink the idea of path-dependency. Traditionally, this concept is used from a retrospective standpoint to expand on the negative impacts of policy and institutional performance and interpret limitations to policy delivery (Berkhout 2002; Mahoney 2000). Thus, the authors propose to look into path-dependency in a prospective way. In other words, they advocate for “the generation of path-dependent policy interventions that can constrain our future collective selves” (Levin et al. 2012, 123). By this they mean that today’s policy interventions should trigger incremental transition trajectories toward desired future policy outcomes that, ideally, would gather support and be reached over time. As Levin et al. (2012, 124) put it: […] Interventions might not only focus on achieving immediate ‘stickiness’ but also how they gain durability, expand the populations they cover, and change behaviors through largely unexplored progressive incremental forces whereby a number of small policy changes can have significant transformative effects if they trigger path-dependent processes. The abovementioned rationale refers to policy initiatives, although similar reasoning can be applied to infer the future of environmental social movements. How do these movements gain durability over time, how do they scale-up their impact and to what degree, and how does a social movementsled path-dependency toward sustainability materialize? socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 93 frameworks, dynamics, and dimensions of change The idea of triggering a prospective path-dependency toward sustainability has had multiple echos in the literature, such as socio-ecological technical transitions (Geels and Schot 2007), transition management (Kemp et al. 2007; Rotmans and Loorbach 2009), sustainability transitions (Markard et al. 2012; Smith et al. 2005) and transformative social innovation theory (Haxeltine et al., 2017). These are considerably overlapping intertwined bodies of literature that dissect how the creation of a path-dependency toward sustainability may be put into place. An iconic depiction of the necessary systemic multilevel interplay between different societal subsystems across space and time is Geels’ (2011) Multilevel Perspective (mlp) (Figure 3.1). This aspatial and apolitical framework seeks to illustrate the multiple upward and downward causalities of influence behind large system change processes (Geels 2011). The mlp on Social System Transformation Figure 3.1 new regime influences landscape Small networks of actors support novelties on the basis of expectations and visions. Learning processes take place on multiple dimensions (co-construction). Efforts to link different elements in a seamless web. New configuration breaks through, taking advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’. Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime. Landscape developments put pressure on existing regime, which opens up, creating ‘windows of opportunity’ for novelties. Markets, user preferences Socio-technical landscape (exogenous context) Socio- -technical regime Niche- -innovations Culture Time Science Technology Industry Policy Increasing structuration of activities in local practices Elements become aligned. and stabilise in a dominant design. Internal momentum increases. External influences on niches (via expectations and networks) Socio-technical regime is ‘dynamically stable’. On different dimensions there are ongoing processes. Source: Geels (2011, 28). 94 the diverse worlds of sustainability In detail, and at first sight, Geels’ mlp diagram provides a useful systematization of the dynamics underpinning social transformation toward sustainability. However, there is a quasi linear assumption of decision-making processes and ideas streamlining, with a remarkable absence of the words politics and conflict. These are, however, symbolic indicators of the complexity that characterizes any scale-up dynamic in a process of social transformation. As for the catalyst level steering transitions, there is no consensus. Göpel (2016, 22), for one, argues that societal change originates mostly on the “niche or micro level where small units or ‘situated groups’ experiment easily with alternative solutions, as long as the degree of interdependencies with overarching or neighbouring systems is not too strong”. She goes on to propose her own interpretation of how path-dependencies form and inform possible futures (Figure 3.2), by emphasizing the role of ideas and how these materialize through social relations and networks. Göpel claims that one must look beyond the role of crises in structural changes, and explore in detail the origin of the ideas humans resort to when searching for strategies to deal with those very crises. In Göpel’s words (2016, 44): “humans are both subject and object Figure 3.2 Materiality of ideas embed Productive Processes Relationships: human-human human-nature human-technology human-infrastructure Sense-Making Actors Values Beliefs Knowledge Worldviews Socio-Ecological- -Technical Systems Path Dependencies: Infrastructures & technologies Political institutions Natural resources Economic institutions Socio-cultural norms form into co-create embed embed impact Source: Göpel (2016, 44). socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 95 of making history, how reality today shapes the imaginary of how reality could be in the future”. Prevailing paradigms condition humans via processes and systems that shape their individual mindsets and limit their scope of individual and collective action, insinuating a tragic determinism standpoint questioning the possibility of structural change. In reality, however, civilizational development occurred on the shoulders of a large-enough number of humans thinking differently from the status quo at some point in time, often starting as alternative and radical socio-political movements that over time manage to gain momentum, win popular support, and convince a critical mass.1 As Göpel (2016, 45) summarizes, “history becomes an open-ended process—the status quo determined not by any human or social laws but created by sensemaking and purposefully acting humans”. values and change Crisscrossing Geels’ (2011) Multi Level Perspective with her materiality of ideas’ framework, Göpel (2016) illustrates the interconnectedness between actors and structures, at multiple levels, that underpins the circulation of ideas and ultimately leads to a structural paradigm shift. This plays directly into one of the objectives of this chapter: the exploration of how social movements toward sustainability form, evolve, and interact with mainstream systems, and how they position themselves as alternatives. Following Göpel’s argument, we bring additional systematization to the way in which values and ideas sit at the core of the transitions toward sustainability debates. Building on multiple interpretations of the dimensions and processes of social and institutional change (Retolaza Eguren 2011), we aim to illustrate how these influence, and are influenced by predominant development models, governance solutions, politics, and social movements. The former two (development models, governance solutions) are explored elsewhere (Mourato et al. forthcoming). The latter (politics and social movements) are addressed in the following section. 1 Let us think, for instance, of the African-American civil rights movement in the us, the suffragettes and abortion rights movement in Western Europe, the indigenous movement in Bolivia, or the anti-nuclear-power movement in Germany. 96 the diverse worlds of sustainability We must begin by clarifying that in our understanding there is no overall sequential, linear process of change. Catalysts for value change often emerge in unplanned contexts and have unexpected rhythms and mechanisms of propagation. As a proposal to help tackle, research-wise, its complexity, Figure 3.3 portrays an interpretation matrix to help the reader navigate the different and often overlapping dynamics of change that socio-political movements toward sustainability embody. On the one hand, we must ponder the subjective process of individual change in terms of mind-set, self-awareness, and identity that substantiates a wider objective transformation of relational interactions, habits, and practices. These are not clear-cut sequential dynamics. They may be self-reinforcing or divergent when in the face of external stimuli for change. The cornerstone of change in this context derives from the structural interconnectedness between the dialogic interaction of the individual with its surrounding political and social environment and how this interaction emulates the individual’s current pattern of self-development whilst influencing its very change. On the Framing the alternative Figure 3.3 internal alternative? change Acknowledge Unsustainability… … Achieve Sustainability… Development Models Governance Politics Social Movements Personal Transformation individualcollective Transforming Collective Patterns of Action and Thinking Individual (multiple) Identities Personal Mindsets Emotions and Feelings Development of the Self Collective Identity and Culture Collective Behaviour and Thinking Shared Understanding external Transforming Relationships Transforming Structures and Procedures Relational habits Behaviour/Practices Dialogic interaction with the Social and Political Environment Subjective Intersubjective Values/Ethos/Nature of Objective Interobjective Structural Institutions of Society (Constitution, Legal Frameworks, etc.) Public Policies/Polity Legal and Judiciary Procedures Source: Adapted from Retolaza Eguren (2011, 7). socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 97 other hand, change that either leads to, or is triggered by, collective action is influenced by an interplay of intersubjective and interobjective dynamics. The latter embodies, to a large extent, what we can refer to as the institutionalization of change, when this influences state action via both its constitutional and legal frameworks and subsequent policies and polity. The intersubjective dimension concerns inter alias the value change brewed within social movements, and how it influences the definition of a collective identity and subsequent patterns of action. In this chapter, we focus on social movements as sense-making actors (Göpel 2016) that may play a pivotal role in the redefinition of the current unsustainability path-dependency (Levin et al. 2012) toward more desirable and alternative