May 24, 2010 - Figure 3.5: Relation between regime and radical system stability⦠... Figure 4.3: Spaces of knowledge creation and sharing at HAWC⦠...... It is listed as having an ecological ideology in the D&D directory, and in the summer ...... the⦠development seriously harms the character of this woodland within the ...
RADICAL CIRCULATIONS: Governance of sustainability in intentional communities
Candidate No. 698814 Word Count: 29,981
Thesis submitted for completion of: MPhil Geography and the Environment 2008-2010 Oxford University School of Geography and the Environment 24 May 2010
ABSTRACT
This is the tale of two self-titled “sustainable” intentional communities comprised of individuals who came together with the express intent of living differently than mainstream culture. It is also the story of sustainability itself, its complexities and pluralisms, and its interactions with society via these „intentionally sustainable communities‟ (ISCs). Over time, language and studies of sustainability have shifted in attempts to implement normative sustainability policies. In the process, policy-makers have lost sight of how sustainability is actually managed. This thesis attempts to refocus sustainability through a critical geographical analysis of the frames, spaces, and flows of sustainability in ISCs. Put another way, it begins to untangle the process of how actors come to understand sustainability, what they do and create with these understandings, and how their understandings, actions, and creations are connected and circulate within sustainability discourse. Central to this analysis is the role of nonhumans as actors and the many ways sustainability is translated between (human and non-human) actors.
This geographical perspective on the acute, if diverse, understandings of sustainability in ISCs illuminates several policy approaches more grounded in actually-existing sustainabilities. Successful governance of sustainability draws on the theoretical concepts of mutability, hybridity, and scalar integration. The biggest challenge presented is the need for ontological shifts in policy making (from both top-down and bottom-up actors) that will allow „hybrid-collaborative‟ policy solutions. These solutions would require the hybridization of radical and mainstream sustainability approaches. Hybrids are not equivalent to mixes of diluted epistemologies (i.e. compromise). Instead, they require innovative and mutable solutions that can bridge localized, bottom-up sustainability governance and wide-reaching, normative societal visions.
-i-
Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER 1: SUSTAINABLE ROOTS AND BRANCHES ........................................ 6 World Views and Worlds of Criticism ................................................................................................................ 6 Governance ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Intentionally Sustainable Communities ............................................................................................................ 12 A Definition ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Revealing and Politicising the Quotidian ......................................................................................................... 13 Centers of Creation and Experimentation ........................................................................................................ 14 Boundary Actors and Sustainable Action ......................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2: DIVING IN, OR MAPPING THE TANGLE ......................................... 17 A schema for the tangle: The geographical perspective .................................................................................. 18 Some Actors Emerge: Two intentionally sustainable communities ............................................................... 19 Secret Garden Community ............................................................................................................................... 20 Hundred Acre Woodland Community.............................................................................................................. 21 Generating Materials: Co-Production of Knowledge ...................................................................................... 22 Participant Observation .................................................................................................................................... 23 Interviews ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Participatory Photography ................................................................................................................................ 26 Historical and Background Document Review ................................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER 3: WHO FRAMED THE SUSTAINABLE CABBAGE? .......................... 30 Defining Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Mapping Definitions ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Visual Definitions ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Societal Framing: An organization of understanding ..................................................................................... 40 Sustainable Zones of Qualification: The top-down approach .......................................................................... 41 Socially Embedded: The bottom-up approach ................................................................................................. 44 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 47
CHAPTER 4: THE SIMULTANEITY OF STORIES SO FAR ................................... 49 Creating Spaces................................................................................................................................................... 51
-ii-
Spaces of Experimentation ............................................................................................................................... 51 Spaces of Knowledge Creation and Sharing .................................................................................................... 53 Liberated Spaces, Spaces of Power .................................................................................................................. 56 Reframing a Sustainable Woodland: HAWC Case Study .............................................................................. 60 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 64
CHAPTER 5: TRANSLATING THE RADICAL ........................................................ 65 Cyborg Circulations: Translating sustainability ............................................................................................. 66 More Than Human Assemblages ..................................................................................................................... 66 Translation and Transcription .......................................................................................................................... 67 The Sustainable Heating Project: Circulating reference and object ethnography ....................................... 70 Circulating the Idea: Problematization and interessement ............................................................................... 72 Generating and Circulating Knowledge: Enrollment ....................................................................................... 75 The Usual and Unusual Suspects: Mobilizing actors, mapping flows ............................................................. 80 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 82
CHAPTER 6: RADICAL TERMINATIONS? ............................................................ 83 Suggestions .......................................................................................................................................................... 83 Future Research .................................................................................................................................................. 86 Governance and Framed Cyborg Space Cabbages: Summary and conclusions........................................... 87
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY ............................................... 89 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 106
-iii-
List of Figures, Tables, and Boxes Figures Figure 1.1: The semantic breakdown of sustainable development…………………………….
10
Figure 3.1: Concept map of sustainability definitions…………………………………………
36
Figure 3.2: A cascading governance framework……………………………………………….
37
Figure 3.3: Connections of community-identified sustainable objects………………………..
39
Figure 3.4: Definitions and uses of wood-as-sustainability…………………………..............
41
Figure 3.5: Relation between regime and radical system stability…………………… ……….
48
Figure 4.1: Space of the HAWC woodland…………………………………………………….
52
Figure 4.2: Spaces of knowledge creation and sharing at SGC……………………………….
56
Figure 4.3: Spaces of knowledge creation and sharing at HAWC…………………………….
58
Figure 4.4: A flier against the HAWC development…………………………………………..
61
Figure 5.1: Networks of low-technology……………………………………………………….
73
Figure 5.2: Slides from the first SHP meeting…………………………………………………
76
Figure 5.3: Anticipated infrastructure for SHP………………………………………..............
76
Figure 5.4: Schematics of different SHPs……………………………………………..............
77
Figure 5.5: Flows of actor enrollment in the SHP……………………………………………..
79
Figure 5.6: Actors, flows, and translations of the SHP………………………………………..
81
Figure 5.7: Correlations between the SHP and the Garden Cottage questionnaires………….
83
Dialogues Dialogue 3.1: Tensions on sustainability and a wood-burning stove at HAWC……………...
34
Dialogue 3.2: Sustainability as embodied behaviours…………………………………………
38
Dialogue 3.3: Transfer of non-expert knowledge at SGC……………………………………..
47
Dialogue 4.1: The Park Authority‟s case against HAWC……………………………………..
64
Tables Table I.1: UN sustainability-related conventions and conferences (1974-92)………………..
5
Table 1.1: Categories of literature on sustainable development………………………………
8
Boxes Box I.1: Dictionary definitions of complex concepts………………………………………….
4
Box 4.1: HAWC planning history……………………………………………………...............
62
Box 5.1: Defining the problem………………………………………………………………….
75
-iv-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Sarah Whatmore, for all her inputs, suggestions, edits, inspiration, and remarkable patience with my endless questions. Reading Hybrid Geographies marked a turning point in my understanding of geography and the environment. It has been an honor to work with you. My eternal gratitude to Mary Denyer, Elizabeth Martin, and everyone at the Marshall Commission for your financial and emotional support over the past two years. Deepest thanks to Paul Jepson, Andrew Barry, Derek McCormak, and Katie Farrington for your guidance, support, and help on projects of all shapes and sizes. Thank you Catharina Landström and Noortje Marres for listening to my ideas and offering your support in the early days of my project. Thank you to all my allies back in Wyoming who encouraged me over the years: to Duncan Harris, Joe Meyer, Harold Bergman, Charles Dolan, Nicole Korfanta, Lillian Wise, and so many others. I would not be here without you. I would also like to thank my fellow MPhil candidates – it‟s been a long road, but we made it! Thanks to Eelke Kraak, in particular, for long discussions ranging from governmentality to Grolsch, for sharing your endless (if possibly manic) energy. And thank you to all the NSEP MSc students who shared the 2008-2009 academic year with me. You are endless sources of inspiration – I have missed you. Thank you to the ladies of OUWRFC and LCBC – you have been my constant, my brain balance. Ashley, we are the same person. I am eternally grateful for your friendship. Finally, my family – you lift me up, encourage me, know me better than anyone, and still love me. I have missed you tremendously. To all my grandparents, thank you for supporting me (literally) from day one. Mebrat, welcome to our family. I hardly know you yet, but I‟ve loved you from the moment I saw you. Ethan, your music has provided toe-tapping inspiration and brightened the darkest of my days. Tristan, carbon footprint be damned, flying with you makes me love to be a geographer. Anya, you are my best friend and one of the strongest, smartest, and most beautiful people I know. I love you and am honored to be your sister. Mom, Dad, Kevin, and Julie… well, here I am, and here it goes. I guess you did something right.
-1-
INTRODUCTION
This is the tale of two intentional communities, comprised of individuals who came together with the express intent of living differently than mainstream culture. They are recent additions to a long history of groups, alienated by the regime, who seclude themselves from society in an attempt to „live otherwise.‟ Originally, most of these communities had religious focus, but more recently intentional communities have diversified, with intents ranging from sexual orientation to environmental care. This is also the story of two self-titled sustainable communities and their interactions with the term „sustainability‟ as individuals and members of a community, government, and global society. Sustainability is no effortless bedfellow – the term is tied up in years of attempts to define, quantify, and implement it at global and local levels (Box I.1). Over time, language and studies of sustainability have changed. Recently scholars and policy makers have lost sight of how sustainability is actually managed in their attempts to implement normative sustainability policies. The acute, if diverse, understandings of sustainability in intentionally sustainable communities (ISCs) reenergize this topic, and their study will hopefully result in new policy suggestions more grounded in actually-existing sustainabilities.
Box I.1: Dictionary Definitions of Complex Concepts1 SUS·TAIN·ABLE 1: Capable of being sustained SUS·TAIN 1: To supply with sustenance : Nourish 2: Keep up, Prolong 3: To carry or withstand 4a: To bear up under b: Suffer 5: To support as true, legal, or just RAD·I·CAL 1: Of, relating to, or proceeding from a root 2: Marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional CIR·CU·LA·TION 1: Flow 2: Passage or transmission from person to person or place to place 3: The extent of dissemination (i.e. of publications)
1
Box definitions in this chapter were taken from the Merriam Webster Online English Dictionary. . Accessed 13 May 2010.
-2-
So what is sustainability? The ability to nourish? The ability to prolong, withstand, or suffer? The support of truth? To a certain degree, these are desirable traits, and as a reference to social, environmental, and economic needs most people agree that sustainability is a good idea. The „radical‟ of this document‟s „Radical Circulations‟ alternatively refers to historical beginnings and nonmainstream approaches to sustainability (see Box I.1). The roots of sustainability as an awareness of the interplay of human health, environment, and development can be traced back to the Progressive Era of the last century, but „sustainability‟ as a blanket term for this issue did not emerge in force until the 1980s. Pressures such as exponential population growth and resource depletion along with transboundary crises such as air pollution and water shortages identified „sustainability‟ as a development language able to simultaneously discuss issues of the nourishment, prolonging, and suffering of economic, environmental, and social systems. A series of United Nations (UN) conferences through the 1970s-1990s trace the growing concern about environment and development (Table I.1). Table I.1: A list of the different UN conventions and conferences in the 1970s-1990s that brought sustainability to the global stage. Based on Pezzoli (1997). Primary Actors UN Environmental Programme (UNEP); UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
UNEP
Year
1974
Location
Cocoyoc, Mexico
1983n/a 1987
1992
Rio de Janeiro
Document Produced
Main Point of Document
Cocoyoc Declaration
We must maintain development above minimal social levels but below physical planetary limits.
Our Common Future, better known as “The Brundtland Report”
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Agenda 21
Provides a structure for local communities and governments to implement sustainability.
Since then, various definitions of sustainability have been pervasive in society. Many refer to the 1987 Brundtland Report‟s normative language, “[meeting] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, Brundtland, & Khalid, 1987) using the „three-legged stool‟ promotion of economic, social, and environmental development (Sneddon, Howarth, & Norgaard, 2006). However, as Grist (2008) discusses, branches of the sustainability movement with different epistemic backgrounds tend to develop functionally diverse definitions of the term. Throughout the time of international declarations and definitions of sustainable development, sustainability as a practice matured and changed at local levels, and here the definitions and roots were more diverse. „Sustainability‟ as a word was not new, and as I suggested, neither were
-3-
concepts of environmental, social, and economic stability. Individuals were thus able to combine the terms as was fitting for their agenda: “The earliest meaning of sustain is to „support,‟ „uphold the course of‟ or „keep into being.‟ What corporate chief, treasury minister, or international civil servant would not embrace this meaning? Another meaning is „to provide with food and drink, or the necessities of life.‟ What underpaid urban worker or landless peasant would not accept this meaning?” (O'Connor, 1994, p.152). These dynamics have resulted in sustainability as an assemblage fraught with both normative and positivistic definitions and equally divisive arguments over the term‟s utility and integrity – there is no common analytical lens through which to assess the various claims. The controversy has not slain sustainability; instead, the term has flourished. In the late 1990s, academics lamented its absence in government policy. As is clear in this thesis, language of sustainability is now pervasive in UK policy documents. In 1997, less than ten years after the publication of Our Common Future, Pezzoli published a twenty-five page bibliography of sustainability literature. Now over ten years later, the number of publications has grown exponentially. While researching the governance of sustainability, I frequently encountered versions of Einstein‟s quotation, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” It is this concept that motivates radical approaches to sustainability (the restructuring of society as opposed to technological „fixes‟), and it is this concept that guides my analysis of sustainability governance. Firstly, the „problem‟ of sustainability – namely tensions caused by its pluralistic form – has been created by treating epistemic approaches of sustainability as pure forms that can be defined and measured separately and summed at the end. Rather than taking any one „pure‟ analytical form, I attempt to treat sustainability in all its forms as a hybrid, performative assemblage and analyze it using the language of (hybrid) geography. Secondly, sustainability governance needs a new study subject. Most current governance literature sets up yet another „pureform dualism‟ by analyzing top-down versus bottom-up sustainability structures. I chose ISCs as a study subject because they verge on a hybrid form: they obscure public versus private, radical and regime, individual and collective, and civil society and government. This hybrid approach facilitates the identification of sustainable things and spaces and makes visible their circulation and flow between actors. Thus, I have chosen to focus specifically on analysis of sustainability‟s governance in terms of the ways ISCs interact with the framing, space, and flows of sustainability. Chapter 1 provides background literature review of sustainability, governance approaches, actor network theory, and intentionally sustainable communities. Chapter 2 discusses the methodology utilized in tracing the networks of the governance of sustainability and introduces the two communities, Secret Garden
-4-
Community (SGC) and Hundred Acre Woodland Community (HAWC). Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are the primary analytical sections. Chapter 3 explores the ways individuals, communities, and governments frame sustainability in terms of definitions and governance techniques and pressures. This section notes the diversity and plurality of sustainability definitions and the ways in which scale affects both definitions and governance. Chapter 4 elaborates on the concept of the creation of relational spaces. This is broken into discussions of spaces of experimentation, spaces of knowledge creation and sharing, and liberated spaces or spaces of power. These concepts are brought together through a discussion of Massey‟s „relational spaces‟ and Lefebvre‟s „trial by space‟ in association with the planning controversy at HAWC. Chapter 5 begins to tie together these different geographical analyses by untangling the flows and circulations of sustainability ideas, knowledge, objects, and policies. Guiding this analysis is the concept of „translation,‟ or the transmission of ideas and actions from one actor to another. These translations are exemplified through the „object ethnography‟ of a proposed sustainable heating project at SGC. The final chapter offers some conclusions and suggestions for sustainability policy and future research.
I introduce many concepts and their definitions throughout this thesis, but (as demonstrated in Box I.1) even dictionary definitions rarely provide one unifying idea. Although it problematizes concepts, multiplicity of sustainability is not inherently a problem because it allows the possibility of global perspective that remains flexible and mutable through bottom-up action. In this setting, anything can become an actor, from a government to a wooden spoon2. Sustainability as a concept is too pervasive and too important to be sidelined by concerns over its multiplicity. Cowell and Owens (2006) express the need for research into how organizations negotiate the governmentality of policy and reform in the UK, focusing on how broad issues are separated from local, site-specific concerns “to ensure the effective delivery of some posited universal good” (p.418). In response and addition to this, I hope to identify ways of embracing the multiplicity of sustainability and governance (broad and local) without silencing actors or losing the underlying „goodness‟ of sustainability. Through this geographical analysis of the governance of sustainability in ISCs, I hope to better understand the actors and their influences on the perception, creation, and circulation of sustainability knowledge and things. Only through understanding the ways in which the normative roots and flexible branches of sustainability function together as an assemblage can one hope to create meaningful and effective sustainability policies.
2
It is important to note that granting equal agency opportunity to things (governments and wooden spoons) does not mean that any actor has the same means or strength of influence as another in any network. Rather, the strength and influence of an actor changes depending on its relative network of consideration.
-5-
CHAPTER 1: SUSTAINABLE ROOTS AN D BRANCHES A LITERATURE REVIEW
In his 1997 bibliography of sustainable development literature, Pezzoli presents three analytical approaches and ten sub-disciplines of sustainability literature (Table 1.1). Aspects of each analytical approach come into play throughout this thesis. I begin with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of sustainability‟s diverse epistemologies and propose hybridity as a useful ontological approach. From there I investigate the term „governance‟ and consider various (inter)disciplinary approaches to its study, settling on geography and science and technology studies (STS) as analytical approaches. Finally, I discuss the background and utility of Intentionally Sustainable Communities as an analytical lens for the study of sustainability governance. Literature Categories Managerialism, Policy and Planning Applied Perspective
Social Conditions Environmental Law Environmental Sciences
Technical Emphasis, “Hard Science” of Sustainability
Eco-design and the built environment Ecological Economics Ecophilosophy, Environmental Values and Ethics
Epistemological, Historical, and/or Structural-transformative Emphasis
Environmental History and Human Geography/Ecology Utopianism, Anarchism and Bioregionalism Political Ecology
Table 1.1: Ten categories of literature on sustainable development from Pezzoli (1997).
WORLD VIEWS AND WORL DS OF CRITICISM At its most normative, sustainability may be singular and seemingly uncontroversial, for our most basic biological drives tell us to endure, as individuals, as a species. Beyond this, sustainability is incoherently multiple, for every entity – ranging from the individual to international governmental organizations, from grassroots NGOs to multinational corporations – has its own method of survival. In fact, “the only thing about sustainability that academics seem to agree upon is that there is no clear
-6-
meaning or definition” (Eden, 2000, p.111). Despite the fact that many academics and policy statements refer to the Brundtland Commission‟s definition of sustainable development, my research indicates that most individuals do not make this distinction. However, the language of sustainability is still pervasive at all levels of society. In order to be functionally relevant in policy and society, frames and definitions tend to maintain their normative roots but branch into flexible and positivistic domains. This pluralistic shape of sustainability makes it a difficult study subject as different actors redefine branches, their goals, their relation to each other, and their relation to sustainability‟s normative roots. The resulting assemblage is, in effect, a shape shifter, both in its ability to change its own shape and the shape of involved actors. Different „positivistic domains‟ are associated with the diverse epistemic cultures of sustainability, or those “amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms – bonded through affinity, necessity, and historical coincidence – which, in a given field, make up how we know what we know” (Knorr-Cetina, 1999, p.1, original emphasis). Some epistemological differences stem from the triumvirate nature of sustainability (environment, society, and economy). For example, one actor may assess sustainability based on economic indicators while another on pollution control or fair trade principles. Another pervasive epistemic division of sustainability deals with the type of changes needed to create a sustainable society. Reformist (or technocentric) approaches advocate a change in materials while radical (or ecocentric) approaches “demand fundamental change in political economic structures,” (Adams, 2001, p.368). Grist (2008) discusses how groups with different epistemic backgrounds tend to develop functionally diverse sustainability definitions. These diverse epistemic cultures and resulting definitions can create controversy within the ranks of sustainability actors. For example, the „fundamental change‟ advocated by radical sustainability supporters may be intrinsically at odds with reformist methods of knowledge production and understanding of nature and society.
The fact that sustainability allows epistemological and ontological flexibility has drawn a great deal of support and criticism. On one hand, flexibility attracts a diverse range of actors, facilitating the creation of new and complex actor networks among different epistemic groups. Crabtree (2006) describes the importance of these networks in terms ecological terms in which systems “exhibiting functional diversity… [hold] a range of latent responses to possible stresses” (Crabtree, 2006, p.520). However, definitional flexibility has also prompted skepticism about its potential for success. According to Lélé (1991), even the normative roots of sustainability are problematic. Depending on the semantic understanding of the term, its interpretation can become impossible or trivial (Figure 1.1). When sustainability as “indefinite continuation” refers to consumption patterns, sustainability of a society with natural resource limits becomes impossible. Similarly, Lélé expresses concern about the reality of the assertion, “Growth in economic output does not necessarily mean growth in physical through-put of materials and energy” (Pezzey, 1989, p.14). On the other hand, if sustainability relates
-7-
to “sustaining anything,” it becomes trivial, “assured a place in the litany of development truisms” (Redclift, 1987, p.2). Additionally, diverse definitions may unravel the unity and utility of sustainability. Although many projects stem from the same normative roots of sustainability, too often individual definitions frame positivistic aspects of specific projects as normative. This causes friction between epistemic cultures of reformist and radical sustainability (Adams, 2001).
Further criticisms stem from the co-optability and representation of power within sustainability. The versatility of the term “[allows] users to make high-sounding statements with very little meaning at all,” (Adams, 2001, p.5). In this way, the green agenda can co-opt development strategies, and traditionally unsustainable actors like the World Bank can co-opt the environmentalist and environmental justice agendas. If indeed material growth and development are one, if ecological and economic development are inherently in opposition, melding them through sustainability makes “yet another attempt to discount the aspirations and needs of marginalized populations… in the name of green development” (Sneddon et al 2006).
