Blog Post 2: The Consequences of Rigidity

The Consequences of Rigidity

In our last post, we considered some of the consequences of ‘sustainability’ being so loosely defined. Primarily, we considered how an organization could promise to act “sustainably” without a universal definition of the term. However, in this post, we will consider some of the ways in which a rigid definition would be limiting. We will look at the arguments made in both posts and try to come to a conclusion in which we achieve clarity when using the term, without limitation.

I will use the term “happiness” to illustrate how a singular definition of “sustainability” would be linguistically limiting. The United Nations, Sustainable Development Solutions Network, create a World Happiness Report every year. This report ranks 156 countries ‘happiness’ levels with questions surrounding food, shelter, SES, communications, politics, religion etc. However, if I asked an individual to describe happiness or what happiness is for them, they may not refer to any of these elements. Similarly, happiness is multifaceted in the words that can be associated with it, joy is different to nostalgia, laughter is different to kindness and yet all are facets of happiness. If we substitute “sustainability” in for happiness, could we approach the word in the same sense?

When using the term ‘happiness’, clarity is found within the context to which it is being used and through the words surrounding the term such as nostalgia or laughter. Similarly, when using the term “Sustainability”, context and further words can be used to offer clarity. Ramsay reiterates the need for contextualization and the power of surrounding words; “social justice”, environmental care, development, in his article, On Not Defining Sustainability (Ramsay, 2015:1076). Thus the issue with programs such as the AASHE’s “STARS” (Weisser, 2017) is not with a lack of definition for Sustainability, but is instead due to awards being achieved without clear context as to why. Similarly, businesses with blanket statements of ‘acting sustainably’ can avoid misunderstanding through clarifying what particular aspects of sustainability are being addressed in their aims.

The beautiful playfulness of language can be utilized with words such as “sustainability” through their inherently multifaceted nature. This is found particularly in poetry, music and the arts. Instead of limiting ourselves to singular definitions, we can further ourselves to explore the vast vocabulary of words we have to further define and emphasize what we wish to achieve in our acts of sustainability. Furthermore, often words within our definitions and explanations need further explanation. As highlighted by Ramsay, words such as “needs” (Ramsay, 2015:1080) often associated with the term “sustainability”, need to be clarified, what needs? Whose needs? Needs to survive or needs to develop? These are all important questions to ask when referring to sustainability.

Thus, while it is important to be clear on how we intend to use the term, it is equally important not to limit ourselves to the confines of definitions and those who claim authority in dictating them. Equally, we can embrace definitions as things we express not only through words themselves, but as things we “do and perform” (Ramsay, 2015:1076).

It is important to recognize difference in how the term “sustainability” is used in an explanation and in a promise, claim or statement. While using the term in an explanation, there is inherent contextualization. For example, in explaining how one can ‘eat sustainably’, discourse around farming, fishing and food supplies contextualize the argument. Whereas, a business that promises to be ‘sustainable’, must further contextualize outside of the statement, for example, whether they are referring to economic viability, environmental care, social inequalities etc. This equally allows us to consider sustainability as both an aim/objective encompassing the “three pillars”, as well as a consequential outcome of already existing and individual environmental, social and economic practices.

Through looking at sustainability as a consequential outcome, we can focus less on defining the term, and more on the acts of ‘doing and performing’ themselves (Ramsay, 2015:1076). For example, in Ecological Intelligence, Sterling states that, in order to achieve a “more sustainable course”, there must be a “rapid flowering of ecological intelligence” (Sterling, 2009:5). Here, “ecological intelligence” is the aim to be achieved, an aim that is specific, defined and can lead us to one facet of a more “sustainable future” (Steffen, 2005).

In conclusion to the ideas expressed in A Lack of Clarification and The Consequences of Rigidity, it is important to contextualize our use of a multifaceted term such as ‘sustainability’, as well as ensure an understanding of the words we are using within our contextualization (e.g. “needs”). It is important that we consider where the word is being used – in explanation or statement – and whether it acts as an objective or consequence. Furthermore, unlike Steffen in his TED TALK, we should not assume the word is previously understood. However, equally, we do not need to limit our use of the term to singular “power-laiden” definitions (Weisser, 2017:1078). We are allowed agency over how we use the term, as long as there is clarification through discourse and discussion as open-communication acts as the key to clarity.

This image is for reuse through Wikimedia creative common license.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ramsey, J. L. (2015) On Not Defining Sustainability. Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics, 28:1075-1087.

Steffen, A. (2005) The route to a sustainable future. [online] Available from: https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future/transcript?language=en (Accessed 16 October 2018).

Sterling, S. (2009) Ecological Intelligence. In: Stibbe, A. ed. The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy. University of Plymouth: 5.

Weisser, C. R. (2017) Defining sustainability in higher education: a rhetorical analysis. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18 (7): 1076-1089.