futures (Alexander and Rutherford 2014). socio-political mobilization toward sustainability But it is our conviction that the first wave of sustainability activity, in progress since the Earth Summit of 1992, is insufficient to alter alarming global developments. A new wave must begin to transcend the palliatives and reforms that until now may have muted the symptoms of unsustainability, but cannot cure the disease (Raskin et al. 2002, x). This statement is as accurate today as it was more than 15 years ago. In light of the loss of meaning that the term sustainability has suffered over the last decades, more and more international activists, academics, and thinkers are calling for “a new sustainability paradigm” to “challenge both the viability and desirability of conventional values, economic structures and social arrangements” (Raskin et al. 2002, x). The underlying assumption here is that the present socio-economic paradigm, with its inherent values, structure, and logic, is the root-cause – the disease – of current unsustainability. This section seeks to shed some light on the socio-political movements that have emerged, directly and indirectly, out of this (un)sustainability debate. Here, we unpack the Deep Green Alternatives, systematizing (Table 3.1) its theoretical underpinnings, main constituent trends, proposals, and desired futures. politics of sustainability The shift toward a real (deep) green way of living on our planet without destroying the intertwined, interdependent living systems that represent the 104 the diverse worlds of sustainability will try to bring clarification to the missing part of the puzzle, by engaging in a functional classification of the different existing social movements and their proposals about how a deliberative change toward a greener, more sustainable, way of living can ultimately occur in practice (see Table 3.1). In the vast amount of literature and discourses about the deep green alternative, we can identify four main strands of thought that overlap and diverge to certain extents in their proposals. Here we are looking into the currents of Radical Reformism, Eco-Socialism, Eco-Anarchism, and Deep Green Resistance (dgr). For the sake of clarity, Table 3.1 systematizes them on the basis of six categories: Idea, strategy (shortand long-term), end-state, agency, criticism, and manifestations. First of all, it is clearly noticeable that the four deep green alternatives diverge concerning the details of the desired end-state, with a strong opposition between the Radical Reformists seeing updated capitalism and polity as able to provide deep green sustainability and the Ecoanarchists, which imagine a self-governing participatory governance system without markets and nation states. With respect to the idea, or rationale, underlying the different movements, one can observe a rather great diversity, from believing in the market forces (Radical Reformism), to the socialist revolution beyond capitalism (Eco-Socialism), to radical militant activism in light of the time-pressure to save our planet (dgr). What they have in common is a significant overlap in the short-term strategies, including returning to small-scale local economies, simplicity, and grassroots, with the exception of the dgr activists, who somehow can be situated in a more marginal and ultra-radical position. Concerning the longterm strategies, we can still find a certain degree of overlap in the perception of a need for value change (except dgr), as well as in the proposed government interventions by Eco-Socialism and Radical Reformism. With respect to agency, we can see a common belief in the force of grassroots and bottom-up activism, while Eco-Anarchists deny the importance of the state and Radical Reformists build on the latter in order to reach the alternative. In the last row we classify a selection of the present-day most familiar on-theground practices of the deep green alternative, into four different categories (Eco-Socialism, Radical Reformism, dgr, Eco-Anarchism). Although diverging in size, shape, and reach, these practices are winning ground in alternative ways of production, consumption, and social organization, such as food (e. g. short food supply chains, local and organic foods, food sharing, socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 105 Classification scheme: Deep Green Alternatives. Table 3.1 radical reformism eco-socialism eco-anarchism deep green resistance strategy idea Deep green change can happen from inside the institutions in place (Fotopoulos 1997); absence of violent overthrow but fundamental ‘cultural revolution’ (Latouche 2009) Capitalism and sustainability are irreconcilable; re-conceived socialism integrating the deep green vision (Smith 2010; Sarkar 1999) Beyond market capitalism and nation-state: they cannot cope with sustainability; prefigure new society (satellites) on the old one instead of waiting for the revolution (Fotopolous 1997) Socio-ecological militant activism; confront the established ‘system of power’; overthrow capitalism and consumer; radicalism instead of liberalism society (Jensen et al. 2011) strategy: short term create and spread small-scale local initiatives, transition to simpler lifestyle, informal economy (e.g. sharing circles, community