-8-
On the other hand, Sneddon et al go on to argue, sustainability remains an important development concept. As non-state actors become recognized as key participants in (sustainable) policy and knowledge production, they will need a common language to discuss economic and environmental issues. Whitehead (2007) adds that sustainability functions at a pluralistic and inter-scalar level between nation-states and the global community, creating a language that can address the “transboundry form of environmental [and economic] problems [that make] unilateral state action pointless” (p.22). It is from this concept that modern „sustainability‟ was derived, and for these reasons it remains an important, pervasive topic. The strongest oppositions to sustainability arise when actors consider the term to be singular and defined. What‟s missing from the dialogue is how sustainability actually functions and circulates, namely how different actors influence and are influenced by each other (for a few notable exceptions see Kemp, Parto, & Gibson, 2005; Seyfang, 2009; and A Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005).
As mentioned in the introduction, I use the language of hybridity and performativity to discuss the multiplicity of sustainability. These concepts have been developed over the past decade as a response to the need to describe things that are inherently multiple or represent complex amalgamations of ideas, humans, and non-humans (hybrids). These assemblages are often dynamic and develop continuously and iteratively with society and social pressures (performativity). Examples of assemblages described via hybridity and performativity include CultureNatures (the nature/society hybrid) (Hinchliffe, 2007; Whatmore, 2002, 2003), socio-technical hybrids (Callon, 1987; Haraway, 1995; Latour, 1992), and performative economies (Andrew Barry & Slater, 2002; Callon, 1998; D. MacKenzie & Millo, 2003; DA MacKenzie, Muniesa, & Siu, 2007). This language plays a key role in analyzing the governance of sustainability as an assemblage. The various epistemic cultures of sustainability cannot be analyzed as individual governing parts whose sum equals sustainability governance. These deconstructionist approaches result in an inert study subject, one that on the macro scale has no agency (Hinchliffe, 2007). Hybrids like sustainability should not be perceived as a mixture of pure forms but rather as unique amalgamations (Latour, 1993b; Whatmore, 2002). The language of hybridity and performativity facilitates this ontological shift, a concept is further explored in subsequent chapters.
GOVERNANCE
I have already suggested that the term „governance‟ relates to the ways in which actors influence and are influenced by each other. Lemos and Agrawal (2006) provide a more specific definition for „environmental governance‟ that holds true to my definition of sustainability governance:
-9-
“Governance is synonymous with interventions aiming at changes in… incentives, knowledge, institutions, decision making, and behaviors… It includes the actions of the state… communities, businesses, and NGOs” (p.298). Additionally, I posit that non-humans may equally take part in influences and interventions, an idea I explore later in this section. Considering the many actors influencing sustainability raises a number of practical questions. How does the flexibility among epistemic communities affect the materials – the sustainable knowledge and “things” – they produce? Who or what influences governance of this production, and how? What are the resulting policy implications for the governance scheme(s)? Although these questions should hold equal weight in understanding the role of modern sustainability, literature and research (especially in the past decade) does not evenly cover them. Today academia and government largely focus on methods and implications of measuring sustainability. Quantitative metrics include indicators of the existing state of a system (content indicators) and the behaviour of a system (performance indicators) (Sikdar, 2003). These attempt to better assimilate the interdisciplinarity of sustainability, integrating early models of ecological impact (Botequilha Leitão & Ahern, 2002) with social and economic indicators to produce layered models of „sustainability‟ (Schwarz, Beloff, & Beaver, 2002). Qualitative approaches are equally diverse, ranging from focus on interdisciplinarity (Sneddon, et al., 2006) to knowledge-production structure (i.e. top-down versus bottom-up) (Fraser, Dougill, Mabee, Reed, & McAlpine, 2006). Barry (2002) describes the importance of what he calls the “metrological regimes” created by policies that attempt to close controversies among epistemologically diverse actors (such as quantity and quality of sustainability) via standardization and measurement. Sustainability indicators measure sustainability within a certain frame, and if controversies cool via this framing, it indicates that invested actors have accepted the measurement techniques. Sustainability production is effectively put in a social science “black box” where only the inputs (existing situations) and outputs (amount/quality of sustainability as per the indicators) are of concern (Latour & Biezunski, 1987). However, metaanalyses of sustainability metrics show a lack of unity, agreement, and scientific evidence among the different types, rendering them essentially useless for policy making (Böhringer & Jochem, 2007; Wilson, Tyedmers, & Pelot, 2007). This indicates that closing one set of black boxes serves simply to open others because “standardized procedures will not be able to capture the complexity of objects and practices in actuality” (A Barry, 2002, p.275).
Whitehead (2007) describes the development of sustainability as a three-step process of identification, definition, and implementation. The current predominance of implementation-related studies indicates that many academics and government officials perceive sustainability to be in the implementation phase. However, the fact that sustainability and its associated metrological regimes remain highly contested indicates otherwise. Using metrics and indicators cannot be its only means of governance.
-10-
Krueger and Agyeman (2005) suggest that to avoid some of the problems caused by framing of metrological regimes, sustainability must be seen as “a set of evolving practices” explored through study of the “relationships among actors institutions, [and] scalar relations… that compel localities to embark on this path [of sustainability]” (p.416-417). This study of relationships, of how actors affect and are affected by one another (are “compelled”), is another broad definition of „sustainability governance.‟ As mentioned by Lemos and Agrawal, this is not limited to traditional government in terms of the nation state, nor does depend solely on the role of non-State actors like NGO‟s and corporations. Rather, governance refers to the complex network of human and non-human actors in both the realms of civil society and government that form the sustainability assemblage.
Geography and science and technology studies (STS) are valuable analytical tools for the study of the structure and relationships of actors within sustainability governance. Whitehead (2007) suggests that through discussions of space and scale, geography can help understand the complex relationships and structuring of sustainability and analyze “who is doing the constructing and why certain constructions of sustainability are being promoted and not others” (p.26). Wilbanks (1994) adds discussions of flow and visualization to the geographical repertoire of sustainability‟s analytical tools. Methodology of science and technology studies, particularly in reference to actor network theory (ANT), allows for multiplicity of a subject and provides a method of including non-humans in analyses of institutions and assemblages. ANT does not impose an “a priori definition of [actors‟] world-building capacities” (Latour, 2005; Ruming, 2009, p.453) – it allows a subject to be many things at once. The subject is studied by tracing its interactions with related actors. Similarly, ANT does not require actors to be human, an important concept in the often technocentric discussion of a topic like sustainability.
The notion of non-human actors additionally plays a role in understanding why the concept of sustainability remains pervasive, despite concerns that its epistemological diversity could be self destructive. Latour (1992) relates this idea to a phenomenon in physics. The mass of an entity holds it together, gives it spin (circulation) and velocity (flow). However, mass as we know it cannot account for the actually-observed rotation and velocity of heavenly bodies: “Physicists… are looking everywhere for the „missing mass‟ that could add up to the nice expected total. It is the same with sociologists. They are constantly looking… for moral laws that would be inflexible enough to make us behave properly… soft humans and weak moralities are all sociologists can get” (Latour, 1992, p.227). Latour posits that for sociology, the missing mass is tied up in non-humans. Humans and non-humans performatively build each other, creating human/non-human hybrid amalgamations that Haraway (1991) calls “cyborgs.” Latour describes how humans build ethics into non-humans, allowing the nonhumans to directly affect human behaviour. For example, a seatbelt can be built with the ethic “you must wear a seatbelt while driving” by creating a mechanism that automatically fastens upon entering
-11-
the car. Once installed, this seatbelt affects the behaviour of its human user – the human will wear the seatbelt, even if he was not originally ethically inclined to do so. Some of these non-humans have the benefit (or possibly the drawback, as will be discussed in Chapter 5), of being less changeable than human expression. A seatbelt does not bore of or decide it is ethically opposed to making drivers safer. Instead, it tirelessly circulates the message “driving with me on makes you safer.” This is the concept of technology as an immutable mobile. The concept of “the missing masses” may also hold true for sustainability. Understanding the actors – their interactions, circulations, and flow – may depend on a mass of non-humans. The complex interactions among humans, non-humans, civil society, and government do not easily fit within a metric system. ANT may provide the means for analysis, but the difficulty lies in finding a subject simultaneously diverse and multi-scalar, that can facilitate flows, create spaces, and yet be selfcontained enough to be considered a subject. The analytical tools for the study of that subject must be equally accommodating. I attempt to establish a basic, critical geography perspective of sustainability (framing, space, and flow) through the lens of intentionally sustainable communities. Intentionally sustainable communities (henceforth ISCs) provide focus for this endeavor because (as mentioned previously) they 1) create political spaces that expose otherwise obscured private behaviours and ideas, 2) act as centres of experimentation for alternative technology, behaviour, epistemology, and policy, and 3) act as intermediaries between the multiple dichotomies associated with sustainability.
INTENTIONALLY SUSTAI NABLE COMMUNITIES
A DEFINITION
What I call intentionally sustainable communities are related to intentional communities, low-impact dwellings (LIDs), and eco-villages. In one of the earliest studies of these related lifestyles, Shenker (1986) defines intentional communities as “a number of people consciously and purposefully coalescing as a group in order to realize a set of aims… these aims are not partial: they attempt to create an entire way of life, hence, unlike organizations or social movements, they are intentional communities” (p.10). Halfacree (2007) describes low impact development (as associated with the work of Simon Fairlie) as a “radical rural locality [revolving] around environmentally embedded, decentralized and relatively self-sufficient and self-reliant living patterns” (p.132). Similarly, Gilman and Gilman (1991) describe an eco-village as being a “human scale, full-featured settlement in which
-12-
human activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world in a way that is supportive of healthy human development and can be successfully continued into the indefinite future” (p.1).
While my study sites have components of each of these definitions, no one definition fully encompasses their scale and situation. As mentioned in the introduction, intentional communities have a long history of creating spaces secluded from the regime. Historically, they have had any number of intentional frameworks, from the Jewish Kibbutzim (Shenker, 1986) to the „Back to the Landers‟ of the 1960s-80s (Marsh, 1982). While many of these communities have aspects of sustainability, it may not be the explicit intention of the community. LID does not necessarily refer to community living and tends to have relatively strict guidelines concerning size, style, and type of development that do not always correspond to ISCs. I have chosen to not use the term eco-village for several reasons. First, while many eco-villages are intentionally sustainable communities, there are exceptions. For example, the BedZed housing development in London may be considered an eco-village. However, it is managed as a top-down operation in which residents may or may not have the express purpose of living sustainably. Second, the term “village” implies a level of structure that is not inherently present in intentional communities. Finally, the term eco-village has gained certain implications due to the recent interest of the British government in creating “eco-towns.” ISCs are groups of people who have come together with the explicit intention of living otherwise, namely in a way considered to be more sustainable than mainstream society.
REVEALING AND POLITICISING THE QUOTIDIAN
In the relatively isolated existence of the individual, how are sustainable behaviours assessed? A study of sustainability must connect theory and activity, the public and the private (Marres, 2009), and ISCs provide advantageous insights. Firstly, they expose the actual behaviours of individuals as a point of comparison to sustainability metrics based on theoretical or normative language in mission or policy statements. ISCs bring forward concealed household activities – the sustainability of the quotidian – because here “the domestic situation is part of (and not secondary to) a wider transformative mission… This speaks tangentially – but profoundly – to the public and the private, the domestic and the political” (Sargisson, 2001, p.75-76).
Secondly, ISCs encourage regular reflection upon and disclosure of private beliefs and behaviours. They encourage members to explore and experiment, learn and share so that the community as a whole may develop (Sargisson, 2001). Individual feedback and knowledge can have a direct impact on decision making, particularly in ISCs that function under consensus. For an ISC to be temporally
-13-
sustainable, every member must participate to ensure fair and representative action. While this is theoretically the case in democracy at any scale, the process tends to be more obscure in traditional systems. Voting procedures are anonymous – there is no one to ask questions, request explanation, or suggest alternatives. Barry (2002) describes it well: Representative democracy… makes no demands on the citizen once the election has ended. After the vote is cast, the mark of the vote itself does not bear… any visible trace of the complexity of the voter‟s investments in the process or its outcome. Once the choice is made, the vote becomes detached from its entanglement in a particular place, time and personal experience” (p.85). I would argue that the vote itself remains entangled, but that its entanglement and connection to the voter become obscured by anonymity. At ISCs, on the other hand, all members are strongly encouraged to attend and participate in all meetings up to and beyond a point of decision. Members and their decisions thus remain entangled and exposed throughout the decision-making process. This is not necessarily a criticism of representative democracy; rather, it exemplifies the ways in which ISCs offer a unique insight into individuals‟ and communities‟ behaviours, beliefs, and decision making concerning sustainability. Because community members intentionally expose their actual sustainable behaviours and move them out of the domicile and into public knowledge, they allow their entanglements to remain visible. Thus, ISCs provide an ethical medium for examining otherwise private matters.
Through this exposure, another key factor is elucidated. It may be tempting to think that all ISC members hold homogenous values, beliefs, and goals, resulting in a stagnant study site (particularly in terms of diversity). However, even members of small ISCs demonstrate extremely diverse attitudes through their daily behaviours and decisions. Revealing quotidian behaviours in intentional communities illuminates diversity and creates spaces for the problematisation, discussion, and controversy of big issues like sustainability. In this sense, Sargisson‟s attestation that intentional communities play a part in “politicising the quotidian” is well aligned with Barry‟s definition of the political as “an index of the space of disagreement” (2005, p.86). ISCs create a space that allows for disagreement with the social regime, a space that is useful for study because it clarifies many otherwise-obscure entanglements of public/private and theory/practice.
CENTERS OF CREATION AND EXPERIMENTATION
The second reason to use ISCs as focal points for sustainable development is that they are centers of alternative knowledge and technology creation and experimentation (Bahro, 1986) where the buffer of
-14-
the community creates a safe space for alienated individuals to disagree with the regime in both word and lifestyle (Shenker 1986, Sargisson 2001). Because these lifestyle changes are motivated by an ethically-driven intention to live differently, members of ISCs may be more willing than average citizens to invest time, energy, and money in uncertain technologies simply because they offer an alternative to the mainstream. This willingness to invest creates what Smith (2007) calls green niches. Just as a buffer from the regime encourages alternative lifestyles, so too can it encourage the use and development of alternative technologies. According to Smith, “these „niche‟ situations provide space for new ideas, artifacts and practices to develop without being exposed to the full range of selection pressures that favour the regime” (p.429). Thus far, I have referred to “regimes” in terms of societal norms, particularly the ways in which social regimes alienate some individuals and create the need for “radical” (i.e. non-regime) alternatives like ISCs. Smith expands this concept to include sociotechnical regimes in acknowledgement of the role non-humans play in the complex social fabric of sustainability governance.
BOUNDARY ACTORS AND SUSTAINABLE ACTION
In summary, mainstream (socio-technical) regimes tend to alienate certain factions of society. These alienated individuals seeking radical alternatives may congregate into intentional communities that offer a safe, experimental space for living otherwise. When “living otherwise” is framed around sustainability, intentionally sustainable communities result. As ISCs promote experimentation, they produce knowledge and technology concerning sustainability. They are therefore a starting point to examine the flows of sustainable beliefs, actions, artifacts, and policies as they circulate within the communities themselves and move outward to interact with the socio-technical regime. This leads to a discussion of the scalar suitability for ISC studies of sustainability. Too often, discussion of sustainability is located within the dichotomous context of government or grassroots, radical or regime. I have already discussed how top-down sustainability indicators are problematic. However, finding the “actually existing sustaianbilities” and scaling up the results may lose sight of the global issue. Starting at either extreme excludes the many actors between grassroots and government that help create and transform sustainable technology, behavior, epistemology, and policy. These actors may, in fact, be the most important study subjects as they bridge the gap between local and global, between the individual and the State, and between the radical and the regime.
ISCs occupy this mid-scale region because they consist of groups of individuals that intentionally assemble with the goal of sustainable action. They are small enough to function at a grassroots level but large enough to be noticed by and affect government-lead policy. The role of ISCs goes beyond a
-15-
mid-scale presence. ISCs develop a pluralistic form in which sustainability can be enacted at the level of the individual, the level of the community, or the level of the state, insomuch as ISCs affect and are affected by national policies. ISCs provide a discrete population of diverse actors through which many of sustainability‟s scalar and diversity issues can be considered. This ties in to both previous arguments in favour of ISC study. In terms of politicising the quotidian, ISCs do more than create a safe space for alternative living experimentation. Its mid-range scalar structure actually facilitates these actions through matters of convenience, economies of scale, and structures of sharing. Convenience of sustainable actions increases in communal living structures (Perreault, 2003). For example, it is much easier to organize ride sharing in a close-knit community than in a neighbourhood of relative strangers. Similarly, a close community can pool efforts into large sustainability projects that may not be feasible for the individual. Finally, these structures depend on a network of sharing labour, resources, and knowledge. In this way, sustainability is more easily circulated and these circulations more easily traced within the ISC structure.
ISCs as boundary actors go on to play an important role in the circulation of their created knowledge and technology into the socio-technical regime. Some academics are beginning to suggest a hybridization of the grassroots/government and radical/technocentric approaches to sustainability in that radical changes begin in socio-technological niches and are translated into regime practices (Geels, 2002; Hoogma, 2002; A. Smith, 2007). When ISCs engage with the regime, they expose “members” of the regime to practical radical alternatives. Smith (2007) elaborates the importance of encountering these experiments at the mid-scale level: “An advantage of intermediary learning situations is that regime members [encounter] niche ideas on a more practical basis and learn through doing” (p.440). In this way, ISCs can act as boundary agents between the radical and the regime, the individual and the state, and grassroots and government.
-16-
CHAPTER 2: DIVING IN, OR MAPPING THE TANGLE METHODOLOGY
Think of sustainability not so much as an absolute condition, but rather as a socially constructed category… Questions emerge concerning who is doing the constructing and why certain constructions... are being promoted and not others... Thinking geographically helps to reveal the constructed nature of sustainability and uncover alternative sustainabilities (Whitehead, 2007, p.26).
In this quotation, Whitehead intimates some of the complexities of studying sustainability. Sustainability shifts its means and form of construction at different spatial, scalar, and temporal locations. Thus, thinking geographically helps untangle some of these complex networks. This quotation, however, leaves out several vital components to the governance of sustainability discussion. First, it limits the construction process to the whos and fails to mention the whats. As discussed in the introduction, non-humans too must be considered as actors within networks. Secondly, it fails to consider how these constructions are performed. These points lead to the second quotation that helps to frame my methodological approach:
I would define a good account as one that traces a network… where each participant is treated as a full-blown mediator. To put it very simply: A good ANT account is a narrative or a description or a proposition where all the actors do something and don‟t just sit there (Latour, 2005, p.128).
Thus, addressing the governance of the vast and shifting assemblage that is sustainability requires a geographical perspective that traces the roles of human and non-human actors in the structuring and restructuring of sustainability. I approach this analysis in terms of framing, space, and flow. Put another way, I begin to untangle the process of how actors come to understand sustainability, what they do and create with these understandings, and how their understandings, actions, and creations are connected and circulate within sustainability discourse.
-17-
A SCHEMA FOR THE TAN GLE: THE GEOGRAPHICAL P ERSPECTIVE
The task of defining and ordering the social should be left to the actors themselves, not taken up by the analyst (Latour, 2005, p.23).
In accordance with the above quotation, I did not begin my research by designating actors and following their actions. Instead, I began with the concepts of sustainability and intentional communities, two seeds, and watched as roots, branches and stems became entangled through reviews of relevant literature and original fieldwork. Along the way, I began to pick out several recurring strands that, however non-linear, provided an analytical structure for the governance of sustainability.
I begin with framing and frame analysis. This applies to how individuals frame the experience of sustainability and also how actors (human and non-human, individual and institutional) affect and are affected by these frames. Goffman (1974) describes frames as “the organization of experience” (p.13) that build up definitions of a situation. In methodological terms, this opens two doors of analysis: 1) what are the definitions of sustainability? And 2) what is the organization of the sustainability experience? In Chapter 3 I analyze sustainability frames in ISCs based on definitions and social pressures. I use a series of interviews and exercises to help illuminate the ways in which individuals define sustainability.
Chapter 4 consists of an analysis of the spaces that are created based on certain understandings of sustainability. I elaborate on the ideas concerning the production of space based on specific frames and interacting relationships (A Barry, 2002, 2006; Dunn, 2005; Whatmore & Thorne, 1997). In ISCs, these spaces can be categorized as spaces of disagreement, experimentation, and knowledge production and sharing. These spaces are embedded in the social quotidian – unlike definitions they cannot be illuminated through interviews alone because individuals are unlikely to know these spaces as distinct entities. Document review, participant observation, and photographic record were most useful in tracking and observing created sustainability spaces. Finally, I explore sustainability frames and spaces in terms of “topological spatial imagination concerned with tracing points of connection and lines of flow, as opposed to reiterating fixed surfaces and boundaries” (Whatmore & Thorne, 1997). This approach comes largely from Thrift‟s investigations of space-time configurations as the essential unit of geography (Thrift, 1996). I follow the ethnographic approaches of Latour‟s study of high-technology and science to structure my discussion of flows in sustainability. This analysis relies on an amalgamation of data gathered from participant observation, interviews, participatory photography, and document review.