gardens, co-housing etc.) (Jackson 2009) create readiness in society to accept and embrace simpler lifestyles (Sarkar 1999) engage sufficient number of people in learning new skills (cooperation, self-governance, sharing, simple live…); decentralized local economies; gain on-the-ground support to enforce change in laws and regulations above ground: support local alternative initiatives underground: ‘decisive ecological warfare’ (Jensen et al. 2011); illegal industrial sabotage; usage of internet as platform, open information, recruitment and campaigning long term Value change (community, altruism, frugality) triggers cultural and political shift (Latouche 2009), i.e. de-growth, government intervention (regulation, investments, taxation) (Daly 2013; Alcott 2008) Radical value shift (simplicity, frugality, local, solidarity etc.); increased state control: prices, ownership, rationing, planning; radical policy shifts (Magdoff and Foster 2010) and socialist revolution Value change; Create parallel institutions and shift away resources from market economy; gradual replacement of system (Fotopolous 1997); control over political power only as a consequence of grassroots process No time and no will for grassroots movements to gain momentum; stop extinctions and pollutions now, forcibly desired end-state Capitalism, but a different one: zero-growth (steady-state) economy (Jackson 2009) embracing fundamental value change Markets exist only for trade and exchange, under strict regulation and local planning (Smith 2010; Sarkar 1999) Radical directly self-governing society; end political hierarchy and representative democracy; inclusive and participatory democracy (Trainer 2012) See eco-anarchism agency All members of society including political elite, industries etc. No political power until momentum reached; “those who care” will lead, independently from societal level; international movement Engage outsiders (old, unemployed); engage in and try to take over local political power Grassroots ecological activists, international movement; strictly bottom-up strategy criticism Proposed radical changes touch upon current power and wealth distribution and elite interests —> opposition guaranteed (Leahey 2018) Can a non-market, planned economy exist under a democratic state (Friedman 1982)? Impracticability and unworkability of direct self-government in complex societies; too much radicalism might scare away people (Davey 2009); underestimation of state’s power in transition Unforeseeable harms caused by sabotage; questionable: violence as means for a noble end; destruction does not forcibly convert the majority of people but may foster opposition and rejection manifestations Transition Town network (Hopkins 2008) Local currencies, labor-credit schemes Large-scale worldwide fossil fuel and big-enterprise industry sabotage (https://deepgreenresistance.net) Cf. Alexander and Rutherford (2014); Lawn (2011); Turner (2012); Barry and Quilley (2009); Göpel (2017). 106 the diverse worlds of sustainability food waste reduction initiatives, meat curtailment practices), energy (e. g. energy cooperatives), transportation (e. g. car sharing, free public transport), social organization (e. g. Transition Towns), as well as alternative economic concepts and planning for a post-growth economy (e. g. circular Economy, gift Economy, local currencies, labour-credit schemes, “REconomy” projects) ( Maschkowski et al. 2017). conclusions That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable (Friedman 2002 [1982], xiv). Sustainability has turned into an overused and often misused term in global politics. Concurrently, it has not mobilized enough social support and commitment to force decisive political action in the face of the current ecological crisis. This being said, there is mounting evidence of an ever growing societal mobilization and change in the values, identity, and practices of a growing number of individuals who strive toward the promotion of a worldwide transition to sustainability. These individuals fuel a set of social movements that evolve in the face of an overwhelming socio-economic totalitarianism as a result of the strengthening of their alternative ideas, beliefs, and practices. These emergent social movements have arguably a rather unique transversal feature. In hindsight, social movements prior to and throughout the xx and xxi centuries have largely mobilized around issues of inequality. Whether it be in terms of access to power, basic human rights, economic and labour conditions, ethnic background, gender or sexual-orientation prejudice, and so forth, the core of the underlying narrative is the fixing of an existing and persistent inequality. The social movements reviewed in this chapter add a very substantial layer to this mix. They do incorporate some of the abovementioned inequality issues, even adding a further dimension of inequality to the latter. In fact, from an environmental ethics standpoint, these movements question the predominant Human chauvinism and subsequent inequality between nature and humans in terms of the right to inhabit Earth. However, the core driving force behind these social movements resides elsewhere. The movements feed on the imminent end of our collective planetary life and what actions