-18-
SOME ACTORS EMERGE: TWO INTENTIONALLY SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
As the above analytical structures emerged, so too did the actors. I chose a number of criteria to narrow the list of possible communities to be considered for the study, but from there all actors were permitted to materialize, interact with my study, and „answer back‟ (a principle of Stengers outlined in Whatmore, 2003, p.98). First, the community had to be a recognized host within the organization World-Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF). I targeted communities with WWOOF host status because of the natural and ethical setting WWOOFing provides for both ethnographic and interview-based research in intentionally sustainable communities (ISCs). “Much of the discussion on participant observation focuses around how researchers can... take on already existing subject positions in the communities which they study” (Crang & Cook, 2007, p.38). Started in 1971, WWOOF is an international non-profit organization self-promoted as a “movement that is helping people share more sustainable ways of living” (WWOOF, 2010). Participants of the WWOOF programme work with residents of host sites in exchange for room and board. In this way, volunteers (or researchers) are able to experience and observe directly daily life on site (participant observation) while simultaneously giving something back to the community in an ethical and structured fashion. The second criterion was „intentional sustainability,‟ meaning there needed to be a stated intent to act, be, live (etc.) sustainably. This was determined based on community self description in both the WWOOF host catalogue and the “Diggers and Dreamers” (D&D) communities directory. Third, the community had to have at least ten resident adults. Fourth, a degree of temporal sustainability was required. Only communities that had been established for at least five years were considered. From the resulting list, I chose two communities that provide a wide scope of possible locations, sizes, ages (of communities), focus (agriculture versus woodland management), payment (buy-in versus rental), and housing type (existing structure versus new structures). A number of other important differences became clear once on site. The two communities‟ respective perceptions of and engagement with external research resulted in slightly different methodological approaches at each. Possible reasons for these diverging perceptions are explored below and in Chapter 4. Each community agreed by consensus to participate in the study. The Secret Garden Community requested to remain anonymous, so to maintain continuity, the names of the communities and the residents have been changed for both sites. Quotes by residents are cited using only randomly-generated first names assigned to each community member.
-19-
SECRET GARDEN COMMUNITY
“Secret Garden is a community united by its love of food.” - Hannah, SGC member
The Secret Garden Community (SGC) is a 40-acre housing and farming cooperative established in 1978 as part of the “back to the land” movement. It is based in an historically listed Georgian manor house in Herefordshire that is owned and managed by the Sunflower Housing Association (SHA), a cooperative housing association run by community members. The smallholding farm is managed by the Farming Co-Op, a separate legal entity. The Garden Society is a registered non-profit that acts to some extent as the community‟s hub for social events and outreach. SGC is made up of 28 adults and 19 children living in 18 self-contained units. There are also a number of communal spaces, including meeting rooms, guest rooms, a large SHA kitchen, an open recreational area called the gym, and the Milking Kitchen. All decisions are made via consensus at formal weekly meetings.
Individual members have diverse political, religious, and ideological perspectives and equally diverse lifestyles and backgrounds. Many hold full or part-time jobs unrelated to the community. On its website, SGC describes itself as a community “with no common philosophy or political stance, though there is a prevailing sympathy with green issues... The farm is the main focus of community life, but… there is a wide variety of benefits in belonging to a group beyond the immediate family” ([SGC], 2010). It is listed as having an ecological ideology in the D&D directory, and in the summer of 2009 its WWOOF description included the phrase “living as sustainably as possible3.” Most community members reflect these sentiments, generally articulating the community‟s foremost missions as food production and communal living with green sympathies and sustainability benefits being secondary.
The Sunflower Housing Association utilizes a buy-in scheme wherein members buy, maintain, and sell their units independently. Each unit is additionally required to pay a monthly fee that is based on the number of family members and the physical size of each unit. Electricity is supplied by a greenenergy provider, and each household pays according to individual energy use. Currently, each unit is also heated by an individual system, including systems run by coal, oil, wood, and solar power. Although units are individually owned, any major changes are subject to rigorous assessment and consensual agreement by all community members. Similarly, although units are sold by individuals, 3
This phrase was removed from the description sometime in late 2009 or early 2010 when the site‟s contact details were updated. When asked about the removal of the phrase, the new WWOOF coordinator stated, “I don't recall making any changes. If I did it wasn't with any meaning!” (Tom: SGC, personal communication, 11 February 2010).
-20-
incoming members are decided on by the community. Becoming a member of SGC is a lengthy process, generally 2-3 years, made up of visitor work days, visits, and interviews.
The cooperative farm is run by a series of rotas that structure routines for animal care and tending to communal areas. The rotas and other information are exchanged and discussed on several large notice boards in the Milking Kitchen. These rotas allow for, as one member put it, “smallholding lite.” No task (in theory) will fall to only one person, and both smallholding and community run more or less smoothly with only several hours of communal work per person each day. SGC produces its own milk, cheeses, meats, eggs, wool, vegetables, field fodder, and wheat using primarily organic landmanagement principles.
HUNDRED ACRE WOODLAND COMMUNITY
“Our community is based on the ethics of love, earth care, people care, and resources for need, not greed.” - HAWC Mission Statement
The Hundred Acre Woodland Community (HAWC) is located within Dartmoor National Park in Devon on 32 acres of steep, southwest-facing woodland. The woodland was managed as a plantation of exotic conifers from the 1920s until it was sold to the community in 1999. The original ten HAWC members took up residence on the site on Earth Day 2000 despite the fact that the area was not zoned for residential use. Initial structures consisted of tents and benders (half-dome structures of flexible wood covered by tarps). The community is now comprised of 21 members, 12 adults and 9 children, although only three of these are from the original ten. They have constructed approximately 19 structures ranging from simple benders to two-story wooden structures built on platforms. HAWC is entirely off grid, relying on solar and hydro-electric power, wood heating, and filtered water from an on-site spring. Some food is grown on-site, but most is bought from an organic vegetable delivery scheme.
Members pay monthly rent and fees to cover communal supplies. Family units live in their own homes, but there is a communal longhouse with a kitchen, library, classroom, and sleeping loft. HAWC accepts WWOOFers year-round in two-week cycles. These cycles greatly affect the community structure. During WWOOF weeks, volunteers and members have the option of eating all (vegan) meals communally in the longhouse. On off-WWOOF weeks, family units tend to cook, eat,
-21-
and work in their own homes. Members hold weekly meetings to discuss community issues, and like SGC all decisions are made by consensus.
Unlike SGC, most HAWC members knew each other prior to moving to the community. Many met on protest sites around the country, and it was with this ethos that HAWC was conceived. Several members told me they had become disillusioned with the protest scene and wanted to “walk the talk” and actually create an alternative lifestyle that was less dependent on fossil fuels and external resources. Initially, the community was strictly vegan with little or no use of fossil fuels, but a change in membership and needs of the community have resulted in a relaxing of these standards. Now, HAWC‟s broad mission is to live lightly in the woodland, managing it in a way that would return it to mixed oak forest while simultaneously sustainably providing resources for the community. Because the site is not zoned for residence, HAWC is dealing with an ongoing legal battle with the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), a controversy that will be further explored particularly in Chapter 4. Like SGC, D&D directory lists it as having an “ecological” ideological focus. In addition to the quotation at the beginning of this section, HAWC‟s mission statement is “to foster environmental awareness and solutions by providing examples of sustainable land use” ([HAWC], 2009).
GENERATING MATERI ALS : CO-PRODUCTION OF KNOWLE DGE
Traditionally, this portion of research may be referred to as gathering data or amassing knowledge. However, particularly within the social sciences it is more appropriate to approach it as the generation of materials or the co-production of knowledge (Whatmore, 2003). In my study, these research attitudes were not simply semantics; rather, they facilitated an honest and trusting interaction between a member of an „institution‟ (Oxford University) and a population pre-disposed to wariness of institutions. In theory, institutions represent the mainstream society that has alienated ISC members (Shenker, 1986). Research tends to put the researcher in a place of power (Cloke, et al., 2004) creating a power dynamic that (especially radical) communities may resist. In practice, ISCs may be wary of institutions because historical critical analysis has had the objective of halting community development (as in the case with planning permission at HAWC). For these reasons, members of the community appeared more amenable to the presence of a „researcher‟ when the project was framed as a participatory discussion and presented as a beneficial tool for the community.
Materials were generated for this project using loosely ethnographic methods. Ethnography is an appropriate approach for untangling the governance of sustainability firstly because the process of tracing a network is often described as a type of object or institutional ethnography (Latour, 1993a).
-22-
Ethnographies can interrogate gaps between ideology and reality and public rhetoric and private thought (Born, 1995). It negotiates “the relationships of researcher and researched, insider and outsider, self and other, body and environment, and the field and home” (Watson & Till, 2010, p.121). As discussed in the literature review, understanding these gaps is key to understanding ISC internal and external dynamics. My ethnographic methods consisted of participant observation, a review of background and historical documents, semi-structured interviews, and participatory photography4. I conducted three visits to each community over the summer and fall of 2009. In February and March 2010 I conducted interviews with these members of the Herefordshire planning council and Dartmoor National Park Authority.
PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION
Participant observation is a traditional ethnographic method of experiencing and recording a study site that often requires the „ethnographer‟ to “pay close attention to, and sometimes partake in, everyday geographies so they can become familiar with how social spaces are constituted” (Watson & Till, 2010, p.129). Participant observation at SGC consisted of WWOOF work and a journal of daily events and reactions. This journal functioned as Latour‟s „First Notebook‟ in which “appointments, reactions to the study by others, surprises to the strangeness of the field, and so on, [were] documented as regularly as possible” (Latour, 2005, p.134). Each evening, I recorded events in detail on a laptop computer, including my own thoughts and notes for future exploration. I also took daily notes at HAWC, but most of these were hand-written and were not as detailed. Although the solar and hydro power at HAWC produced enough electricity to run a communal laptop and energy-efficient lights, use of personal computers was limited as was the use of lights after dark. This disrupted the process of writing lengthy detailed notes on a daily basis. However, after departing the community, hand-written notes were transcribed into an electronic format and fleshed out. Using these initial observations, I identified several focus materials and developed basic interview questions for each community.
Another instance of participant observation took place outside the communities at a conference in London hosted by GovToday on 12 November 2009. The conference was titled “Sustainable Communities ‟09: Securing our low-carbon future.” At this conference, government officials, NGOs, and researchers and businessmen involved in sustainable technology put forward their interpretations 4
I additionally set up a research blog that functioned as Latour‟s „third notebook‟ (2005) for ad libitum writing. Unfortunately, due to time constraints I was not able to fully utilize this tool; however, I hope to use it more consistently in future research. I believe it provides a good medium for maintaining conversation and knowledge co-production with study sites after completion of the field work.
-23-
for sustainable communities, the role of local government, and (largely) technological sustainability solutions.
INTERVIEWS
Although participant observation provides a good overview of the study subject, understanding the nuances of sustainability framing, space creation, and flow requires a more in-depth study. This is the goal of the interview: “In comparison to large-scale quantitative techniques, interview methodologies typically aim for depth and detailed understanding rather than breadth and coverage” (McDowell, 2010, p.158). Interview questions used in both communities focused on illuminating individuals‟ definition of sustainability and interactions with the community‟s sustainable materials. At SGC much of the ongoing sustainability discussion surrounds the proposed project to install a sustainable district heating system to replace the individual houses‟ (primarily oil and coal-fired) boilers. Thus, a number of the interview questions addressed this issue. At HAWC, discussion of sustainability and its definition was a common occurrence. Often, this discussion revolved around different internal and external definitions of sustainability and their implications for the persistence (temporal sustainability) of HAWC. These definitions feed into HAWC‟s policy decisions, particularly relating to the planning permission controversy.
At SGC, I interviewed ten community members from eight of the eighteen family units and one WWOOFer. Interviews were scheduled by posting an interview request and sign-up sheet on the message board. Most participants signed up without being otherwise requested. Initial interviewees identified several key informants (experts or members with interesting views) for various aspects of sustainability and community. Of those who did not participate, several expressed explicit unwillingness to be interviewed but most had previous engagements or stated that they had forgotten to sign up5. Interviews were based on a pre-determined set of questions; however, any number of other questions may have been introduced in the interview process. I recorded all interviews on a digital Dictaphone. Settings for each interview varied depending on the needs of the interviewee. Some, particularly in families with small children, took place amid noise, confusion, and distraction, while others were secluded and quiet. Although this likely affected the quality of individuals‟ answers, often there were no alternatives. Most interviews took forty-five minutes to an hour although some were as short as thirty minutes and others as long as ninety. At HAWC, four community members from four family units were interviewed in three formal interview sessions. Two of these 5
These absences may have substantial implications for my results. One member, Kyle, made the crucial observation that members who refused interviews were likely those with a more isolationist approach to community life, and as a group were more likely to behave in a certain way and identify with certain ideals. These perspectives would therefore not be included in my analysis.
-24-
sessions were recorded on a digital Dictaphone and all were based on a pre-determined set of questions but again were delivered in a semi-structured format. Another community member and two WWOOF volunteers were informally asked similar questions in a discussion-style format.
There are several reasons interview methodology at HAWC differed from that of SGC. First, although the HAWC longhouse provides important communal living and cooking space, there is no formal communal “discussion space” like that created by the notice boards at SGC. This idea is explored further in Chapter 4. The other reasons relate to the ideas of alienation and suspicion of institutions mentioned previously. First, HAWC has diverged more radically from the mainstream than has SGC. For this reason, responses to power and institution are likely to be stronger (Meijering, Huigen, & Van Hoven, 2007). Second, sustainability is central to the HAWC lifestyle while it is treated as more of a secondary goal at SGC. Thus, an investigation of sustainability at HAWC is more intrusive into the daily private behaviours of community members. Third, HAWC occupies a different epistemic community (as per Knorr-Cetina, 1999) than mainstream institutions. Formal interviews do not tend to be part of the „learn by doing‟ ethos of most HAWC members. For example, the technical skills taught in HAWC‟s classes are based on skills that were largely self-taught or passed on through noninstitutional education (i.e. word of mouth or informal classes).
During my third visit a shift occurred in community mentality when one community member, Rose, requested to do an interview. She said she was feeling disenchanted with the radical sector in general and wanted to remind herself why she was choosing to „live otherwise.‟ She was able to then suggest others likely to do interviews. Rose‟s interview either catalyzed others to action or she was simply the first to act within a changed atmosphere. Whatever the case, the community subsequently seemed more open to overt research methodology. During the interview with Nick, another member (Scott), arrived and ended up participating in the discussion. At the conclusion of the interview when I thanked him, Nick stated, “It was good for me, actually. It got me to think about new things as well.” Although I initially had the impression that members agreed to interviews to humour me because they liked me as a person, I believe that in the end it was a positive and educational experience for all parties.
After all community interviews were complete, I set up several email/phone interviews with members of local government authorities that regularly interact with each respective community. I emailed initial questions to the interviewees and followed up with a telephone interview in which questions were repeated and expanded in a semi-structured format. This style of interview was more suitable for the authorities because they were able to look up specific legal documents or precedents if necessary.
-25-
I took a two-step approach to analyzing interviews. First, I created an outline of the important points of each interview, taking note of individuals‟ broad themes of community mission, definition of sustainability, and creation and transfer of knowledge. Second, I extracted specific phrases that indicated a definition of sustainability. I also extracted phrases from community and government written accounts of sustainability. Third, I plotted the phrases onto what I am calling a „context map‟ in order to better assess the context in which different groups or resources interact with the concept of sustainability. The international MACOPOL research group in association with the Demoscience project of Paris‟s Ecole des Mines has developed and compiled numerous tools to help map controversies such as this one (Demoscience, 2010). One similar example on the Demoscience webpage maps the semantics of French property rights (Gephi, 2010). However, because of the relatively small amount of data I collected, I created my conceptual map by hand rather than using a tool. Definitions and the context map are displayed and analyzed in Chapter 3.
PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY
Over the past decade, geography has experienced a (re)turn to the visual (Rose, 2003). The visual can come in many forms (from maps to photographs) and can have multiple analytical functions. For example, Lorimer (2003) describes how photographs can help create “active subjects of the narrative… emphasizing the longer social lives [than the] small story” presented in research (p.199). In particular, I focused on participatory photography because it explores embodied sustainability. If indeed sustainability as a practice partially depends on non-human actors, the study of sustainable development must address multiple types of sustainable materials: 1) obvious, observable sustainable materials, 2) materials so integrated into the quotidian that they are easily overlooked, and 3) materials perceived to be sustainable. Only the first of these types is easily captured, particularly when dealing with private homes and lifestyles. Pink (2007) describes the methodological and ethical difficulties of research situations in which one enters and engages with “personal domains that might not normally be the object of public scrutiny” (pg.28). She suggests that encouraging the participants of these ethnographic studies to take photographs of the domicile “can inspire [them] to represent and then articulate embodied and material experiences that they do not usually recall in verbal interviewing” (pg.28).
The possible benefits of participatory photography are three-fold. First, it creates starting points for discussion of sustainable development. Second, it equalizes power inequalities between the researcher and „subjects.‟ This applies to both the power disparity between regime (institutions) and the radical (ISCs) discussed earlier and the power issues that often arise when an external researcher attempts to
-26-
penetrate the privacy of the home. When participants are given the power of image creation, they are no longer a passive object in the research network – in effect, they become an actor in the research, and some degree of power equity is restored. The final benefit of participatory photography is that, as per Pink, it illuminates the embodied, material, and perceived experiences of sustainable development.
Again, methodology between the two study sites differed somewhat. At SGC, I gave a disposable camera to each interviewee immediately after his or her interview. I requested participants take three photographs of “sustainable things or things that embody sustainability in the community.” Upon collection of the camera, I asked them to explain why each photograph was taken. At HAWC when I was struggling to initiate interviews, I introduced participatory photography in an attempt to informally stimulate dialogue. During the second visit I left disposable cameras with instructions for participatory photography (i.e. three photographs of sustainable things or things that embody sustainability) and a sheet to record notes about photographs. This, albeit to a small extent, created a centralized space for community discussion about sustainability that was one step further removed from The Institution (i.e. the researcher was not present). When I returned for my final visit, I was able to use the participatory photography to stimulate conversation or introduce more formal interviews. The participatory photography may have contributed to the “changed atmosphere” I encountered on my third visit.
As with the interview data, analysis of the resulting photographs was multifaceted. First, I chose eight categories that covered the subject matter of every photograph: community, energy/heating, environment, food production, local, maintenance/perseverance, reuse/recycling, and/or waste. I then coded each photograph as one or several of the categories based on the photographer‟s explanation of the picture. Therefore, although two people may take photographs of a stack of wood, one photograph may be categorized as “energy/heating” alone while the other “energy/heating, local, and community” depending on the explanation of the participant. All coded photographs can be seen in Appendix A. Second, I identified two recurring subjects from the photographs: food/food related, and wood/wood related. I then looked at the ways all the groups (community, category, and theme) interacted. I used a similar style to that of Richardson (2009) for my in-text representation of the photographs. Richardson captures narrative elements of video-based visual ethnography (as per Lorimer‟s previous quotation) by pairing still frames with written narration. Similarly, I attempt to reanimate text and space through the presentation of participants‟ and my own photography. Elements of these analyses are elaborated in Chapters 3 (in terms of framing) and 4 (in terms of space).
-27-
HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENT REVIEW
Using participant observation and interviews alone limits the degree to which networks can be traced because they largely discuss the existing landscape. Already-introduced objects in this landscape (successful projects) shape and are shaped by their users. This interaction can be analysed well enough via traditional ethnographic methods. However, studying projects allows for a freer analysis than the approach needed for studying existing objects (Latour, 1996). This is exemplified through Latour‟s analysis of the failed Parisian transport system Aramis which remains a project because it has not succeeded as an object. This flexibility allows for a more extensive co-analysis of the project‟s network itself because a project can generate discussion and controversy in a way [already-translated] objects cannot. As Latour demonstrates, tracing the networks of a scientific (1999) or technological (1996) project requires extensive knowledge and analysis of historical documents. These documents can describe the ways in which a project transforms as it moves from a concept to a blueprint to an existing (successful) object or where they go awry, the roots of project failure.
At SGC, the historical documents consist of meeting minutes, a Wiki space, project proposals, grant applications, several internally-conducted surveys, and documents submitted by members supporting each. Meeting minutes from the past ten years and much general information about the community and the farm are stored on the Wiki, although it tends to be several months behind as far as posted minutes and projects are concerned. SGC granted me temporary access to the Wiki for research purposes, but because of the gaps in the Wiki information, I set aside the third visit to SGC for more extensive perusal of hard-copy materials.
Information from these historical documents was particularly useful in setting the scene for each community over the past decade and filling gaps left by the interview process. I used the Wiki to identify proposed projects and to illuminate the historical landscape of the community based on use of certain language. I searched the available meeting minutes (2001-2008) for both the Sunflower Housing Association and the Farm Co-Op for introduced projects and filtered them based on relation to sustainability. I then performed a search using the following keywords: sustainable, sustainability, biodiversity, environment, ecologic, climate, and carbon. I recorded search hits contextually indicating sustainability focus. This historical review will give a quantitative assessment of the (possibly-changing) language used in the minutes for talking about community projects and objects. The historical landscape will be further discussed in Chapter 3, the projects in Chapter 5.
Many background and historical documents for HAWC and its planning process are available at the community and Park Authority websites. However, intermediary documents like comments from
-28-
locals, studies by non-community „experts,‟ and evidence provided by the Park Authority in the planning appeals cases had to be collected from the respective offices. I scheduled a day at the Park Authority office to look through as many relevant documents as possible. Additionally, I took photographs of relevant documents with notes on attached post-its that would not be captured by a scan or photocopy.