must be taken to prevent that, in order to inform their mobilization dynamic. socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 107 In this vein, they are more framed around issues of limits and scarcity, than inequality only, and this may offer a distinctive specificity that hinders political action from being fully implemented. For the generations that have grown in affluence since the Second World War, the belief that resources are illimited is very hard to change. In this chapter we were also able to show that these social movements are far from being a homogenous, harmonious universe. As we illustrate, the diversity in terms of scope, organization model, and members’ make-up varies considerably. We may interpret this wide array of social movements under the deep green alternative banner to represent the lack of consensus that exists on what the alternative to the predominant development model should be. The final portrait is a fragmented landscape of intersubjective collective practices that fail to successfully bring about interobjective structural change. Regardless of their heterogeneity, and despite their numbers being still insufficient to turn the tide, contemporary social movements toward a transition to sustainability allow us to challenge historical determinism narratives that make structural changes seem all but impossible. Alternative ideas play, after all, a fundamental role. According to Friedman (2002) and Göpel (2016; 2017), alternative ideas and policies must be protected and fostered, as they provide the new imaginary and binding narratives necessary to ignite change and galvanize support for it. However, as we explored earlier (Figure 3.3), societal change is a complex adaptive system that evolves in non-linear ways when confronted with a wide range of catalysts, some purposefully induced, others simply random. As Göpel (2017, 140) puts it: “Psychology, sociology, neurosciences show that shifting mind-sets implies not only a change in thinking but a change in being, feeling, engaging, relating, and acting in the world”. The reconfiguration of societal sense-making and the questioning of predominant path-dependencies strikes at the core of a widespread and deeply entrenched system of beliefs. These are lengthy, slow, spatially uneven processes. This helps explain the persistent difficulties of these social movements in the scaling-up of the change they wish to promote. The deficit of incrementality does not nullify the added value that these social movements hold as policy learning laboratories. As Levin et al. (2012, 124) said, “a number of small policy changes can have significant transformative effects if they trigger path-dependent processes”. This thus begs the question of why do traditional policy frameworks not make better use of the potential input of these social movements? 108 the diverse worlds of sustainability The answer may lie in the very gap that emerges from the analysis of existing social movements toward a transition to sustainability. And here we refer to their political voice and impact. As argued above, there is still no worldwide full-on politicization of the socioecological alternatives. The politics and governmentality of the alternatives are to an overwhelming degree absent from the current development debate. The future ahead for the ethos and objectives of these social movements, whatever it may be, will surely be defined by their capacity to network, mobilize, and become visible players in global, national, and local political arenas. This begs for further research about the socio-political alternatives that are currently being put into practice, with preferably cross-country comparative analyses in order to isolate facilitators and inhibitors of their expansion and allow us to develop a better sense of how far the alternative has truly gone. acknowledgements This chapter was developed under the project Transe-ac funded by fct and Campus France in a partnership Programa Pessoa (Proc.º 441.00 – 2016/2017). ____________________________________ joão mourato Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa Av. Prof. Aníbal Bettencourt 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Portugal joao.m[email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-0891-4897 ____________________________________ alexandra bussler Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa alexandra.bu[email protected]oa.pt orcid.org/0000-0003-0912-7502 ____________________________________ adrien krauz Mosaïques Laboratoire, Université Paris Ouest (France) [email protected]m ____________________________________ mónica truninger Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-4251-2261 ____________________________________ socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 109 references alcott, B. 2008. “The sufficiency strategy: would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact?”. Ecological Economics, 64 (4): 770-786. alexander, S. 2013. Entropia: Life Beyond Industrial Civilisation. Melbourne: Simplicity Institute Publishing. alexander, S., J. Rutherford. 2014. “The deep green alternative: debating strategies of transition”. Simplicity Institute Report, 14: 1-24. bailey, I., R. Hopkins, and G. Wilson. 