-29-
CHAPTER 3: WHO FRAMED THE SUSTAINABLE CABBAGE? A FRAME ANALYSIS
I may say 'Fantastic cabbage, it hasn't come from Belgium!' Someone else might say, 'Fantastic cabbage, I'd be paying two quid for that in the shop!' - Jake, Secret Garden Community
In Chapter 1, I discussed how most literature tends to situate sustainability actors in opposing epistemic spheres. Within any of these spheres there are additionally two poles of sustainability definition: normative and practice-based (or positivistic). Much controversy within sustainability comes from practice-based sustainability definitions being framed as normative standards. This creates resistance from opposing sphere actors. Thus, a natural starting point for assessing the governance of sustainability is by establishing the frame through which different actors approach sustainability.
Take the example of the cabbage introduced in the opening quotation. This cabbage has been grown locally at the Secret Garden Community using organic standards. It was nurtured by a community of caring individuals who will share it fairly. When community members behold the cabbage, they frame it as a sustainable cabbage. However, within that title of sustainability exists a multiplicity of other frames. The cabbage does not come from Belgium, so it has a low carbon footprint. This is sustainable. It is cheaper to grow the cabbage communally than to buy it in the shop, so it is economical. This is sustainable. These frames fall within dualistic ontological spheres – sustainable environment versus sustainable economy. If one were to declare that sustainability is growing cabbages locally (a normative statement), which may be true, it implies that growing cabbages economically is not sustainable and may cause controversy with those concerned with economic sustainability. To understand this controversy, we must first know the definitions involved (a local cabbage, an economic cabbage, a fair-share cabbage). Second, we must understand the social milieu, the organization of understanding, which prompts the statement, “Sustainability is growing cabbages locally.” This mirrors the two-step approach to frame analysis (as per Goffman (1974)) described in the methodology.
-30-
DEFINING SUSTAINABILITY
While interviews and documents make up the body of definition analysis, I also observed several behaviours at the two communities that help set the analytical stage. First, at SGC community members tended to use the word „sustainability‟ easily and in many contexts. However, most members reacted to pointed questions concerning the nature of sustainability with discomfort. They often began with positivistic explanations of what was done around the community that was or was not „sustainable.‟ Most often this included references to climate change issues. For example, most SGC heating was not sustainable because it used fossil fuels. Growing a large portion of one‟s own food was sustainable because the food was only transported meters, not miles. Gradually, these positivistic statements worked into more normative ones, often using language like “living lightly,” “perseverance,” and “future generations.” On a number of occasions at the conclusion of the interview, the question was turned back on me: “So, what is sustainability?” In this sense, SGC members seem to approach sustainability as an existing (if complex and problematic) entity, and my questions acted as a quiz of their knowledge (although I assured them this was not the case).
HAWC members had a different approach to defining sustainability. Sustainability was also a daily topic at HAWC, but the term was often accompanied by air quotes and caveats. When I asked members directly about the definition of sustainability, I again encountered discomfort but of a different sort. From what I have observed, this discomfort stems from three sources. First, several community members expressed that nothing is sustainable. This often accompanied sentiments that nothing has been sustainable since ancient times, including the lifestyle at HAWC. Responses varied between considering HAWC inherently unsustainable or only insomuch that it is impossible to be an island of sustainability in the sea of unsustainable society. The second root of discomfort seemed to be based in a feeling of hypocrisy. HAWC claims on paper it is sustainable – its mission states that HAWC provides “examples of sustainable land use” ([HAWC], 2009). Its members feel the urgency of the need to live alternative lifestyles, and they believe that HAWC is a significant step in the right direction. But how do they reconcile this with the sentiment that in fact nothing is sustainable? The final source of discomfort stems from the fact that members are constantly forced into at least verbal reconciliation of this written versus idealistic view of sustainability. To remain living in the woodland, they must justify their way of life to the Park Authority and to the surrounding local community. The anecdote in Dialogue 3.1 provides an exemplary situation of all three sources of sustainability uncertainty6.
6
This is the recreation of a scene I observed on my first visit to HAWC. The quotations are not exact.
-31-
It was with these general impressions I went into interviews with community members. SGC members are aware of sustainability as an existing state to strive for because “sustainability is good” and can generally be achieved through sustainable projects. However, there is controversy over what projects are sustainable enough to warrant attention. HAWC members are acutely aware of sustainability as a concept tied to both the temporal persistence of the community (in terms of planning permission) and maintenance of natural resources. However, they identify different types of sustainability, some of them good, some obstructing the development of alternative lifestyles. While these concepts offer a starting perspective for understanding community definitions of sustainability, neither sentiment fully captures the range of issues and definitions of individuals at either site.
MAPPING DEFINITIONS
Official documents and interviews with community members and public planning officials provided me with a large number of definitions of sustainability. There were diverse approaches from within communities – even individuals tended to include multi-directional definitions of the term. Many
-32-
recent government documents include language on sustainability, so in interviews with local government officials I asked what documents primarily inform decision making on sustainability, particularly with respect to the communities and planning policy. I focused analysis on documents mentioned in interviews7. Definitions were coded and mapped onto a „context map‟ with coordinate axes technological/ontological and positivistic/normative (Figure 3.1). I chose the technological/ontological dualism (as opposed to, say, environment/economy) firstly because it offers a clear and well-cited example. Secondly, it introduces the agency of technology, or non-human actors, a recurring theme in this dissertation. There are three chief points of interest on the map. First, the dispersion of definitions across the map supports the idea that sustainability is pluralistic, even within definitions from a single actor. No one institutional actor presented (SCW, HAWC, government) restricts its definitions to a single quadrant.
Second, despite this general dispersion there are two clusters worth noting. First, the body of the government documents are clustered in the normative/ontological quadrant because each document uses one or both of the following statements in defining sustainability (or sustainable development)8: 1) Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and 2) A better quality of life for all. The first is the well-known definition from the Brundtland Report, and the second comes from the UK Sustainable Strategy from 1999 which was updated in 2005. Several newer documents such as the Dartmoor National Park Authority‟s (DNPA) Core Strategy and the Herefordshire Sustainability Strategy use language from the 2005 document, but most still cite the earlier version‟s language that outlines sustainability as social progress, environmental protection, prudent use of natural resources, and stable economic development (DOE, 2000). However, only in several instances do community members cite any of these documents. It may appear that government is therefore united in its understanding and definition of sustainability. However, even with common definitions, each document structures principles of sustainability differently. It is at this point that the approaches, if not definitions, of sustainability become positivistic and often technological (Figure 3.2). Moving toward the local level, the key points of sustainability become more positivistic, from sweeping statements on how to achieve ecological, economic, and social balance to sustainability concerns related to Herefordshire‟s rural and aging population. The implications of this type of framing are further discussed in the subsequent section concerning the organization of understanding.
7
These documents include Our Common Future, Planning Policy Statements 1 and 7, Regional Spatial Strategies for Devon and the West Midlands, and management plans, core strategies, and sustainability strategies for Dartmoor National Park and Herefordshire. 8 One exception to the government documents cluster in Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7), Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (ODPM/DCLG, 2004). PPS7 also includes language from the UK Sustainable Strategy, but this definition is placed on equal footing with other positivistic objectives.
-33-
-34-
The second notable cluster is also related to the positivistic overflows of central sustainability definitions. Definitions from government officials cluster in the technological quadrants9. This would indicate that regardless of the normative/ontological aspects of government definitions of sustainability, practitioners at the local level tend to focus on technological solutions, generally developed from positivistic approaches. This is not surprising due to the fact that most practitioners must consider the ways in which government can enforce any proposed policies, and technology is easier to control than ontology. Christopher Walledge of DNPA believes that in fact changing technology will result in changing ontology: “The little things [like energy-efficient light bulbs] are not going to solve the problem. There needs to be a change in attitude... But if we get enough people to do the little things, the attitudes will shift” (personal communication, 18 Mar 2010). Similarly, in his interview, Neil Robertson (from the Herefordshire Council) explained why individual community self-sufficiency does not equal sustainability in the eyes of a policy-maker: “You can't measure [sustainability] but you can measure if actions apply to guidance points like, 'Is development close to shops? Are there other facilities like doctors or public transport?' If so, it's more sustainable than development without these facilities… You can make a community more sustainable within itself [by reducing need for these facilities] but you can't enforce it for others” (personal communication, 18 Mar 2010).
9
One exception is, “Avoid adverse environmental impacts” which Neil Robertson of the Herefordshire Council quoted as a summary of the definition in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP). It also includes the definition from the Brundtland Report along with a detailed discussion of implications of this definition.
-35-
VISUAL DEFINITIONS
Although interviews and document analysis “aim for depth and detailed understanding” (McDowell, 2010, p.158), they cannot capture the range of objects and ideas that embody sustainability or are perceived as sustainable (Pink 2007). Figure 3.1 shows that communities‟ ontological definitions of sustainability include language about concern for environment, economy, social equity, temporal maintenance, and reproducibility. Technological and positivistic approaches include local food production methods, reducing fossil fuel use, and reducing consumption and waste. Mention of specific sustainable technology or objects is notably absent from these definitions. One goal for the participatory photography was to use visualization measures to bring these non-humans forward and address the ways in which they affect or interact with sustainability definitions and behaviours. “Visualization is foremost an act of cognition, a human ability to develop mental representations that allow geographers to identify patterns… The mental representation formed and the patterns people see are closely linked to expectations they bring about a given situation” (MacEachren, Buttenfield, Campbell, DiBiase, & Monmonier, 1992). These representations, patterns, and expectations relate to those subjects that are embodied or perceived and thus not captured by interviews and documentation alone.
-36-
Five community members at SGC took thirteen photographs and four community members at HAWC took ten photographs. An SGC WWOOF volunteer took an additional three photographs and two HAWC WWOOF volunteers took six more (although volunteer photographs were not included in the primary analysis). A collection of all photos taken for this exercise along with individual coding is available in Appendix A. Interestingly, the photographs lack the technological objects typically be associated with sustainability such as energy-efficient light bulbs or solar panels (with several exceptions like the composting toilet, recycling bins, and secondary glazing panel). Instead, most photographs abstractly capture some aspect or behaviour of the community that embodies the idea of sustainability (Dialogue 3.2). The most common photograph subjects are wood/wood-related items (7 pictures of 23) and food/food-related items (5 pictures of 23) (Figure 3.3). Interestingly, the community with food production as its primary focus (SGC) took no pictures of food, while the woodland community of HAWC took multiple pictures of food. On the other hand, approximately 30% of photographs from both communities have wood as their subject matter. Also, Figure 3.3 shows that while food-related items are unsurprisingly associated primarily with food production, wood is associated with five of the eight categories. Both wood and food circulate through this dissertation in descriptions of framing, space and flows of sustainability (remember the cabbage?)
So what is the role of these non-traditional sustainable objects? Both communities have solar panels, energy-efficient light bulbs, or pumps to access local water. Any one of these would have provided an
-37-
“immutable mobile” or piece of the “missing mass” of sustainability (as described in Chapter 1) that I could follow on its radical circulations through ISCs. I had made the dangerous step of visualizing, a priori, these as the non-human sustainability actors at the communities. The participatory photography alerted me to new, more influencial, actors providing important insights into the nature of ISCs. The complexity of wood provides a study point for SGC and HAWC‟s framing of sustainability through objects (Figure 3.4). For example, wood symbolizes many of the definitions ISC members associated with sustainability. It is a non-fossil fuel, renewable resource that can be grown locally and thus provides a degree of self sufficiency. One WWOOF volunteer suggested that trees symbolize future generations because most trees can outlive humans and so are intergenerational. Thus, just as there is a „local cabbage‟ and an „economic cabbage,‟ there exists wood-as-fuel, wood-as-food, wood-as-tools, wood-as-trees, wood-as-habitat etc. The fact that both wood-as-fuel and wood-as-trees are equally important to the communities introduces the second insight offered by wood-as-ISC sustainable object: hybridity.
Clearly, wood-as-sustainability is not singular in form. It is a hybrid of wood-as-fuel, community, tools, independence (self-sufficiency), etc. It is an ancient oak tree, and it is a young food-producing apple tree. Consequently, wood-as-sustainability cannot inhabit the realm of pure nature or pure society. Wood-as-sustainability demonstrates ISCs‟ ethos of a hybrid nature/society. Even in its most „constructed‟ form – such as the spoon or the chair in Figure 3.4 – wood creates environmental sustainability mentalities as it ties users to the local woodland. It creates bonds within the communities themselves. ISC members are proud that the chair, spoon, or house has come from their community woodland. This reflects the sentiment at both SGC and HAWC that sustainability as a lifestyle requires „living otherwise‟ in respect to both nature and society. This co-production of nature and society is further explored in Chapter 4 in terms of woodland management at HAWC and in Chapter 5 in terms of a district heating system at SGC.
-38-
-39-
SOCIETAL FRAMING: AN ORG ANIZATION OF UNDE RSTANDING
Return for a moment to the broadest question of this paper: what is the governance of sustainability? Recall from Chapter 1 that governance is the ways in which people, institutions (both state and nonstate actors), and non-humans change incentives, knowledge, institutions, decision making, and behaviours. This approach to governance allows more diversity in analyzing power and political action than an analysis of the nation-state alone (Okereke, Bulkeley, & Schroeder, 2009). In this chapter, I have introduced a range of actors from various levels of government alongside two nonnation-state communities and a host of other human and non-human actors. I have mapped, visualized, and analyzed the ways in which individuals define and frame sustainability, but I have said little of what has influenced these definition formations. These influences represent a higher order of framing in which actors‟ (individuals, institutions, etc.) particularized frames create a social milieu that interacts with and frames other actors. A study of this higher order requires an analysis of the organization of understanding within the network of concern (Goffman, 1974). Remember the cabbage – we know it is defined as local, low-carbon, and economic. The next step is to understand why one actor would choose to frame it as local as opposed to economic and the implications this choice has for the „social milieu‟ and the other actors residing within it.
Although there are many approaches to analyzing the pathways of social structuring, I will focus on the set of debates surrounding determinism, performativity, and social embeddedness as described in Hinchliffe (2007). In brief review, followers of the social embeddedness theory posit that things – technology or economies for example – change and develop based on societal pressures. This is in contrast to theory that society is determined by these outside pressures. As discussed in Chapter 1, the theory of performativity stems from the idea that technology/society, non-humans/humans, or economics/economies in fact iteratively affect and are affected by each other (Slater, 2002). This particular debate spreads across scales and disciplines (i.e. science and technology studies, economics, and anthropology). The cabbage again provides an example. Why has sustainability been framed as a low-carbon cabbage? Says the determinist, “Because sustainability is low-carbon. Any controversy about this fact is based on insufficient or incorrect knowledge.” Says the follower of social embeddedness, “Social and political pressures have dictated that sustainability is about low-carbon. Thus, the low-carbon cabbage is sustainable.” The follower of performativity may say, “The cabbage is sustainable because of the fact that it creates a sustainability ethos in the community. This ethos in collective with many cabbages in many communities has affected the way society views sustainability. It mixes with the many other social and political pressures to help determine that sustainability is a low-carbon cabbage.” In reality, each of these perspectives is likely applicable in different situations. -40-
In the remainder of this section, I explore sustainability from two governance perspectives: top-down and bottom-up. This approach gives voice to the various levels of Nation-State actors and the nonstate ISC actors as they act in different contexts. Analysis is partially based on societal pressures and partially attributed to the framing and overflow process associated with performativity. By this, I do not necessarily suggest a unification of the two theoretical approaches nor do I suggest the superiority of one over the other. Instead, I am acknowledging that aspects of both can be useful in considering the organization of understanding sustainability and that in tandem they best describe some of the ways in which sustainability actors influence and are influenced by the social milieu. In this case, “top-down” and “bottom-up” refer to the types of framing performed by a specific actor as opposed to assuming particular action based upon an actor‟s title. I posit that top-down approaches are best described as a performative collection of standard-setting and overflowing while bottom-up approaches are best described in relation to social embeddedness. Some actors may simultaneously be engaged in top-down and bottom-up approaches to sustainability governance. For example, a local government may employ top-down action writing the definition and goals of sustainability for a Core Strategy planning document while simultaneously relying on its embeddedness in a specific social milieu in attempts to change the frames and standards of sustainability set above it. The following accounts by no means exhaust the how‟s, why‟s, and implications of specific framings of sustainability, but they provide insight into the governance relations between national governments, local governments, communities, and individuals. In doing so, they further illuminate the virtues of using ISCs as study subjects in the field of sustainability governance.
SUSTAINABLE ZONES OF QUALIFICATION: THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Top-down versus bottom-up is often synonymous with government versus grassroots. However, I want to avoid this distinction because in the modern, neo-liberal environment it may not be entirely accurate to describe government as „the top‟(Okereke, et al., 2009). If top-down actors are not necessarily any one titular entity, they must have another form that bonds them under the title “topdown.” I suggest actors are working in a top-down fashion when they attempt to govern over physical or psychological distance – the cultural, emotional, epistemological, and ontological gaps that can exist between two actors. Latour speaks of these distances in terms of longer or less connected networks in which “laws and constants… circulate… within well-laid-out metrological networks” (Latour, 1993b, p.119). Now that technology can connect geographically-distant actors at a mouse click, the psychological (or network) distance likely plays an equal if not greater role than physical
-41-
distance (Whatmore & Thorne, 1997). One method of top-down governance is through the creation of the “metrological networks” mentioned by Latour, and this aspect can be studied through the analytical lens of technological zones, namely zones of qualification. A technological zone can be understood as, “a structuring of relations which has a normative force, but one which does not necessarily take a disciplinary form” and a zone of qualification refers specifically to situations in which “the qualities of objects or practices are assessed in order that they meet more or less common standards or criteria” (A Barry, 2006, pp.240-241).
These metrics and standards endeavor to narrow the space for debate around the regulated subject. If a top-down actor decrees that a sustainable cabbage is one that travels less than ten miles between harvest and consumption, he attempts to close the debate about the sustainable cabbage by creating the zone of qualification [sustainability = (< ten miles) from production point]. A cabbage from Belgium consumed in England is not a sustainable cabbage because it has traveled more than ten miles. However, in many situations metrics can actually politicize, or further heat up, debates. Actors can contest the methods and very nature of the calculations. How did the top-down actor arrive at the figure “ten miles traveled” to indicate sustainability? Is it because experts calculated this number based on a series of socio-economic and environmental measurements? Or is it because this actor produces cabbages on a farm 9.5 miles away from the nearest market? What if the local farm uses toxic pesticides and slave labour to produce its cabbages while the Belgian cabbage meets organic and fair-trade standards? When actors frame systems in a simplistic, normative way, certain aspects of actual performance are bound to be left out. These overflows “[introduce] scope for divergence, adaptation and change. Overflowing is often followed by further reframing” (D'Adderio, 2008, p. 770).
The top-down actor described above could take a variety of forms including a corporation, non-profit organization, or government10. That said, with both study ISCs, the primary top-down actors in matters of sustainability are based in government. Due to government‟s multi-scalar structure, the effects of its framings and regulations can be seen at several levels. At the top-most level, international standards encouraging globalization, capitalism, and neoliberal economies can marginalize actors who see these trends as environmentally, socially, or fiscally unattainable (Dunn, 2005). To cope with these undesirable or unattainable standards, marginalized actors create alternatives (black markets in Dunn‟s example) to the regime. To use more common intentional 10
Top-down action is often associated with governments and Nation-State activity because modern governments traditionally rule at a distance using enforceable standards and regulations. However, both framing and governance are equally top-down when they govern from a distance by creating standards that encourage people to govern themselves. This act of governing through self regulation is one key focus of Foucault‟s governmentality. It is also not limited to Nation-State actors – corporations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may equally create standards and metrics designed to influence other actors (Agrawal, 2005; Rutherford, 2007)
-42-
community lingo, individuals excluded from the framings of the regime become alienated from society in the sense that they “are unable to maintain a sense of identity” because they no longer “[feel] at home in the world” (Shenker, 1986, p. 20). Shenker goes on to hypothesize that it is this sense of alienation that drives people to form communities in which they can revive their sense of identity by living in ways contrary to the regime. Evidence of this discontent and marginalization was expressed at both SGC and HAWC. For example, Hannah of SGC stated, "I was despairing of western society… but now at SGC I have this great extension of things I'm connected to" (28 Aug 2009). Similarly, Rose of HAWC believes that "communities and protest sites attract people who are looking for something more, who are lonely, depressed, or lost" (11 Nov 2009).
The national government has also created zones of sustainability qualification through their regional indicators of sustainable development. Indicators include measurements of consumption, environmental protection (gauged in terms of water and air quality, land recycling, and birdlife), and healthy/fair communities (DEFRA, 2010). These indicators affect local policies and planning action. For example, a region receives a positive score under the “land recycling” indicator if it has increasing development density on previously-developed urban sites. Similarly, Annex I of Planning Policy Guidance 7 (PPG7), which is a predecessor to Planning Policy Statement 7, sets out functional and financial tests that all new rural development must pass. These metrics (among many others) help dictate what development local officials can classify as sustainable. They are framed by post-WWII British land ethics focused on maintaining countryside with a certain pastoral aesthetic ideal. This has led to another series of metrics framing what qualifies as urban or previously developed (Neil Robertson: Hereford Council, personal communication, 18 Mar 2010). Both SGC and HAWC have felt the effects of this metric. SGC realizes that a drafty Georgian manor house is not an idyllic starting point for an energy-efficient, low-impact lifestyle. However, the community is not permitted to add eco-structures on-site because, lacking shops and facilities, SGC does not qualify as previously-developed. This also forms the base of the Park Authority‟s case against HAWC. HAWC‟s woodland has not been residential for over a century, so the (illegal) construction of residential housing creates a dangerous precedent of overflow from the metric frame of sustainable rural development. Thus, in the process of creating broad, international standards to facilitate governing diverse actors at a distance, top-down governance can shape societies and individuals‟ experiences and behaviours. However, these societies and individuals are not passive recipients of action. As their desired lifestyles are marginalized to the „overflow‟ of society, they reframe themselves within a new social milieu of nonalienation. Indeed, through reframing these actors can impact the original frame that once excluded them (a theme that will be further explored in Chapter 4).
-43-
SOCIALLY EMBEDDED: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
The previous section explores the ways in which experience and action are organized in part by topdown governance via the framing and overflowing of metrological regimes. However, the social pressures affecting frame formation and bottom-up interaction with these pressures must also be addressed. Some pertinent questions include: why do top-down actors choose to create frames in a certain manner? What dictates the response of the marginalized and the relative success of attempts for future reframing of the overflow? In this section, I will explore the first question in terms of epistemic cultures and the second in terms of social stability.
Epistemic cultures (as described in Chapter 1) make up how we know what we know. In the West, science is the most pervasive epistemic culture, using laboratories and scientific objects and method to produce „expert knowledge.‟ However, increasingly the definition and role of „expert‟ as opposed to „lay‟ knowledge is being called into question as geographic differences in epistemological and ontological approaches are validated (Busch, 1978; Collins & Evans, 2002; Raedeke & Rikoon, 1997; Wynne, 1996). The various epistemic cultures of government, SGC, and HAWC emerge from the root of their social embeddedness. Governments see themselves as having a moral duty to fill the gaps in human ethics with standards and laws. The current societal pressures dictate that good policies are those informed by comparable, reproducible evidence from sound science that follows a particular methodological format. Although governments enact these standards in a top-down arrangement, their guiding principles are coming from a bottom-up social embeddedness. Without the need to affect distant actors, ISCs may be less dependent on universal science and expert knowledge. Instead, individuals specialize in certain fields to allow the community to function smoothly as a whole. At SGC, I often observed the exchange of „non-expert‟ within the community. In interviews, no one explicitly mentioned intra-community dynamics as a “source of knowledge production,” but most discussed the benefits of shared work and shared expertise (Dialogue 3.3). At HAWC each member was seen as an expert in a certain field and on the woodland surrounding his or her personal dwelling. For example, Edward specializes in wild plants and foraging and Nick in alternative energy systems. Both of these skills were largely self-taught or gleaned through non-traditional (i.e. non-institutional) methods, but community members and visitors alike accepted them as knowledgeable authority figures in their subjects. This epistemic approach allows experimentation with alternative management practices that better fit communities‟ hybrid ontology. HAWC‟s woodland management plan combines traditional scientific studies of woodland health alternative permaculture techniques
-44-
through continuous-cover forestry (CCF)11. As an agricultural process that mimics ecosystems in agriculture to facilitate permanent agriculture and human culture (Permaculture_Association, 2010). Instead of presuming that humans and agriculture are separate from, if not destructive of, the natural world and ecological principles, permaculture is premised on the principle that human culture can be (re)integrated into „natural‟ (ecological) systems. Permaculture is synonymous with CultureNature.
The next approach to describing bottom-up and socially-embedded governance comes from the concept of radical/regime stability. This theory is based on the idea that certain societal conditions shape the relative success of non-regime projects (i.e. the success of overflow in reframing an issue). “Regimes are characterised by a higher level of stability. Rules are supported and reproduced by many actors across many different locations... Nevertheless, regimes might de-stabilise for several reasons... such as ongoing dynamics in international policies, or other parts of the „socio-technical landscape‟” (Raven, 2006, p. 585)
11
CCF is an alternative woodland management technique designed to shift monoculture tree stands to biodiverse woodlands. The CCF Group is self described as “advancing „close to nature‟ silvicultural systems (CCFG, 2009).
-45-
In times of regime destabilization, the radical can take hold in mainstream society (Figure 3.8). As described in Chapter 2, I analyzed the meeting minutes of SGC from between 2001-2008 looking for changes in sustainability language or frequency of sustainability-related projects. I hypothesized that as certain global phenomena (i.e. organic agriculture, energy efficiency, biodiversity, or climate change) became more prominent in mainstream society, language and projects relating to each would also become more common. While no significant trends were found, this is perhaps not surprising as the study spans only eight years. Recent regime destabilization occurred in the late 1960s-1970s and again in the late 1990s-2000s (Raven, 2006, discussed below). To get an accurate understanding of shifting language due to societal pressures, I would have needed analysis of meeting minutes both during times of stability and volatility. Unfortunately, I did not have the time or resources for this depth of study.
However, there are other indicators that mark the social trend of inverse relations between radical and regime stability. SGC was founded in the 1970s as a „back to the land‟ action. At this time, there were a number of factors destabilizing the regime including the oil/energy crises of the 1970s and an increasing awareness of human impact on the environment, particularly in agriculture (Evenson & Gollin, 2003). Additionally, multiple authors on the subject refer to the “broad-based protest against… the irrational materialism of urban life” (Jacob, 2006, p. 3; see also Halfacree 2006). The 1980s saw a time of relative affluence, corresponding to regime stability and a decreasing interest in back-to-the-land movements. Then, “the recessionary 1990s revived the search for both material and psychological security in the countryside” (Jacob, 2006, p.3). This regime destabilization is
-46-
compounded by resistance to capitalism and neo-liberalism and an increasing awareness of the dangers of climate change. It was during this time of regime instability that HAWC was founded.
The specific contributions to regime instability are also reflected in the actions and philosophy of the communities themselves. While HAWC has undergone its share of changes since its conception in 2000, its ideals are still rooted in the regime instability of the late 1990s-2000s – anti-capitalism, self sufficiency, and greatly reduced dependence of fossil fuels. SGC, on the other hand, provides an example of how changing societal pressures can influence „radical‟ lifestyles. Several long-time residents voiced the opinion that the ethos of SGC has been shifting over the past ten years from its „Back to the Land‟ roots: When I first came… [SGC] was about hard work and food production… It's changed world-wide, people are more aware about the urgency of being sustainable. About ten years ago people started writing letters saying „I'd like to visit and learn how to become sustainable.‟ Suddenly that was the big buzz word (Sienna: SGC, 31 August 2009). This is indicative of the social turn to sustainability. Community actions are caught up in this turn, and many tensions within SGC arise from attempts to reconcile diverse definitions of sustainability, environmentalism, green technology, and community living. Some members are happy to remain relatively isolated as “a community united by its love of food,” while others feel the need to use their benefits of local food production, land, and community person-power to become an icon of sustainable living.
It is clear that sustainability action in the ISCs is governed by more than the standards and regulations of top-down actors. Environmental and economic factors affect regime stability which in turn restricts or promotes radical (re)action. Socially-embedded epistemologies of ethics and experts create epistemic cultures that inform how standards are produced. To reiterate, this does not imply a hierarchy between performative top-down governance and socially-embedded bottom-up governance. Although standards are based in a degree of social embeddedness, they may in turn affect the social fabric that has created them.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS
In this chapter I discussed how ontologies, epistemologies, and societal pressures structure and are structured by sustainability governance frameworks. These frameworks in turn affect the individual definitions of sustainability. Some of the definitions are easily illuminated while others are so embedded in daily life as to become invisible, only teased out by projects like participatory -47-
photography. The photograph subjects themselves then uncovered nature/society hybridity as an aspect of sustainability so embedded in community lifestyle that it was not accounted for in interviews. I identified two sustainable objects, wood and food, that are of particular interest because of their pervasive and plural influence at the study sites.
Easily-discernable definitions of sustainability have begun to take shape in several distinct patterns. Sustainability is not a comfortable topic because it is not singular or easily definable. Controversy can be tied up both in the technology (i.e. what is the most sustainable and how can it be implemented?) and the ontology (i.e. does sustainability actually exist?) Government documents, tend to maintain a similar normative ideal of sustainability but incorporate more positivistic objectives into definitional language at more local levels. These positivistic aspects are the focus of policy practitioners because they are more easily enforced, particularly if they require a shift in technology as opposed to ontology. I went on to discuss different interactions of these frames with society in terms of an „organization of understanding sustainability.‟ This described social pressures in terms of top-down performative framing and overflowing and bottom-up social embeddedness. The definitions and social influences make up the basic frame analysis of sustainability governance in ISCs. Analysis shows that sustainability cannot be framed simply by a mainstream/shallow/technological versus radical/deep/ontological dualism. This is even touched upon in Jake‟s (here expanded) quotation from the beginning of this chapter: I may say 'Fantastic cabbage, it hasn't come from Belgium!' Someone else might say, 'Fantastic cabbage, I'd be paying two quid for that in the shop!' It’s a matter of emphasis. Neither is mutually exclusive. The first also realizes it’s very cheap and the second also realizes it doesn’t come from Belgium. While the first part lays out a basic dual structure for the cabbage, the second part acknowledges the many complexities within that system. Sustainability does not have a bipolar frame; instead, each definition or approach is a single node within a complex and shape-shifting network of governing actors, actors influencing and being influenced through their ties with other nodes. The next chapter is a discussion of how these intersecting frames and relationships can create space and reframe topdown metrological regimes.
-48-
CHAPTER 4: THE SIMULTANEITY OF STORIES SO FAR CREATING SUSTAINABLE SPACES
I have already given several reasons I chose intentionally sustainable communities as study subjects for the governance of sustainability – they obscure dualisms (such as public and private, radical and regime), and they are centres of creation and experimentation. But this begs the question: how? In this chapter, I elaborate on the idea that the history and structure of ISCs not only allows them particular interactions with space but renders these spaces and interactions visible. ISCs create and are created by that tricky entity space, “tricky” because space, like sustainability, is overused to the point of banality without actually being understood. For this reason, I will begin with a discussion of what space is not before exploring several possibilities of what it is and how, in turn, sustainable spaces affect and are affected by ISCs. In her book For Space, Massey (2005) describes traditional views on space as an „expanse we travel across‟ or as „a slice of time.‟ These approaches “lead us to conceive of other places, peoples, cultures simply as phenomena „on‟ [the] surface,” of space (DB Massey, 2005, p.4). When time is contained by space, when the world is held still, “in this moment you can analyse its structure” (ibid p.36). Take, for example, the HAWC woodland (Figure 4.1). As an expanse to be traversed, as a slice of time, we can see how it is blanketed by humans and non-humans. Perhaps we can even discern the various frames around the woodland. In the slice of time of Figure 4.1, at 3:21pm, 5 September 2009, the woodland is a sustainable place with individuals, alienated by mainstream society, who have created or embraced alternative technology and alternative lifestyles. The frame is filled with trees, air, fields, houses, birds, humans, solar panels… but it is singular and dead, or at least lifeless. Where are the ecological cycles, the quick exhalations of the birds into the slow breaths of the plants? In this, how can we account for the multiplicities we have seen are inherent to concepts like sustainability? Where are the (hi)stories? How did the HAWC woodland to the left of the image become „sustainable‟ while the woodland to the right, in the context of this thesis, is just a woodland?
Massey suggests that to answer these questions requires a reconceptualization of space. First, she posits, space is the product of interrelations, the meeting up of histories, in what she calls “relational spaces” (Doreen Massey, 1994). Second, because relationships are multiple, space allows for the possibility of plurality – “multiplicity and space are co-constitutive” (DB Massey, 2005, p.9). Finally, -49-
space is dynamic. Because space is the changing amalgamation of multiple interrelations, it can be considered “the simultaneity of stories so far” (ibid, p.9). The way stories are brought together and combined is a political process, making space and its creation inherently political. ISCs‟ special relationship with sustainable spaces is based on the fact that their structure simultaneously embodies and creates sustainable relations and multiplicities, and these too have political implications which are made visible through intra-community and community-government interactions. This chapter is an exploration of the spaces of ISCs, the methods and implications of their creation. Specifically, I discuss ways in which ISCs create spaces for experimentation, knowledge production and sharing, and the expression of power. I then present a case study of HAWC‟s planning controversy in terms of the repercussions of created spaces and the ability of overflow/marginalized/alienated actors to reframe metrological regimes.
-50-
CRE ATING SP ACES
“Groups, classes or fractions of classes cannot constitute themselves, or recognize one another, as „subjects‟ unless they generate (or produce) a space” (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], p. 416). Going by Massey‟s propositions, the creation of space is less „producing something from nothing‟ and more the process of enrolling actors and relationships into an assemblage of the “stories so far” that are relevant to a particular frame, in this case sustainability. As is described by Lefebvre in the above quotation, an actor needs space and its stories the way a thesis needs references, the way an article needs peer review. Attempts to create space can come from reactionary or proactive sentiments – ISC members simultaneously create spaces out of need (due to marginalization) and out of a desire to incite change. Followers of the „deep sustainability‟ ontology advocate radical shifts in technological, economical, industrial, and political regimes. A common theme in this argument is the need to create viable alternative spaces that embody these ideals (for several classic examples see Schumacher (1973), Bookchin (1980), and Bahro (1986)). ISCs in themselves provide these alternative spaces. Furthermore, many ISCs have the desire to demonstrate the success of their alternative lifestyle, to show that alternatives to the regime are not only possible, they are superior. This sentiment is much more prevalent at HAWC than at SGC, but it does play into the creation of spaces at both communities. These spaces allow for experimentation and encourage knowledge creation and sharing both within the community and with distant actors. In this way, the creation of space offers freedom and empowerment to marginalized social groups or alienated individuals, both within and beyond the ISCs.
SPACES OF EXPERIMENTATION
I found two dominant types of relational spaces of experimentation at SGC and HAWC that correlate to radical/ontological versus technocentric approaches to sustainability and reframing. Spaces of ontological experimentation are those spaces created in an attempt to change the regime or as a result of certain mentalities toward nature and society. On a practical level, community structure facilitates collective sustainable actions (like car sharing, communal farming, or large alternative energy projects) that would be difficult on an individual level. This physical situation in turn allows ongoing discourse about sustainability. For example, Jake of SGC stated: "On a normal street if you see someone doing something unsustainable, you can just disengage and consider yourself on the moral high ground. In a community -51-
with people you know like family, you seek ways to gently discuss or change the behavior" (26 August 2009). The intensity of interpersonal relationships in these close-knit communities creates a space “wherein Self/Other relations are explored and tested… The fact that intentional communities are identifiable and discreet [sic] spaces with certain boundaries makes them safe in this way” (Sargisson, 2001, p. 76). These safe environments additionally allow for experimentation with very personal connections to nature and society. Members actively pursue and share diverse spiritual paths, a practice particularly clear at HAWC where members spoke openly of spirituality ranging from Norse Paganism to Native American traditions to atheism. My participation in several related activities provided insight to the community and its connection to the woodland, but it also allowed me to be introspective and emotive in my research, to address my own preconceptions of nature and humans‟ relation to it.
Both communities additionally produce spaces to experiment with alternative technologies. Smith (2007) suggests that radical change begins in networks operating at the margin of a regime (such as ISCs) because they “provide space for new ideas, artefacts, and practices to develop without being exposed to the full range of selection pressures that favour the regime” (p. 429). I saw evidence of this in several capacities, beginning with existence of numerous alternative technologies within the communities themselves. HAWC runs on solar, hydro, and wood power, and members of the community spend a good deal of time researching and implementing more efficient ways to provide energy and heat for individual and communal use. Because HAWC is explicitly „living otherwise,‟ the alternative technology is not exposed to the full range of regime pressures. For example, members are willing to do without electric kettles and dish washers and so the solar and hydro need only power select items (including laptops and stereos). At SGC, one of the biggest community discussion points was the construction of a district heating system run on locally-sourced wood chips. Intentional community structures facilitate technology of this sort because wood-chip boilers function most efficiently at a mid-range scale (i.e. not producing for an individual house or a city). Additionally, start-up costs tend to be prohibitively high for individuals, and while SGC is struggling to agree if or how it can finance the system, the project is more viable in the space provided by the community than in most situations. A full description and discussion of this project is included in Chapter 5.
In addition to the existing or pending technology in the communities, I witnessed an interesting discussion at the “Sustainable Communities „09” conference hosted by GovToday in London on 12 November 2009. Here, I first noticed that creating „sustainable communities‟ referred to a strict topdown model. Presentations were geared toward local government officials, providing them with technology, metrics, and incentives to induce sustainability. In all the presentations I attended, only once were bottom-up approaches mentioned. One speaker mentioned that his group had been able to -52-
transform straw-bale houses from “hippie projects” to viable mainstream solutions. In the subsequent questions, someone noted that alternative technology tends to begin with the “sandal-wearing tofu eaters” and asked the speaker if there was any use in having these hippie projects. The speaker responded that in his experience, once a technology had become mainstream, the more radical groups disowned it and moved on to something else. This introduces an interesting dynamic to the situation. Do marginalized groups create experimental spaces and technology because they want to provide an alternative to the regime or because they want to disassociate from the regime? Are members of intentional communities alienated or do they purposefully withdraw?12 While this may seem like a trivial distinction, it would play a significant role in the bottom-up transfer of technology from the niche radical groups to the mainstream. Space for experimentation is truncated if it is not allowed to circulate and flow beyond the initial created space. In this way, experimental sustainable spaces are tied to spaces of knowledge creation and sharing.
SPACES OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND SHARING
As is indicated above, knowledge is created and shared within an ISC and between the communities and external actors. SGC specializes in intra-community knowledge creation and sharing while HAWC focuses more on spreading knowledge to non-community members and the regime. SGC has an elaborate network of spaces to facilitate knowledge sharing. The most obvious are the chalk boards and notice boards in the milking kitchens. Members post rotas, important information, project proposals, advertisements, and requests for ride shares (to name a few) in these spaces (Figure 4.2). At almost any time during the day, community members can be found posting or reading messages in this area. This contributes to the milking kitchen itself becoming a space of sharing. Numerous community members mentioned that email and other online forums (such as the Wiki) are adding to the communication opportunities of SGC, but the notice-board system does not appear to be threatened. One commonly-cited explanation is that electronic media do not bring people together for spontaneous, group discussion as easily as non-virtual space (like the milking kitchen) can (ContrerasCastillo, Favela, Pérez-Fragoso, & Santamaría-del-Angel, 2004; Pardanjac, Radosav, & Jokic, 2009; Peters, 2000).
12
Shenker (1986) advocates the alienation theory while others promote the dissociation theory. Meijering et al (2007) describe intentional communities as “spaces of withdrawal and resistance” (p. 44) I assume there are elements of both theories at play, but a complete answer to the question is beyond the scope of this project.
-53-
While much knowledge exchange happens within the SGC „borders,‟ as will be discussed HAWC depends on its ability to create and share knowledge and so has focused on development of spaces that enable transmission of knowledge outside the community. The communal longhouse includes a designated classroom space, and the community has discussed converting one of the benders into a space that a family could occupy during a long (several months), holistic course on sustainable lifestyles (Figure 4.3). HAWC combines spaces of experimentation and knowledge formation through -54-
use of alternative agriculture and forest management techniques. These techniques are largely based on permaculture ideals, which (as discussed in Chapter 3) use principles of ecology to establish permanent but dynamic, healthily-interactive cultures of both humans and non-humans. Although HAWC has many spaces of external knowledge creation and sharing, it lacks formal space and methodology for intra-community knowledge sharing and decision making. In part this is due to the smaller scale of HAWC in comparison to SGC. Particularly during WWOOF weeks when meals are cooked communally in the longhouse, generally all HAWC members will see every other member at some point during the day, facilitating informal discussion. At SGC where members may not all come together naturally on a daily baisis, all changes are put to a formal consensus decision, and anything done outside this structure tends to be reprimanded. At HAWC, major changes, such as the decision to use chain saws in processing lumber, are similarly made via a formal consensus procedure. However, smaller changes appear to be based on a general understanding of community goals and a level of trust in the other members. While this allows the community more flexibility and more rapid change, it can also cause problems. For example, one family had a desperate need for a tool that the community had banned on principle and because it was frowned upon by the planning commission. Without the centralized, formal decision-making process, the family almost borrowed this tool, knowing it would greatly benefit them and would be on-site for only several hours. Even this small infringement, if discovered, could have had detrimental effects for the community. Fortunately, word spread around the community and each member individually approached the family to dissuade them from using the tool and to offer encouragement on the project and possible alternatives. In a larger community, this informal decision making would likely have failed, to the harm of the community as a whole.
-55-
LIBERATED SPACES, SP ACES OF POWER
Rudolf Bahro was one of the first to critically pair the concept of intentional communities with (radical) sustainable development, although he did not use these specific terms. In Building the Green Movement (1986) he promotes the idea of “liberated zones” as both a solution to the unsustainable regime and a societal buffer for its inevitable collapse. These liberated zones are spiritually-inspired combinations of the “red and green” ideals of socialism and ecology. ISCs maintain the essence of these liberated zones, if not explicitly in a socialist or religious approach. ISCs provide alternatives to the regime, depend on sharing labor and knowledge, and are spiritually inspired in the sense that they grow from emotional alienation, facilitate connections with the non-human world through hybrid nature/society ontology, and strive for what Eckersley (writing on Bahro) calls “the Christ tradition (as distinct from the Church and Christianity) of responsibility towards the world” (Eckersley, 1987, p. 122)13. From this vision of liberated zones, I would like to build on the idea ISCs are expressions of power and thus sites of power struggles.
Individuals who have been alienated from a society or social groups marginalized by metrological regimes cannot have any direct power in the institutions from which they have been excluded. In 13
This is used as an example from the literature and is not to indicate that either community has religious intention, or is of the Christian persuasion. Neither am I suggesting that Christianity is the only religion promoting “a responsibility towards the world.”