2010. “Some things old, some things new: The spatial representations and politics of change of the peak oil relocalisation movement”. Geoforum, 41 (4): 595-605. barry, J. 2007. “Towards a concrete utopian model of green political economy”. In Utopias, Ecotopias and Green Communities, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 83-104. barry, J., S. Quilley. 2009. “The transition to sustainability: Transition towns and sustainable communities”. In The Transition to Sustainable Living and Practice. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1-28. barry, A., M. Maslin. 2016. “The politics of the anthropocene: a dialogue”. Geo: Geography and Environment, 3 (2): 1-12. berger, G. 1957. “Sciences humaines et prévision”. La revue des deux mondes, 3: 417-426. berkhout, F. 2002. “Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment”. Global Environmental Change, 12 (1): 1-4. biermann, F., et al. 2015. “Down to earth: contextualizing the Anthropocene”. Global Environmental Change, 39: 341-350. blühdorn, I. 2007. “Sustaining the unsustainable: Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation”. Environmental Politics, 16 (2): 251-275. callicott, J., R. Frodeman. 2009. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference usa. capra, F. 2004. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. New York: Anchor. curry, P. 2011. Ecological Ethics: An Introduction by Patrick Curry. Cambridge: Polity Press. crutzen, P. 2002. “Geology of mankind”. Nature, 415: 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/41 5023a. daly, H. 1996. “14 sustainable growth: an impossibility theorem”. Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. London: The mit Press. daly, H. 2013. “Top 10 policies for a steady-state economy”. Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. http://www.steadystate.org/top-10-policies-for-a-steady-stateeconomy/ (Accessed on February 22nd 2018). davey, B. 2009. “Brian Davey responds to Ted Trainer”. http://www.resilience.org/stories/20 09-12-04/brian-davey-responds-ted-trainer/ (Accessed on February 23nd 2018). de geus, M. 2002. “Ecotopia, sustainability, and vision”. Organization & Environment, 15 (2): 187-201. diamond, J. 2006. Effondrement: comment les sociétés décident de leur disparition ou de leur survie. Paris: Gallimard. ehrlich, P. R., A. H. Ehrlich. 2013. “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?”. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B 280. 1754. fazey, I., et al. 2016. “Past and future adaptation pathways”. Climate and Development, 8 (1): 26-44. 110 the diverse worlds of sustainability fotopoulos, T., ed. 1997. Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. friedman, M. 2002 [1982]. Capitalism and Freedom: 40th Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. friedman, L. 2017. “Trump team to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power at Bonn climate talks”. New York Times, 02-11-2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/climate/trumpcoal-cop23-bonn.html (Retrieved on April 13th 2018). garforth, L. 2005. “Green utopias: beyond apocalypse, progress, and pastoral”. Utopian Studies, 16 (3): 393-427. geels, F. 2011. “The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms”. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1 (1): 24-40. geels, F., J. Schot. 2007. “Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways”. Research Policy, 36: 399-417. göpel, M. 2016. The Great Mindshift, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. göpel, M. 2017. “Shedding some light on the invisible: the transformative power of paradigm shifts”. In Resilience, Community Action and Societal Transformation. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing, 113-140. hartog, F. 2014. “Régimes d’historicité. Présentisme et expériences”. Paris: Le Seuil. haxeltine, A., et al. 2017. “Towards a tsi theory: a relational framework and 12 propositions”. transit working paper. hopkins, R. 2008. The Transition Handbook. Totnes: Green Books. ipcc. 2007. Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group ii to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. issc and unesco. 2013. World Social Science Report 2013, Changing Global Environments. Paris: oecd Publishing and unesco Publishing. jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity Without Growth. Economics for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan. jensen, D., A. McBay, and L. Keith. 2011. Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet. New York: Seven Stories Press. kemp, R., D. Loorbach, and J. Rotmans. 2007. “Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development”. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14: 78-91. latouche, S. 2009. Farewell to Growth Polity Press. Cambridge: Polity Press. latour, B. 2004. Politics of Nature. Harvard: Harvard University Press. lawn, P. and M. Clarke. 2010. “The end of economic growth? A contracting threshold hypothesis”. Ecological Economics, 69 (11), 2213-2223. lawn, P. 2011. “Is steady-state capitalism viable?”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219 (1): 1-25. lazarus, R. 2008. “Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future”. Cornell Law Review, 94: 1153. levin, K. et al. 2012. “Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change”. Policy Sciences, 45 (2): 123-152. lewandowsky, S., U. Ecker, and J. Cook. 2017. “Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the ‘post-truth’ era”. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6 (4): 353-369. socio-political dynamics toward sustainability 111 lubchenco, J. 2017. “Environmental science in a post-truth world”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15 (1): 3-3. magdoff, F., and J. Foster. 2010. “What every environmentalist needs to know about capitalism”. Monthly Review, 61 (10): 1. mahoney, J. 2000. “Path dependence in historical sociology”. Theory and Society, 29 (4): 507-548. markard, J., R. Raven, and B. Truffer. 2012. “Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects”. Research Policy, 41 (6): 955-967. maschkowski, G., et al. 2017. “Learning from co-founders of grassroots initiatives: personal resilience, transition, and behavioral change – a salutogenic approach”. In Resilience, Community Action and Societal Transformation. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing, 65-84. maxton, G. 2018. “Recycling is not the answer to global warming”. Interview by Amanda Kayne. cnn Money Switzerland. 16 February 2018. https://www.cnnmoney.ch/shows/ newsmaker/videos/graeme-maxton-recycling-not-answer-global-warming (Retrieved on February 10th 2018). mccright, A., R. Dunlap. 2011. “The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010”. The Sociological Quarterly, 52 (2): 155-194. mosquin, T., S. Rowe. 2004. “A Manifesto for earth biodiversity”. Journal of Life on Earth, 5 (1): 3-9. moore, M., et al. 2014. “Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations”. Ecology and Society 19 (4): 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454. mourato, J., et al. 2018. “(Re)Framing adaptation to Climate Change in Portugal: the Case of ClimAdaPT.Local”. In The Diverse Worlds of Sustainability, eds. A. Delicado, N. Domingos and L. de Sousa. Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais: 159-183. mourato, J., et al. Forthcoming. “The elusive socio-ecological alternatives”. naess, A. 1973. “The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary”. Inquiry, 16 (1-4): 95-100. nelson, M. 2008. Deep Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, eds. J. B. Callicott and R. Frodeman, vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference usa. olsson, P., et al. 2017. “The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability”. Ecology and Society, 22 (2): 31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09310-220231. prugh, T., R. Costanza, and H. Daly. 2000. The Local Politics of Global Sustainability. Washington: Island Press. raskin, P., et al. 2002. “Great transition”. sei, Boston. http://www.tellus.org/images/GTI_ publications/Great_Transition.pdf (Accessed on February 10th 2018). retolaza eguren, I. 2011. “Theory of change: A thinking and action approach to navigate in the complexity of social change processes”. Guatemala: undp/Hivos. rickards, L. 2015. “Critiquing, mining and engaging Anthropocene science”. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5 (3): 337-342. rotmans, J., D. Loorbach. 2009. “Complexity and transition management”. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13 (2): 184-196. rogelj, J., et al. 2016. “Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 c”. Nature, 534, 7609: 631-639. 112 the diverse worlds of sustainability sarkar, S. 1999. Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? A Critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices. London: Zed Books. servigne, P., R. Stevens and Y. Cochet. 2015. Comment tout peut s’effondrer: petit manuel de collapsologie à l’usage des générations présentes. Paris: Éd. du Seuil. smith, A., A. Stirling and F. Berkhout. 2005. “The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions”. Research Policy, 34 (10): 1491-1510. smith, R. 2010. “Beyond growth or beyond capitalism”. Real World Economics Review, 53: 28-36. steffen, W., P. Crutzen, and J. McNeill. 2007. “The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature”. ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36 (8): 614-621. swyngedouw, E. 2010. “Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change”. Theory, Culture & Society, 27 (2-3): 213-232. swyngedouw, E. 2011. “The non-political politics of climate change”. Acme, 12 (1): 1-8. sylvan, R., D. Bennett. 1994. The Greening of Ethics: From Human Chauvinism to Deep-Green Theory. Cambridge: White Horse Press. thoreau, H. 1965. Walden and Other Writings. New York: Bantam Dell. trainer, T. 2012. “Can renewable energy sustain consumer societies? A negative case”. Simplicity Institute Report. turner, G. 2012. “On the cusp of global collapse? Updated comparison of the limits to growth with historical data”. gaia – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21 (2): 116-124. cite this chapter as: mourato, J. et al. 2018. “Framing the alternative: socio-political Dynamics toward sustainability”. In Changing Societies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. iii. The Diverse Worlds of Sustainability, eds. A. Delicado, N. Domingos and L. de Sousa. Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 89-112. https://doi.org/10.31447/ics9789726715054.03