-56-
allowing individuals to find their identities (become un-alienated), spaces for alternative lifestyles empower the societal overflow. Meijering et al (2007) suggest that the ability of ISC members to exclude others from the community is a form of “the spatial expression of power” (Storey, 2001, in Meijering et al 2007). However, I would further suggest that the expression of power is in defining the spatial boundaries and characteristics of an ISC. Empowerment is less from the ability to exclude individuals from the home and more the ability to be a recognized entity distinct from the regime. However, claims of territory can be accompanied by intense disputes in which the “extent of particular territories (and even their right to exist) is often contested” (Storey, 2001, p. 6). Meijering et al argue that for rural intentional communities, this is most often the case when interacting groups form different rural ontologies. They use Woods‟s (2003) delineation of three types of English ruralities: reactive (the „traditional‟ rural population), aspirational (in-migrants advocating a particular rural idyll), and progressive (based on action in opposition to the regime, associated with minimalism and living lightly). These ontological approaches (or hybrids of them) form the base of several disputes I observed at the communities. At SGC, a number of members expressed that their neighbors viewed the community with a degree of distaste and distrust. One member said, “We‟re frowned on locally… called treehuggers. We‟re taken with a grain of salt because we‟re different, because we‟re a community” (Oliver: SGC, 28 August 2009). Despite the fact that SGC remains relatively close to the regime – “one step below the property-owning democracy” according to Jake (SGC, 26 August 2006) – the community encounters resistance from the „traditional‟ rural population because it pursues alternative lifestyles of sharing, community, and organic farming.
At HAWC, the controversy is more direct and most visible in interactions between HAWC and the DNPA. A more subtle aspect is tied up in the relations between HAWC and its immediate neighbors. I traced these relationships primarily using letters written to DNPA during various legal actions involving HAWC. For example, during HAWC‟s 2001 appeal (see Box 4.1 on page 60), approximately 100 letters were written in support of HAWC and approximately 60 were written 9against them. About 25% of the latter were based on a form letter developed by DNPA warning of the dangers of allowing illegal residence and warning against harm to the national park and the woodland. Before HAWC had time to establish itself – to create space – it was seen as a threat to both society and its rural idyll (Figure 4.4). HAWC members were outsiders, and many associated them with travelers or gypsies. There were concerns that they would harm the landscape and feed off local resources without giving back to the surrounding community.
During the 2007 appeal, approximately 160 letters were written in support of HAWC and only about 10 against. Most of the letters in support of HAWC use terms like “in harmony with nature,” “decreased carbon footprint,” “sustainable experiment,” “permaculture,” and “living lightly.” These -57-
letters indicate that by 2007 HAWC had been able to frame itself as a viable community with a progressive rural ontology. The letters opposing HAWC come almost exclusively from the community‟s immediate neighbors (henceforth referred to as „the cottagers‟). The cottagers are not agriculturalists in the traditional sense, but they obviously appreciate aspects of the rural lifestyle. Their case against HAWC focuses on several arguments: 1) the community has not yet lived up to its standards of self-sufficiency (they import food and have jobs outside the community); 2) their cars, occasional noise, and visual impact can be a nuisance; and 3) their illegal settlement is not fair to lawabiding citizens. The cottagers could largely be described as “aspirational ruralists,” and while most show sympathy with HAWC‟s goals, its immediate presence is at odds with the cottagers‟ rural idyll. The cottagers are not disputing exclusion from a territory (in fact, they have more access to the woodland now than if it was still under commercial ownership). Their differing rural ontology opposes the way HAWC creates space, the relations involved, and the actors enrolled, rather than the fact that the space itself has been created. These dynamics can lead to further marginalization of community members, or it can result in a reframing of the situation and a degree of integration. The next section is an example of the latter.
-58-
-59-
REFRAMING A SUSTAINABLE WOODLAND: HAWC C ASE STUDY
“Planning… has reflected, as well as shaped, both dominant conceptions of what places are and should be like, and the organization of sub-national governance” (Healey, 1999, p. 111).
As mentioned previously, HAWC has been involved in ongoing legal and planning disputes with the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA). Just as the above quotation indicates, these planning actions have been framed by particular rural idylls (what places should be like). Planning, as well as actors‟ reactions to and reframing of its policies, in turn has had an impact on the way sustainable spaces are governed at HAWC. I begin this discussion with a brief history of this planning action (Box 4.1). In the late 1990s, a number of individuals – alienated by what they viewed as an unsustainable, consumerist society – decided to create an intentionally sustainable community. Most of them had been involved in direct-action protest but had become disenchanted with this scene‟s inability to actually create an alternative to the mainstream (Rose, HAWC: personal communication, 6 Nov 2009). In this sense, the group would concur with Lefebvre‟s assertion of the importance of trial by space. Arguably, protest sites do not create lasting spaces of viable alternatives to the regime and so are not considered significant „subjects‟ (to use Lefebvre‟s term) by other actors. However, “one live, working experiment, however impractical if it were applied universally, will transmit an idea far better than a shelf full of theoretical reports” (Vale & Vale, 1975, p. 18).
Box 4.1: HAWC Planning History This history is a combination of information from the 2009 Planning Appeal Decision ([HAWC]V.DNPA, 2002), DNPA Legal Council Christopher Walledge (personal communication, 18 Mar 2010), and the HAWC Planning Pages, (available online at http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/planning.ghtml, accessed 17 April 2010). The founding members of HAWC began a search for land on which to create an alternative community in the late 1990s. However, all land zoned for residence was too expensive for the group, so they bought 32 acres of woodland previously used for commercial plantation and harvest. Despite their lack of residential planning permission, the group moved into the woodland in early 2000, citing their basic human right of requiring shelter (WoodlandCommunity, 2009). Before the end of the year, the DNPA had issued them a notice to cease residence. HAWC appealed this notice and submitted a retrospective application for residential and woodland management use in November, 2000. DNPA denied this appeal and application in 2001, but the decision was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate in 2002 at which point the community was granted a five-year temporary planning permission. The DNPA appealed this decision to the High Courts in 2003, but the appeal was denied. In this case, the judge stated that the government should enact sustainability as promoted by Agenda 21, and that denying planning permission to HAWC was “losing sight of the policies behind the policies… not [seeing] the wood for the trees”(WoodlandCommunity, 2009). -60-
In 2007, HAWC requested a renewal of their planning permission, which was again denied by DNPA. HAWC appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who granted another five-year residential permission to the community. During a visit, the community members indicated that they hoped to eventually apply for permanent planning permission, possibly when current permission ends in 2012.
Because it follows HAWC‟s initial reframing of UK policy, I will focus on the first appeal, granted in 2002, that allowed HAWC five years temporary planning permission. Through this controversy, it is clear that the sustainable spaces created by the community were integral to the success of the appeal. Additionally, the arguments laid out by the Planning Inspectorate in the Appeal Decision document indicate that the situation at HAWC is grounds for a degree of reframing of the local-level standards for sustainability and woodland management.
The Appeal Decision document (2002) provides an excellent overview of HAWC and DNPA arguments, the official documents applying to each, and the Planning Inspectorate‟s (henceforth “the Inspector”) reactions to the controversy. The key points are that HAWC believes it provides an example of sustainable living but that to maintain both the ethos and practicability of the project, members must remain living onsite. Moreover, it is within HAWC members‟ basic human rights to continue living in the woodland. DNPA, however, believes that onsite residence is not necessary, that new buildings on Greenfield sites are inherently unsustainable without proper testing and zoning, and that the presence of the community detracts from the character and appearance of the national park (Dialogue 4.1). In short, the Inspector‟s decision concludes that while HAWC does not negatively impact the appearance of the park, “the number and nature of dwellings and individuals involved in the… development seriously harms the character of this woodland within the National Park” and thus there would need to be extenuating circumstances for HAWC development to be permitted ([HAWC]V.DNPA, 2002, p. 9, emphasis added). However, the Inspector goes on to say that indeed there are extenuating circumstances because 1) HAWC does not fall within traditional guidelines for rural development and forest management, 2) HAWC provides a space for experimental sustainable living (which is encouraged by National Government documents), and 3) because forcing members to move would infringe on their human rights of respecting private family life and home.
-61-
The sustainable spaces created by the community weigh heavily in this decision in accordance with the „trial by space‟ theory. In summary, the spaces of power, experimentation, and knowledge formation described above create alternative spaces of development and woodland management. The Inspector believes that the 2001 planning application and appeal were denied at the local level because HAWC had not yet created a viable alternative space: “As regards the previous appeal, the Inspector… found there was no overriding need for any residential element to support… the proposed uses in the wood. However, his conclusions… rest on an assessment of work undertaken by the group during their first year and seen by [DNPA] in May 2001, when they considered that in total it would have taken a woodsman less than an hour. The site visit in the present case showed that considerably more work has been carried out… Accordingly it is concluded that these factors have altered the circumstances of this case so that the balance is now in favour of permission” ([HAWC]V.DNPA, 2002, p. 13).
Specific spaces of experimentation and knowledge formation have an additional impact. For example, the Inspector agrees that HAWC provides experimental space for sustainable living principles central to Government policy that must be “tried and tested in a practical way” ([HAWC]V.DNPA, 2002, p. 11). Expanding from this, the educational nature of the project is imperative to this experimental aspect, and the Inspector was convinced of this component via the created spaces of knowledge formation such as the classroom and visitors‟ bender (student living quarters). -62-
Too often, analysis stops at the creation of alternative spaces and does not take into account the “longer term political change consequent upon [these] planning conflicts” (Cowell & Owens, 2006, p. 403). Put another way, too often analysis includes only the effects of framing metrics and excludes subsequent attempts at reframing them. However, according to Smith (2007), major shifts in regime practices often begin with experimental projects at the margins of society. This type of experimental reframing is seen in both the woodland management and rural development constituents of the HAWC planning controversy. First, DNPA and HAWC have different epistemological approaches to woodland management. The Park Authority frames management in terms of traditional techniques such as large-scale clearing and replanting while HAWC frames it in terms of permaculture and continuous-cover forestry ([HAWC], 2009). These approaches are rooted in the differing ontologies of each actor. For DNPA, „rural‟ and „nature‟ are created entities that must be sculpted to fit a sociallyembedded aesthetic of the countryside. As discussed previously, HAWC takes the approach of a hybrid nature/society, and thus management can be undertaken through a co-production strategy like CCF. Judged under DNPA‟s metrics, HAWC would not be adequately managing the woodland; however, the Inspector notes: “Though the [residential] development may not be strictly necessary for the proper management of the woodland estate in a conventional sense, that conclusion has to be tempered by the considerations that the nature of such management is not absolute, but relates to the philosophy and principles involved. In this case [HAWC‟s development and management approaches] are recognized to be novel yet accord with the Government‟s own commitment to… sustainability” ([HAWC]V.DNPA, 2002, p. 12) The Inspector backs up this claim by recalling that although the previous owners of the woodland managed it in a more traditional (and legal) manner, the results were poor and the site inaccessible to the public. Thus, HAWC was able to reframe the metrics of successful forest management for its individual situation. HAWC also reframed the metrics of applicable policies concerning rural development. DNPA‟s primary metrological standards are the functional and financial tests from Planning Policy Guidance 7. Under these tests, DNPA structures are not functionally appropriate (i.e. they constitute new development on a Greenfield) and the project is not fiscally possible based on the relative income generated for the number of residents. However, the Inspector states that these tests are not relevant to this unique situation. First, the functional test is not applicable because HAWC‟s development is lowimpact, based on subsistence agriculture, and (most importantly) built to be temporary. Similarly, the financial viability test is not applicable because it is based on metrics calculated using minimum agricultural wage. Subsistence agriculture (and the HAWC lifestyle) requires a significantly lower -63-
income per person, but a relatively higher number of people to carry out a project. Thus, “…in the particular circumstances of this case there is sufficient financial rationale… to ensure that the underlying purposes of housing policies in the countryside would not be undermined were permission to be granted” ([HAWC]V.DNPA, 2002, p. 11). This indicates that HAWC was able to reframe the specific metrics of the policy statement without affecting the normative values of sustainability.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter I presented two related ways of thinking about the creation of space. On one hand, I investigated the interconnected, performatively changing relations and identities of spaces. These trends have a particularly strong application, or are particularly visible, in ISCs because intentional communities form as an explicit attempt to create identity through space. I also use a case study from HAWC‟s planning controversy to map some of the ways in which marginalized groups can reframe metrological regimes. In this example, the creation of space, or a trial by space, is necessary for the successful reframing of the regime, and reframing allows the creation of further sustainable spaces. Through these discussions, it is clear that space is not that stuff empty of life, action, and agency; rather, space permits liveliness. Because space brings together multiple stories (i.e. those of HAWC, the cottagers, and the DNPA), it permits the plurality of concepts like sustainability. Equally, sustainability creates relational spaces. Through this performative action, non-traditional governing actors such as individuals, ISCs, and non-humans can take part in the governance of sustainability.
I turn to my introductory example for closure. Over time, the relational space of the Hundred Acre Woodland has changed dramatically. Recent change is largely to do with types of relational spaces created by HAWC members that promote knowledge creation, sharing, and experimentation. The exact same structures, people, and technology could elicit a different set of relations with their surroundings. If the community, cottagers, DNPA, and other local government officials remain mindful of this fact, I believe they will best progress their commonly-stated (if differently-framed) ambition of sustainability. However, this scenario lacks one final tool for investigating the governance of sustainability – time and flow. Spaces change over time. Space is not a slice of time, but neither can space function without it. Without time, „things-made-agents‟ through trial by space remain static. This is the topic of Chapter 5 which investigates of the dynamism and flows of sustainability governance.
-64-
CHAPTER 5: TRANSLATING THE RADICAL FLOWS AND CIRCULATION OF SUSTAINABILITY
Changes in spatial flows reshape the character of places and the lives of people who live there, and they reshape how place and space are defined, as spatial structures produced under one set of conditions are displaced by others. How does sustainable development embrace this fluid kind of reality? –Thomas Wilbanks (1994)
The above question, as posed to geographers in 1994, remains relevant to modern geographical perspectives on sustainability and is central to my discussion of the governance of sustainability. I have already described the multiplicity of sustainability, its diverse ontological and epistemological approaches, in terms of causes and results of framing. However, as is suggested in the conclusion of Chapter 4, one final analytical dimension remains: time. Just as networks are constantly shifting due to changing relations between actors, so too is space inherently dynamic. Even a three-dimensional form (actors, framing, and space) cannot capture the movement and flow intrinsic to networks and relational space. Thrift (1996) quotes Marx as saying, “One must force the frozen circumstances to dance by singing to them their own melody,” and continues with his own assertion that, “The frozen circumstances of space only come alive when the melody of time is played” (p. 1). Thus, time and space are inseparable (Doreen Massey, 1994) and time-space is an essential unit of geography (Thrift, 1996). Time makes visible issues of change and methods of flow within and among relational spaces. Before geographers can question if or how sustainable development “embraces” a fluid reality, they must first interrogate the nature of the flows and circulation of sustainability itself.
Time illuminates the changing landscapes and relations in ISCs. A Georgian manor house falls to ruin and is rebuilt as a communal smallholding farm. The community members‟ relationship with the land shifts from production to low-carbon and sustainability. In Devon, land surrounding a stone farmhouse is planted with exotic conifers, the farmhouse crumbles, the woodland managed for harvest. A community arrives and builds low-impact dwellings, shifting woodland management from purely harvest to permaculture, and the forest structure begins to change. As the community shapes the woodland and frames it as sustainable, the woodland shapes the identities of community members. These are the big pictures – look closer and what look like lines connecting the actors through time -65-
and space become flows of people, objects, money, power, ideas, beliefs, and knowledge. In this chapter, I attempt to follow some of these flows of humans and non-humans as they relate to sustainability in an attempt to better understand the connections and changes of sustainability actors and spaces.
CYBORG CIRCULATIONS : TRANSLATING SUSTAINABILITY
MORE THAN HUMAN ASSEMBLAGES Spaces of knowledge creation and sharing exist in both SGC and HAWC, but they mean very little if the knowledge itself cannot circulate. Thus, a “pool of skilled workers” and “the localized mobility of people… [are] equally relevant” (Breschi & Malerba, 2001, p. 821). Skilled workers act as carriers of knowledge that, in their physical and virtual14 mobility, can circulate sustainability. However, this quotation fails to recognize that people (humans) are not the only skilled workers in modern society. “Contemporary science fiction is full of cyborgs - creatures simultaneously animal and machine, who populate worlds ambiguously natural and crafted” (Haraway, 1991, p.149). Haraway goes on to explain that cyborg science fiction is in fact modern social reality: we are all cyborgs, or human/nonhuman assemblages. Only at the simplest level can we consider purely human translation of knowledge. For example, in Chapters 3 and 4 I describe the walled garden at SGC as a space of nonexpert knowledge exchange: Dialogue 3.3 describes moments of human-human knowledge translation. Hannah says, “Hayden always grows the best carrots. I had to ask him how to do it this year.” The trick, it turns out, is running the soil through a sieve – even this simple human-human knowledge exchange becomes a human/non-human assemblage of Hannah, Hayden, soil, and sieve.
These assemblages additionally help translate knowledge between institutions, i.e. among communities or between radical socio-technological systems and mainstream socio-technological regimes. Community members themselves can facilitate this circulation. Knowledge is exchanged between communities through direct contact (although this is limited, as will be discussed in the final chapter). Also, if translated properly, community actions can reframe socio-technological and metrological regimes, as was seen in Chapter 4 via HAWC‟s planning controversy. WWOOF volunteers also play a unique role in these inter-institutional translations. On numerous occasions
14
There is ongoing debate about the efficiency of humans connected via information highways as opposed to physical proximity (see Krugman, 1991 and Breschi and Malerba, 2001). Both physical and psychological distance play a role in sustainability circulation, but a full discussion of the debate is beyond the scope of this paper.
-66-
interviewees mentioned the importance of WWOOF volunteers for both bringing in and exporting ideas on sustainable lifestyles. Whereas most community members have limited time for travel and education opportunities (due to community or employment obligations), WWOOF volunteers deliver knowledge, ideas, and activities of other sustainability actors. This creates an interesting research dynamic wherein a „pool of skilled workers‟ (community members) encourages spaces of knowledge creation that are shared and spread via the „mobile individuals‟ (WWOOFers). WWOOF volunteers additionally act as knowledge vectors between the „radical‟ communities and the mainstream „regime.‟ Recall the exchange at the “Sustainable Communities” conference in London presented in Chapter 4. ISCs may choose to act as transformative catalysts for the regime, or they may withdraw and thus have no wide-spread effect. Similarly, policy-makers (or other regime actors) may be unwilling to learn from ISCs simply because they are radical. Traditional views of and interactions between radical and mainstream actors can limit flows of information and knowledge.
WWOOFers can act as intermediaries, as the human component of translations between radial and regime lifestyles and technology. Smith (2007) notes that “face-to-face engagement [facilitates] translation across a much broader set of socio-technical dimensions compared to the narrowly codified techno-economic considerations of… reports” (p. 440). WWOOFers specifically seek this face-to-face dynamic. The WWOOF experience allows individuals with diverse backgrounds direct engagement with sustainable lifestyles. Most WWOOFers do not remain in radical communities but instead return to mainstream life. They do not choose to remain isolated, to withdraw from the sociotechnological regime. Any knowledge they choose to circulate, any projects they choose to implement, must first be translated into something palatable for the regime. Maycock (2008), for example, describes how WWOOF programs allow individuals to learn about alternative agriculture and return to mainstream society with better focus on how to reconnect with food networks.
TRANSLATION AND TRANSCRIPTION
In the previous section I introduced flows of „more than human‟ assemblages, but I only discuss examples in which humans guide non-humans (i.e. shaking sieves or stoking forges to smelt iron). How then is knowledge circulated to distant actors? The previous chapters have shown that for most ISC members, sustainability is not tied up in international proclamations. Many of the underlying, normative concepts of sustainability are pervasive across ontological approaches, but few interviewees at the ISCs identify sustainability with international documents that supposedly define the term. Furthermore, although sustainability is rarely enforced (or even agreed upon), individuals often expend energy and resources striving for it. Human actors make an effort to learn about sustainability and enroll as vectors in more-than-human assemblages, even at their own expense (i.e.
-67-
paying for classes, travel, or more expensive green technology). The reasoning behind these actions is complex and variable among individuals, but in part, these situations relate to Latour‟s “missing masses” of ethics in human behavior. “Soft humans and weak morals” should lead to an unethical, unlawful, and unsustainable society, but instead society is largely governed and governable, even if punishment tends not to be inflicted upon unsustainable individuals (Latour, 1992, p. 227). If sustainability is not enforced, if it does not circulate among individuals via the Brundtland Report or Agenda 21, where does it come from and how does it get around? I use two primary analytical tools to address the missing masses of sustainability governance: Callon‟s sociological approach to translation (1980, 1986), and Latour (1992) and Akrich‟s (1992) concept of scripts and transcription. Michel Callon‟s sociology of translation concerns the process of giving voice equally to humans, technology, plants, or animals with no a priori distinction between what is natural or social. Humans, non-humans, nature, and society must all be explained in the same terms. A study of translation therefore examines the methods of equalization, the many ways actors come to speak for one another. Callon notes four “moments of translation” (problematization, interessement, enrollment, and mobilization) which will be further explored in the following section when I assess translations between humans and sustainable technology of an ISC project. Much technology functions primarily as a replacement for a human actor or action. Using Latour‟s (1992) example, a self-fastening seatbelt speaks for law makers and enforcers, for every person advocating seatbelt use. An engineer has translated “safe, ethical driving” into the seatbelt mechanism. By forcing the driver to wear a seatbelt, the seatbelt itself then translates “safe, ethical driving” to the individual. Societal goals or “visions” of the world act as scripts that can “„prescribe‟ specific forms of action, much like the script of a theatre play” (Akrich, 1992; Verbeek, 2005, p. 125). One actor taking on the voice or action of another, such as a light-bulb acting in lieu of a human, is a form of translation between humans and non-humans that requires acts of transcription and de-scription: "We call the translation of any script from one repertoire to a more durable one transcription, inscription, or encoding,” and de-scription is the opposite movement of translating the vision back to the user (Latour, 1992, p. 256). For example, an energy-efficient light-bulb is transcribed with energy-saving properties (translation of human vision to non-human object) and the energy-saving properties allow the human to reduce energy-use and become more sustainable. Ideally, this translation manifests itself as further changes in behaviour, as indicated by Christopher Walledge of DNPA: “The little things are not going to solve the problem [of unsustainability]. There needs to be a change in attitude... But if we get enough people to do the little things, the attitudes will shift" (personal communication, 18 March 2010).
-68-
Another benefit of transcription is the enabling of circulation of ideas, visions, and values. In the game of telephone, the message “Can I have a mint, please?” when translated through twenty people can emerge at the end as “Your mother smells of cheese.” However, if the message is written down – transcribed – and passed along twenty people, it will likely reach the end in the same condition and twenty people will know you have asked for a mint, not insulted their mother. This is the derivation of the previously-mentioned “immutable mobile.” If a vision of sustainability can be built into an object, if the societal vision can be translated to it, that object can carry the vision to distant others.
Transcription has been described in many forms (i.e. idea to text, text to object, or idea to object), but each form acts to solidify a vision with the same effect as “the signing of a law – it makes a system or situation firmer, it makes it more difficult to return to the former state” (Latour, 1996, p. 45). At HAWC, this simile holds particular relevance. Recall from Chapter 4 the ways HAWC was able to reframe the planning regulations. Some of their evidence was based on legal precedence at other sites with unusual planning permission issues. Then, the HAWC controversy was translated into text when the Inspector wrote his report. The situation, definition, and framing of sustainability was translated from a complex tangle of planning controversies to a decision allowing a sustainable, educational, temporary development to bypass traditional planning regulations. The text of the decision, inscribed with and implying a complex situation, can be transported and applied as legal precedence in other similar controversies. In this way, a transcribed text can act as an immutable mobile among communities or other actors seeking alternative planning options.
Transcription is not exclusively the changing of a text or object to inscribe a vision. I would argue transcription is simply the act of imbuing a thing with an idea. This can be seen in the examples of wood or food-as-sustainability. In Chapter 3 I demonstrated how wood and food both embody and are instilled with the ethos of ISCs, including nature/society hybrid ontology and specific framings of sustainability. The fact that many variations of wood in particular represent sustainability at both ISCs reveals the ability of wood-as-sustainability to circulate and act as a sustainability vector. Thus, wood also provides insight into the missing masses and geography of sustainability. However, it does not act as a traditional “immutable mobile” because wood-as-sustainability is not a rigid object. Because it is multiple, changeable, and changing, it reflects the hybridity and multiplicity of intentionally sustainable communities and sustainability itself. In this sense, wood-as-sustainability may be more similar to a “mutable mobile,” described as “a set of relations that gradually shifts and adapts itself rather than one that holds itself rigid (John Law & Singleton, 2005, p.339). The mutable mobile presented by Law and Mol (2001)15, the African Bush Pump, changes form depending on the needs and resources of the surrounding community and so is able to stabilize the system of „producing clean 15
A more complete study is given to the African Bush Pump in De Laet and Mol (2000), but in this earlier work it is referred to only as a “fluid object” as opposed to a “mutable mobile.”
-69-
water for African communities.‟ Similarly, as wood-as-sustainability circulates in its many forms within and between ISCs, it helps to stabilize the diverse, multiple, and shifting organism that is sustainability.
THE SUSTAINABLE HE AT ING PROJECT: CIRCULATING REFERENCE AND OBJECT ETHNOGRAPHY
We haven't really sat down and thrashed through [a definition of sustainability], although it has come out in the sustainable heating sub-group. I think that's probably how it would come out here, through projects. – Tom, SGC Translation of societal visions like ethics or sustainability unfortunately is rarely perfect – not every line from the script makes it from one actor to another because scripts must be framed and constrained. The whole of human morality cannot go into a self-fastening seatbelt mechanism and the whole of sustainability cannot be packaged in a light-bulb. Again we are faced with framing and overflow, a discussion of what is sustained and what is left out in the shift to a more-solid body. If indeed non-humans make up the missing masses of human ethics (and consequently sustainability), the process of tracking the micro-circulations of technology and society allows a more comprehensive schema of society as a whole to emerge. Latour goes so far as to say, “No observer of human collectives, for at least the past two million years, has ever been faced with a pure social relationship” (Latour, 1993a, p. 380).
Ethnography of a people, place, space, or institution must therefore include ethnography of technology. I have begun this process in the analysis of participatory photography and the discussion of the role of non-humans in ISCs. However, the non-humans identified in the photography capture a simplistic version of technological ethnography (Figure 5.1). Many represent only the social and human aspects of non-humans (i.e. nature/society hybrid). Others show relatively simple technologies with relatively simple networks. As demonstrated by Figure 6.1, networks appear to increase in complexity as the complexity of the technology increases. While social and simple objects have merits in analyzing sustainability governance (as was demonstrated by the discussion of wood-assustainability), they bypass the complex interactions involved in high-tech sustainability solutions. In this I am not advocating high-tech sustainability as the or even a good solution for sustainability governance. Rather, I am acknowledging the utility of ethnography of high-technology because the complexity of involved human and non-human actors provides invaluable insights into the relations of sustainability governance. This final section of Chapter 6 presents a brief ethnography of SGC‟s “Sustainable Heating Project” (SHP).
-70-
-71-
I chose the SHP as a study subject because it is an ongoing high-tech project at SGC. Each of these components played a role in its selection. The fact that it is ongoing means that it is at the forefront of SGC members‟ discussion of sustainability. Most members brought it up unbidden during interviews, and when prompted each had an (often very strong) opinion on the subject. Although the concept of the SHP is simple (a wood-fired boiler), the district layout and wide array of different boiler styles makes the SHP a high-tech system. In its completed form, it is “an association of humans and nonhumans, an institution, parts of which are delegated to pieces of machinery… parts of which are delegated to collective persons… and parts of which are delegated to humans” (Latour, 1993a, p. 382). As such, there are multiple points of analysis, each with a story to tell about sustainability. Finally, SHP is a project, a “quasi-object” that is more than an idea but not yet a functioning object (or institution). A functioning object (a self-fastening seatbelt or energy-efficient light-bulb) can begin to act and shape society. A project is fiction with many possible realities and outcomes. It may become an object/institution, but just as humans must undergo trial by space, so too must objects: “Ideas, representations or values which do not succeed in making their mark on space… will lose all pith and become mere signs, resolve themselves into abstract descriptions, or mutate into fantasies” (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], p. 417).The controversy within project multiplicity provides the discourse for bigger societal issues such as sustainability. Consequently, as I previously discussed objects and their performative interactions with society, I will now discuss a project to help trace the flow of sustainability discourse using the above-outlined concepts of translation, scripts, and transcription.
CIRCULATING THE IDEA: PROBLEMATIZATION AND INTERESSEMENT
The sustainable heating project at SGC began circulating in the community approximately two and a half years ago as informal discussion among several community members who were particularly concerned with greening the community or who were in need of new heating systems. To use the terms of Callon (1986), this marked a period of problematization and interessement. Problematization is the process of defining a problem and identifying actors and obligatory passage points (OPP), or points that force actors together and render each indispensible. Interessement is the process of establishing a plan that guides actors‟ interactions with one another. As one SGC member put it, many project ideas are “bandied about” (problematization) but they need some kind of “tipping point” (interessement) to become official proposals (Sienna: SGC, 31 Aug 2009).
For the SHP, this tipping point was three-fold. First, there was a growing concern that general attempts to “green SGC” were ineffective because they always ended in a lowest common denominator compromise. Therefore a specific project needed to be devised (Box 5.1). Second, a
-72-
sustainable heating system conformed to societal/community pressures. Most members expressed concerns over climate change, residential heating makes up a large portion of individuals‟ carbon footprints, and several members had old heating systems that needed to be replaced. Additionally, wood is an attractive fuel source (as discussed previously) because it embodies multiple aspects of sustainability such as localness, self-sufficiency, and reproducibility. Therefore, a focused “greening” project would logically include a sustainable heat option. Finally, several members decided to host an introductory session to discuss how people felt about getting a sustainable heating system for the Stable Block (one section of personal flats). The power-point presentation at this meeting marks the first translation from the idea to a more solid form (Figure 5.2). At this point, the concept of “greening SGC” began to officially take shape as a sustainable heating system. Box 5.1: Defining the Problem (interview with Kyle: SGC, 31 Aug 2009) “There‟s been a long-running discussion at SGC about energy… Over the first four years of my being here, there were attempts to get come kind of „greening of SGC‟ going, but those attempts were always thwarted… by people saying, “Well, is this the best thing to do?” You develop some people who are interested in putting up solar panels or solar hot water… So you do a load of work on solar hot water… but then you get someone coming in who says, “Well, I don‟t think I‟d support that because you haven‟t looked into geothermal power.” So you think, alright, now we have to look into ground-source heat pumps. I‟m in favor of either, I‟m in favor of both, but it would always come back to the lowest common denominator like drawing your curtains at night. Because we could never decide on the best way forward, we ended up doing nothing. We had to give up on these general ideas of greening SGC and focus on one way forward” (emphasis added). Based on the wide support voiced at the meeting, Kyle decided to put forward an official proposal for a combined heat and power generator (CHP), rather than the gasifier from the presentation, that could provide for the whole community (not just the stable block) via a district heating system. Although this builds community and allows all units to reduce carbon output, it also greatly increases price because the most expensive infrastructure is the highly-insulated pipes that would carry heated water from the boiler to the units (Figure 5.3). The production of the official proposal marks the second translation of the SHP, and a noteworthy one for the community. At SGC, ideas cannot move directly from concept to object – they must first become “quasi-objects” (Latour, 1993a, p. 380), arguments transcribed to paper that can circulate to members for perusal. These proposals bring together the actors – they must give a coherent argument for a single project and the community must decide by consensus to pursue said project. Thus, the official proposals act as obligatory passage points. The presentation and the proposal additionally act as moments of interressement. They demonstrate how an SHP is beneficial to many actors: it reduces carbon emissions, it can save money on energy, it can provide an example for other communities, and it can increase the self-sufficiency of SGC by using a local fuel source. -73-
-74-
GENERATING AND CIRCULATING KNOWLEDGE: ENROLLMENT
Even if a proposal is agreed upon, it does not ensure all actors will ultimately agree to implementation of the technology because different actors may have different opinions on what is “technologically or financially viable.” Enrollment is about “transforming a question into a series of statements which are more certain” (Callon, 1986, p. 211): it must be determined that the SHP is in fact financially and technologically viable. Thus, the SHP sub-committee set about generating and circulating knowledge about alternative heating systems. Research followed the six paths. First, in the spirit of “finding the perfect solution,” non-CHP alternatives were again addressed. This resulted in a change of project form. According to the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales, a CHP system was not financially feasible for SGC. Instead, the sub-committee switched its focus to log and woodchip boilers that heat water but do not generate power (Figure 5.4). Other alternatives, such as solar, hydro, etc, were also deemed less feasible than wood-powered boiler and were officially set aside.
-75-
The second research pathway dealt with knowledge exchange with other communities concerning SHPs. This included a number of site visits and information from a visiting WWOOFer who had seen SHPs at other communities. The WWOOFer suggested creating a new sustainable space – an online energy chat room where communities could exchange information and ideas. To my knowledge, this idea never achieved fruition. This knowledge exchange transmitted one underlying message: enroll the correct actors. This included engaging local authorities, seeking expert advice, securing a fuel source, and getting the whole community on board. The third research pathway built off the suggestion to seek expert advice and consisted of a series of feasibility studies which enrolled new external actors who suggested sites and estimated prices for the district heating system. The fourth pathway was researching funding wherein members budgeted community money and applied for grants to fund the SHP.
The fifth research pathway attempted to gauge interest and enroll further actors from within the community. The SHP sub-committee issued several community-wide surveys assessing interest, concerns, and willingness to pay (WTP). Additionally, several members did calculations to estimate energy use, savings, and carbon reduction per year per household. The results of the surveys relate the complexity of the situation and demonstrate the difficulty with enrolling all actors (Figure 5.5). For example, in interviews, several people mentioned that the SHP was mostly attractive to those needing new heating systems anyway. Indeed, all units that indicated a need for a new system also opted in to the SHP. However, although Units 2, 9, 10, 11b, 12, 14, and 92b do not need new systems, they responded differently from each other. Millie, an older woman in Unit 5, is not interested in the SHP because she feels she may soon leave SGC and doesn‟t want to pay a large up-front cost for something she will not use. Although the member from Unit 11b is concerned with reducing fossil fuel use, the survey indicates she is not interested in doing so through the SHP. Sienna of Unit 10 does not need a boiler and does not want to pay for a district heating system, but would opt in on principle if the project were fully funded. Similarly, Units 12, 14, and 92b would opt in on principle (though units 14 and 92b could only pay a low amount). In summary, although fossil fuel reduction, new heating systems, and cost were all identified as influential factors, no one idea acts as an OPP. The implications of this situation are further discussed below.
-76-
-77-
The final research pathway concerned the type of technology for the SHP, and this shifted throughout the research process. As mentioned, the shape changed early-on from a CHP for the stable block to a wood-powered district heating system for the stable block and the main house. The other contributing factors to shifting shape were size and fuel source. The main house of SGC was originally fitted with a single district heating system, so the simplest and least expensive location would be in that space where there is existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, the new boiler systems are too large, and so the proposed site was moved to a shed near the stable block. At the time of my research, it was still being discussed if the site should include one large boiler (less expensive) or two smaller ones (more efficient, possibly lower lifetime costs). Wood-as-sustainable-fuel is also an actor in the SHP scenario. Wood in its many forms affects technology and project decisions. SGC looked into both log boilers and chip/pellet boilers. Logs need less processing and so are less expensive and more easily sourced on-site. However, chips and pellets are more efficient. Members decided SGC did not have the capacity to source enough of the wood to power a district heating system, and so opted for the more efficient options. Chips and pellets both have positive and negative attributes. Chips are less expensive and can be sourced locally, but pellets flow more easily and create less dust allowing a simpler delivery with fewer health risks (from the dust). Members decided that local, less expensive chips were better than pellets.
-78-
-79-
THE USUAL AND UNUSUAL SUSPECTS: MOBILIZING ACTORS, MAPPING FLOWS
Callon‟s fourth moment of translation is mobilization, “to render entities mobile which were not so beforehand” (Callon, 1986, p. 216) and ties into the earlier-discussed concepts of inscription and immutable mobiles. In moments of interessement, it is difficult to anticipate how the gains and losses associated with enrollment and especially mobilization will affect a project. Additionally, unexpected actors can radically affect project dynamics. Figure 5.6 maps the flow, losses, and gains of the SHP and introduces an unexpected – the Garden Cottage. The Garden Cottage was left to the community in 2009 when its previous owner passed away. The Cottage was enrolled in the SHP because its sale could fund a large part of the project. However, the sale of the Cottage became contested – some community members were concerned with the social sustainability of SGC and proposed renting the Cottage to “lower the bar” (LTB) for those not able to buy-in to SGC. Kyle suggested that the SHP versus LTB dynamic followed lines of “sustainability-minded” versus not, as opposed to environmental versus social or financial sustainability (interview, 31 Aug 2010). Figure 5.7 shows that some individuals follow this pattern, but again the issue is more complex. Members eventually reached a compromise which acts as an OPP – the Cottage was sold and the income split 45/45/10 among environmental (carbon reduction), social (LTB), and financial (paying off a loan) projects. The other unexpected actors are existing carbon reduction measures, incoming members, and new incentive schemes. The first two contributed to the failing of SHP grant applications. According to Sophia, SGC already has a relatively low carbon footprint in comparison to mainstream society. Grants are awarded based on the per-pound (£) carbon reduction and so favor simple projects with big results. Sophia believes that SGC has already completed many of these projects (in the “general greening campaigns”) and so must move on to larger, more expensive projects. In the end, the carbon to £ ratio was too low for the SHP according to grantor‟s regulations.16 The grants have also failed because the money from the Cottage is not yet in the bank. The Cottage will not sell until the incoming members have sold their previous home, thus linking in a chain of actors far beyond SGC. Not all unexpected actors have negative consequences. Many at SGC thought that failed funding attempts would fail the SHP. However, a newly-launched government renewable heat incentives (RHI) program may allow SGC to retroactively fund the project by paying SGC back for energy saved using alternative technology.
16
As per Barry (2002, 2006), this is an example of metrics actually politicizing space in its attempts to be antipolitical. Funding organizations attempt to standardize and make fair fund distribution by basing it on a carbon reduction to cost ratio. However, this introduces controversy over measurement methods and applications, such as the quest for „low-hanging fruit.‟
-80-
-81-
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS The object ethnography of the SHP at Secret Garden Community is brief and relatively superficial in comparison to other similar research endeavors (see Latour (1996) Aramis, or The Love of Technology). Even so, it provides a useful example of the flows of sustainability governance at SGC. Sustainability circulates in „more than human‟ assemblages through acts of translation. In moments of problematization, interessement, enrollment, and mobilization, actors become able to speak for one another in more mobile forms. While mobility is important for the spread of sustainability, the associated immutability (or the decreased mutability) can frame situations in destructive or exclusive ways (such as with the government grant). As of today, the SHP has not succeeded in taking form as a functioning object/institution, nor has it failed. As Tom put it, “At [SGC] there are few clear-cut examples of failures because over time if people want something to happen it will happen” (28 August 2010).
There are several obstacles for the SHP to overcome before it can hope to succeed. First, it must become financially feasible, either through grants, RHIs, or a further change in form (i.e. scaling the project back to the stable block only). Fortunately, RHIs may be more suitable for the SHP than grants because they act as a mutable mobile allowing more freedom of form. ISCs can pick the technology most compatible with their existing technology and needs, regardless of the expense, and will be paid based on retrospective (rather than anticipated) carbon savings. Second, the SHP must stabilize its networks and OPPs. Although individuals I spoke to accepted the Garden Cottage compromise, it created only a tenuous OPP. In this case, problematization after moments of enrollment and mobilization (such as the introduction of the Garden Cottage) destabilized the SHP by driving members further apart rather than the OPP compromise brought them back together. Members are still polarized around the issue – some believe the project must succeed because it passed the proposal stage while others now believe the project will fail due to increasing anticipated costs with no sufficient funding in sight. The community is not bonded on any one idea, be it environment, social equality, economy, or maintaining status quo. And so we return to the original “problem” of sustainability, its multiplicity. If the multiplicity of sustainability is embraced and utilized theoretically and practically, it may provide an obligatory passage point that can center the actors on the SHP. However, if broken into its parts, if approached as a mix of pure substances rather than a hybrid of ideas, it could eternally divide members over the SHP, stopping its circulations. Ultimately, sustainability can cause sustainable projects to fail.
-82-
CHAPTER 6: RADICAL TERMINATIONS? SUGGESTIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSIONS
SUGGESTIONS
So far I have presented a handful of colorful, erratic, even radical pieces for the mosaic of sustainability. As with complex works of art, a comprehensive design only emerges from a distance. This section represents stepping back from the finer details to consider their broader implications for the future of sustainability. Several common threads have developed throughout the thesis, weaving into this overarching conclusion: successful governance of sustainability draws on the theoretical concepts of mutability, hybridity, and scalar integration. These theoretical foundations must additionally be grounded in practice. Sustainability governance must simultaneously act within the multiple spheres of creation, maintaining action, and connecting action (as elaborated below). I believe this epistemic amalgamation will positively influence sustainability governance and its attempts to change incentives, knowledge, institutions, decision making, and behaviours. The performative movement between theory and practice depends, as always, on acts of translation and often transcription. As flexible concepts shift to more solid forms, they are in danger of stagnation, of being locked in a moment of history, of becoming a lifeless slice of time. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to draw together the above theoretical and practical concepts into several policy17 suggestions that allow for translation and transcription without a total loss of life and meaning for sustainability. The first level of governance influence is that of creation – sustainability governance must promote mutable and hybrid objects (technology) and policy based on mutable and hybrid epistemology. I have already discussed mutable objects in several contexts as mutable mobiles. Mutable mobiles are those objects that can change under different local pressures but still maintain their intended function. These non-human actors may be able to stabilize complex networks with diverse nodes because they allow for adaptation and so are responsive to diverse geographies. The same principles apply to the concept of policies with „mutable epistemology,‟ or the acceptance that modes of knowledge production are not universal and are likely to have geographical and social contexts. Actors functioning within bottom-up governance must be aware that their epistemic approaches may not be scalable, and they should be wary of attempting to export them as settled, immutable methods.
17
Here I use „policy‟ in the most flexible sense, referring to specific governance actions (ways of changing incentives, knowledge, etc) of any actor (state and non-state, affecting humans and non-humans).
-83-
Similarly, top-down actors must be aware that narrowly-framed metrics and incentives are likely to be controversial and therefore political in their exclusiveness. Instead of depending on policy initiatives entirely from either sphere, sustainability governance should focus on creative ways to incorporate policies broad enough to encompass diverse geographical and social perspectives but flexible enough to conform to local needs and pressures (Cowell & Owens, 2006; Roy & Tisdell, 1998).
One problem with mutability is that it may not enjoy the stabilizing effect on relationships that an immutable mobile has. For example, wood may be able to stabilize some structural aspects of the sustainability network because it illuminates wood-as-sustainable-fuel; however, on its own it will not necessarily bond SGC and HAWC, communities with different approaches to how wood should be used as a sustainable fuel. Thus, mutability is most effective if it stabilizes both structural and relational networks. This requires shifts in technology, policy, and mentalities. According to Cowell and Owens (2006), this mentality already prevails in UK planning documents: “Flexibility features strongly… in terms of increasing local discretion” (p.407). Similarly, initiatives like the Renewable Heating Incentive (RHI) mentioned in Chapter 5 have taken on aspects of mutability. Setting aside the criticisms of this scheme (and the related Feed-In Tariff) 18, the structure of the RHI approaches the mutable structure I propose. It maintains a broad standard (reducing energy consumption from fossil fuels) while allowing for diverse means for achieving this goal.
The second sphere of sustainability governance is that of maintaining action. Once policies and objects are conceived, they need space and resources to develop. Chapter 4 demonstrates the importance of space for the success of sustainable projects. However, approaches to radical sustainability and attempts by marginalized groups to create spaces are often impeded by top-down (i.e. planning) policies (Owens, 2004). Smith (2007) discusses the importance of these marginal (what he calls niche) groups in helping structure social change, a sentiment repeatedly expressed in this thesis. It may be unreasonable to call on elected governments to legislate radical change, but it is to the benefit of all for top-down actions (including those of the government) to facilitate the creation of spaces for more radical experiments to be, in the words of the Inspector of the HAWC v DNPA case “tried and tested.” The location of HAWC (in a National Park, on a steep hillside, in a monoculture forest plantation) is not ideal for any party, but this was the land available for the price members were able to pay. Many people have negative and fear-based associations with communal living situations, often equating them to bands of travellers who may „trash‟ a location before moving on, or (especially in the United States) as related to Russian Communism. These inaccurate perceptions of intentional communities will not disperse and ISCs will be unable to have any transformative effect unless they
18
See Rickerson and Grace (2007) for an overview of this debate. A more comprehensive discussion of possible mutable structures and their benefits and criticism is beyond the scope of this paper.
-84-
become more achievable and visible through a combination of top-down policy changes and bottomup efforts.
The level of visibility in particular additionally depends on the attitude of the ISCs themselves, and this leads to the final sphere of sustainability governance: connecting actors and actions through scalar integration. As Smith (2007) points out, successful change must have roots in all levels of governance. This begins with diversity within the ranks of ISCs themselves. Groups like HAWC that maximize the buffer between itself and the socio-technical regime tend to be the most flexible and innovative. However, ISCs like SGC which are, as member Jake put it, “one step below the propertyowning democracy” are better at translating the possibilities of sustainable lifestyles between the „radical‟ and the „regime.‟ Thus, ISCs of all types must be equally active and visible to maximize their potential impact on the governance of sustainability.
Additional action must be generated by mainstream actors. Despite the importance of (radical) niche groups, on their own they are unlikely to incite widespread regime change (Smith, 2007). For this reason, sustainability governance must include structures that facilitate the flow of knowledge, information, and technology among actors, particularly between top-down and bottom-up actors. Despite the fact that these structures are likely the easiest to create, I also found them to be the most immediately deficient. I mentioned in Chapter 5 the general lack of communication between intentional communities, a lack that members from both study communities acknowledged. Although ISCs may exchange information about big projects (like the Sustainable Heating Project,) in many small projects they daily recreate the proverbial wheel and think themselves unique in their struggles. Diggers and Dreamers acts as a directory for intentional communities and recently has added spaces on its web page for discussion and general messages, but it does not yet seem to be fully utilized. GovToday‟s London conference brought together government representatives of local communities. Connections like this for bottom-up actors would be exceptionally valuable. These connections should be initiated from within the communities, allowing them to choose a structure and format best suited for their diverse needs.
Similarly, I saw very little proactive interaction between ISCs and top-down officials. Engaging local government at the front end of a project may reduce the post-enrollment problematization which, as was seen in Chapter 5, can be detrimental to the project. SGC has been proactive with contacting planners with questions about specific projects like Sustainable Heating or eco-building. However, the local government has ideas of their own on how individuals and communities can increase sustainability (possibly because they have resources like the GovToday conference). Both sides, local government and ISCs, can facilitate flows of sustainable knowledge by proactively discussing ideas and sharing information. This exchange will be most effective through collaborative action that allows -85-
different governance forms to capitalize on their respective strengths and compensate for their weaknesses by allowing space for interaction with complementary structures. In this social milieu, top-down governance can maintain an overarching societal goal while facilitating spaces for reframing. Bottom-up governance, especially if bonded through „grassroots‟ networks, can capitalize on the strengths of geographical diversity without losing sight of the normative issues.
This is not to suggest that (under existing structures) no unilateral action is warranted. HAWC would not have gained even temporary planning permission if it had not been able demonstrate sustainability through already-created spaces. However, now that the community is established, I believe they must work more closely with DNPA if they hope to renew their temporary residence or apply for permanent residence. According to Christopher Walledge of DNPA, the first time temporary residence was officially granted by the high court in 2002, DNPA decided to be hands-off with the project in hopes HAWC would live up to its sustainability claims (personal communication, 18 March 2010). However, DNPA believes the project has failed thus far because HAWC still imports most of its food and members must still seek outside employment. Walledge stated DNPA plans to be much more involved in HAWC‟s second term of temporary residence (2007-2012). There are multiple points on which HAWC and DNPA agree (such as returning the plantation to a mixed-native woodland), and collaborative projects in these areas would be good places to start. Because management techniques such as Continuous-Cover Forestry combine traditional ecologic metrics with a “close to nature” ethos, it is a logical medium for cooperative action with minimal „watering down‟ of principles associated with many compromises.
This reinforces my promotion for hybrid policy-making and policy tools. Just as hybrid geographies cannot be perceived as mixes of two pure forms, neither can collaborative action. It is this „pure form mixture‟ approach that leads to dilute, unsatisfying, and ultimately insufficient solutions. In the spirit of Einstein and finding solutions in structures beyond those that created the problem, hybridcollaborative policy-making must not be a search for the center point of a bi-polar, bi-partisan line; rather, it must create an altogether new line, plane, and frame. But I reiterate that these types of innovative collaborations are more likely to be successful in proactive planning, before actors have become enrolled, mobilized, and thus translated into a less-flexible form.
FUTURE RESE ARCH
Throughout this document, I have noted topics of interest that are outside the scope of the current study. I will now briefly address several of these. First, in Chapter 3 I relate the formation of ISCs and the success of other „reframing‟ actions to the relative stability of the socio-technical regime. While -86-
much literature describes ISC and back-to-the-land trends as correlating to times of instability (in the 1960s-70s and again in the late 90s), there appears to be little empirical evidence to support this claim. A more traditional spatio-temporal geographic analysis of the formation of ISCs would provide valuable information on the historical and current geographical landscape for ISCs.
Other potential research topics fall more directly in the scope of sustainability governance. My interest in the role of non-humans regularly spurred discussions about the actual correlation between sustainable technology, behaviour change, and changing mentalities or ontology. By encouraging the small, technocentric fixes, are top-down actors (in the words of Christopher Walledge of DNPA) in fact shifting attitudes? This discussion is, of course, at the heart of the technocentric versus ecocentric sustainability debate. While this thesis explores many of the theoretical involvements of non-humans as actors and their ability to change behaviour, it is not able to fully explore resulting changes in attitude. Much more work could be done in this field, and I believe ISCs would be illuminating research subjects for the same reasons they provide unique insights to the governance of sustainability.
The other concern numerous ISC members proposed to me, and one tied up in the study of nonhuman-affected attitudes, is the relative effectiveness of top-down versus bottom-up governance strategies of sustainability. In relation to ISCs, specifically members wanted to know (essentially) what was „more sustainable‟: their bottom-up efforts or projects that depend solely on the de-scription of non-humans (as per Akrich (1992)) to change behaviours and attitudes. An example of the latter is BedZed in London in which sustainable technology is built-in to a community whose residents may or may not be concerned with sustainability. As I mentioned previously, separating solutions into dualistic terms in this way is counter-productive for the inherent multiplicity of sustainability. However, exploring the different governance approaches provided valuable insight into the organization of understanding of Chapter 3‟s frame analysis. An exploration into the specific methods and interactions of governance at sites like BedZed in comparison to SGC or HAWC would be equally useful.
GOVERNANCE AND FRAME D CYBORG SP ACE CABBAGES: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS
So my chapter in the stories of two sustainable communities draws to a close. I began with a goal to explore the ways the normative and positivistic aspects of sustainability may work together to create viable policies that simultaneously embrace multiplicity and hold fast to the normative roots of sustainability. I hypothesized that realizing these policies depends on interrogating the actually
-87-
existing top-down and bottom-up approaches to sustainability governance, and I approached this interrogation through analyzing frames, reassessing spaces, and tracing flows. Frame analysis allowed an exploration of the plurality of sustainability, how it is represented and what pressures affect the creation of a particular frame. These frames feed the interrelationship of stories that, upon meeting, create relational spaces. Spaces are also productive – they facilitate agency and allow multiplicity. The sustainable knowledge, things, and behaviours built up from framings and relational spaces then circulate as „more than human assemblages‟ through acts of translation and transcription. Although I have presented framing, space, and flow in a linearly-progressing fashion, the concepts are not hierarchical. Instead, they are simultaneous and performative. Space is not a three-dimensional framework, nor is it a slice of the time that makes lively the flows of sustainability. Spaces are meeting points of histories whose futures and flows may change based on their interactions with the space itself. Frames and flows are equally performative, as was seen in the process of framing, overflow, and reframing.
This analysis led to a number of policy suggestions focusing on ways to combine the theoretical frames of multiplicity and hybridity with practical actions. The biggest challenge presented is the need for ontological shifts in policy making (from both top-down and bottom-up actors) that will allow collaborative efforts that are more than the diluted compromises of pure-form mixes. As Kyle of SGC relates (in Box 5.1), pure-form mixes tend to end in lowest-common-denominator solutions (like drawing curtains at night) or complete inaction: “Because we could not decide on the best way forward, we ended up doing nothing.” This stagnation is the most dangerous scenario for sustainability and the one driving my research. At the end of her interview, Rose of HAWC nicely summed up the situation: “Sometimes I feel hopeless about society, but I guess that's why I am sitting here talking to you. I'm hoping something will create that catalyst between what we're doing here and true sustainability throughout society.” While I do not pretend this study will be such a catalyst, I hope it may help set up the reaction through its presentation and analysis of sustainability governance in intentionally sustainable communities.
-88-
APPENDIX A: PARTICIP ATORY PHOTOGRAPHY
-89-
-90-
-91-
-92-
-93-
-94-
-95-
-96-
-97-
-98-
-99-
-100-
-101-
-102-
-103-
-104-
-105-
REFERENCES
[HAWC] (2009). Woodland Management Plan. [HAWC]V.DNPA (2002). APP/J9497/C/08/2083419-28, Appeals Decisions: The Planning Inspectorate. [SGC] (2010). The Community at [SGC] Retrieved 15 May 2010, from http://www.canonfromecourt.org.uk/ccfc.html Adams, W. (2001). Green development: environment and sustainability in the third world. London: Routledge. Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality. Current Anthropology, 46(2). Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 205-224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bahro, R. (1986). Building the Green Movement. London: Heretic Books. Barry, A. (2002). The anti-political economy. Economy and Society, 31(2), 268-284. Barry, A. (2006). Technological zones. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 239. Barry, A., & Slater, D. (2002). Introduction: the technological economy. [Article]. Economy & Society, 31(2), 175. Böhringer, C., & Jochem, P. E. P. (2007). Measuring the immeasurable - A survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 1-8. Bookchin, M. (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal: Black Rose Books Ltd. Born, G. (1995). Rationalizing culture: IRCAM, Boulez, and the institutionalization of the musical avant-garde. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Botequilha Leitão, A., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 65-93. Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2001). The Geography of Innovation and Economic Clustering: Some Introductory Notes. [Article]. Industrial & Corporate Change, 10(4), 817-833. Busch, L. (1978). On Understanding Understanding: Two Views of Communication. Rural Sociology. Callon, M. (1980). Struggles and Negotiations to define what is Problematic and what is not: the Sociology of Translation. In K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn & R. D. Whitley (Eds.), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Reidel.
-106-
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (Vol. 32, pp. 196–233). Oxford: Blackwell. Callon, M. (1987). Society in the Making. The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. Bijker, T. Huges & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: Massachusets Institute of Technology. Callon, M. (1998). The Laws of the Markets. London: Blackwell. CCFG (2009). Continuous Cover Forestry Group. The Role of CCFG Retrieved 21 April 2010, from http://www.ccfg.org.uk/ Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J., & Philo, C. (2004). Practising human geography. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235. Contreras-Castillo, J., Favela, J., Pérez-Fragoso, C., & Santamaría-del-Angel, E. (2004). Informal interactions and their implications for online courses. Computers and Education, 42(2), 149168. Cowell, R., & Owens, S. (2006). Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, 24(3), 403-421. Crabtree, L. (2006). Sustainability begins at home? An ecological exploration of sub/urban Australian community-focused housing initiatives. Geoforum, 37(4), 519-535. Crang, M., & Cook, I. (2007). Doing ethnographies. London: Sage Publications Ltd. D'Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012]. Research Policy, 37(5), 769-789. de Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225-263. DEFRA (2010, 25 Feb 2010). Regional Sustainability Indicators Retrieved 16 May 2010, from http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/regional/index.htm Demoscience (2010). Mapping Controversies Retrieved 15 May 2010, from http://www.demoscience.org/index.php DOE (2000). Building a Better Quality of Life. Dunn, E. (2005). Standards and person-making in east central Europe. In A. C. Ong, Stephen J. (Ed.), Global assemblages; technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems (pp. 173193). New York: Blackwell. Eckersley, R. (1987). The Prophet of Green Fundamentalism. The Ecologist, 17(2), 120-122. Eden, S. (2000). Environmental issues: sustainable progress? Progress in Human Geography, 24(1), 111-118. -107-
Evenson, R., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), 758. Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114-127. Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. Gephi (2010). Semantic Graphs of French IPR Retrieved 15 May 2010, from http://gephi.org/2008/semantic-graphs-french-ipr/ Gilman, R., & Gilman, D. (1991). The eco-village challenge. Context, 29(10). Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Grist, N. (2008). Positioning climate change in sustainable development discourse. Journal of International Development, 20(6), 783-803. Halfacree, K. (2007). Trial by space for a 'radical rural': Introducing alternative localities, representations and lives. Journal of rural studies, 23(2), 125-141. Haraway, D. (1991). A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (pp. 149181). New York: Routlage. Haraway, D. (1995). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. The postmodern turn: New perspectives on social theory, 82-115. Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning, and Shaping Places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 111-121. Hinchliffe, S. (2007). Geographies of nature: societies, environments, ecologies: Sage Publications Ltd. Hoogma, R. (2002). Experimenting for sustainable transport: the approach of strategic niche management. London: Routledge. Jacob, J. (2006). New pioneers: the back-to-the-land movement and the search for a sustainable future: Pennsylvania State Univ Pr. Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1-2), 12-30. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge: Harvard University Press. Krueger, R., & Agyeman, J. (2005). Sustainability schizophrenia or "actually existing sustainabilities?" toward a broader understanding of the politics and promise of local sustainability in the US. Geoforum, 36(4), 410-417. -108-
Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225-258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Latour, B. (1993a). Ethnography of a "High-Tech" Case: About Aramis. In P. Lemonnier (Ed.), Technological choices: transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic London: Routledge. Latour, B. (1993b). We have never been modern: Harvard Univ Pr. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or The Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Latour, B., & Biezunski, M. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 19(5), 609-621. Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2005). Object Lessons. Organization, 12(3), 331-355. Lefebvre, H. (1991 [1974]). The Production of Space. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lélé, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/0305750X(91)90197-P]. World Development, 19(6), 607-621. Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297-325. Lorimer, H. (2003). Telling small stories: spaces of knowledge and the practice of geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 197-217. MacEachren, A., Buttenfield, B., Campbell, J., DiBiase, D., & Monmonier, M. (1992). Visualization. In M. M. RF Abler, JM Olson (Ed.), Geography‟s inner worlds: Pervasive themes in contemporary American geography (pp. 99-137). Washington DC: Rutgers. MacKenzie, D., & Millo, Y. (2003). Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 107145+i. MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. (2007). Do economists make markets?: On the performativity of economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Marres, N. (2009). Testing Powers of Engagement: Green Living Experiments, the Ontological Turn and the Undoability of Involvement. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 117-133. Marsh, J. (1982). Back to the land: the pastoral impulse in England, from 1880 to 1914. London: Quartet Books Ltd. -109-
Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place, and Gender. London: Polity Press. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Maycock, A. (2008). World wide opportunities on organic farms (WWOOF) (http://www.wwoof.org/). Journal of Agricultural and Food Information, 9(4), 282-288. McDowell, L. (2010). Interviewing: Fear and Liking in the Field. In D. DeLyser, S. Aitken & S. Herbert (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (pp. 156). London: Sage. Meijering, L., Huigen, P., & Van Hoven, B. (2007). Intentional communities in rural spaces. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 98(1), 42. O'Connor, M. (1994). Is Capitalism sustainable? Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology. New York: Guilford. ODPM/DCLG (2004). Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., & Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing Climate Governance Beyond the International Regime. [Article]. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 58-78. Owens, S. (2004). Siting, sustainable development and social priorities. Journal of Risk Research, 7(2), 101-114. Pardanjac, M., Radosav, D., & Jokic, S. (2009). Difficulties and possibilities of distance learning, Subotica. Permaculture_Association (2010). The Permaculture Association Home Page Retrieved 16 May 2010, from http://www.permaculture.org.uk/ Perreault, T. (2003). Making space: Community organization, agrarian change, and the politics of scale in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Latin American Perspectives, 30(1), 96-121. Peters, O. (2000). Digital learning environments: New possibilities and opportunities. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 22-39. Pezzey, J. (1989). Economic analysis of sustainable growth and sustainable development. Pezzoli, K. (1997). Sustainable development: a transdisciplinary overview of the literature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(5), 549-574. Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in research. London: Sage. Raedeke, A., & Rikoon, J. (1997). Temporal and spatial dimensions of knowledge: Implications for sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 14(2), 145-158. Raven, R. P. J. M. (2006). Towards alternative trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch electricity regime. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.001]. Research Policy, 35(4), 581-595. Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. London: Routledge Richardson, P. (2009). Caribbean sugar networks: Ethical relations and heterogeneous bodies. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Rickerson, W., & Grace, R. (2007). The debate over fixed price incentives for renewable electricity in Europe and the United States: Fallout and future directions. Heinrich Boll Foundation. -110-
Rose, G. (2003). On the Need to Ask How, Exactly, Is Geography "Visual"? Antipode, 35, 212-221. Roy, K., & Tisdell, C. (1998). Good governance in sustainable development: the impact of institutions. International Journal of Social Economics, 25(6). Ruming, K. (2009). Following the Actors: mobilising an actor-network theory methodology in geography. Australian Geographer, 40(4), 451 - 469. Rutherford, S. (2007). Green governmentality: insights and opportunities in the study of nature's rule. Progress in Human Geography, 31(3), 291. Sargisson, L. (2001). Politicising the Quotidian. Environmental Politics, 10(2), 68 - 89. Schumacher, E. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Blond and Briggs, Ltd. Schwarz, J., Beloff, B., & Beaver, E. (2002). Use sustainability metrics to guide decision-making. Chemical Engineering Progress, 98(7), 58-63. Seyfang, G. (2009). Community action for sustainable housing: Building a low-carbon future. Energy Policy. Shenker, B. (1986). Intentional communities: ideology and alienation in communal societies: Routledge Kegan & Paul. Sikdar, S. K. (2003). Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE Journal, 49(8), 1928-1932. Slater, D. (2002). Technology, politics and the market: an interview with Michel Callon. [Article]. Economy & Society, 31(2), 285. Smith, A. (2007). Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 427-450. Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491-1510. Sneddon, C., Howarth, R., & Norgaard, R. (2006). Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 253-268. Storey, D. (2001). Territory: the claiming of space: Pearson Education. Thrift, N. J. (1996). Spatial Formations. London: Sage Publishers Ltd. Vale, B., & Vale, R. (1975). The Autonomous House. London: Thames and Hudson. Verbeek, P. (2005). Artifacts and Attachment: A Post-Script Philosophy of Mediation. In H. Harbers (Ed.), Inside the Politics of Technology (pp. 308). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Watson, A., & Till, K. (2010). Ethnography and Participant Observation. In D. DeLyser, S. Aitken & S. Herbert (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (pp. 121). London: Sage. WCED, Brundtland, G., & Khalid, M. (1987). Our Common Future: Brundtland Commission (WCED) Report Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: natures, cultures, spaces: Sage Publications Ltd.
-111-
Whatmore, S. (2003). More Than Human Geographies. In K. Anderson, M. Domosh, S. Pile & N. Thrift (Eds.), Handbook of cultural geography. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Whatmore, S., & Thorne, L. (1997). Alrernative geographies of food. In W. M. Goodman D (Ed.), Globalising food: Agrarian questions and global restructuring (pp. 287). London: Routledge. Whitehead, M. (2007). Spaces of sustainability: geographical perspectives on the sustainable society. Abingdon: Routlage. Wilbanks, T. J. (1994). Presidential Address: "Sustainable Development" in Geographic Perspective. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(4), 541-556. Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P., & Pelot, R. (2007). Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 299-314. WoodlandCommunity (2009). Planning History. Steward Community Woodland Retrieved 17 April 2010, from http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/planning/history.ghtml Woods, M. (2003). Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new social movement. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(3), 309-325. WWOOF (2010). A brief history of WWOOF Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://wwoof.org/history.asp Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In L. S. S. B. W. B (Ed.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44– 83): Sage.
-112-
