“Metrologies” – can you relate?

Stonking paper, that has helped me understand the various theoretical options available for understanding/describing transitions, (evolutionary, relational and durational), and some of their strengths and weaknesses.  Yes, the paper does underplay that the MLP is shot through with durational perspective to make a cleaner (if not clearer) distinction, but nonetheless, hugely impressive and useful.

Garud, R. and Gehman, J. 2012. Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational. Research Policy, Vol. 41 pp. 980-995.

There are heaps of important bits of theory and empirics (the two imbricate, obvs). Here’s one (I am a sucker for new words, especially frenchies).

The relational approach also highlights the importance of metrologies, or the network of humans, devices and calculations through which sustainability is measured, and by extension, debated and demonstrated. Not everything can be accounted for.

Accordingly, a key question concerns what is internalized and accounted for in these calculations. For instance, how many degrees of separation between actors do we consider in our deliberations or what constitutes an externality? It is through such bracketing that sustainability is defined and performed.
(Garud and Gehman, 2012: 991)

PS Turnheim et al 2015 is amazeballs too-

Turnheim, B. Berkhout, F. Geels, F. Hof, A. McMeekin, A. Nykvist, B. and van Vuuren, D. 2015. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 35 pp. 239-53.

“Powerpoint and Strategy” #afterthethesis

So, gonna use this site to bookmark stuff I will read After The Thesis. First up, this

Kaplan, S. 2011. Strategy and PowerPoint: An Inquiry into the Epistemic Culture and Machinery of Strategy Making. Organization Science, Vol. 22 (2), pp.320-46.

PowerPoint has come to dominate organizational life in general and strategy making in particular. The technology is lauded by its proponents as a powerful tool for communication and excoriated by its critics as dangerously simplifying. This study takes a deeper look into how PowerPoint is mobilized in strategy making through an ethnographic study inside one organization. It treats PowerPoint as a technology embedded in the discursive practices of strategic knowledge production and suggests that these practices make up the epistemic or knowledge culture of the organization. Conceptualizing culture as composed of practices foregrounds the “machineries” of knowing. Results from a genre analysis of PowerPoint use suggest that it should not be characterized simply as effective or ineffective, as current PowerPoint controversies do. Instead, I show how the affordances of PowerPoint enabled the difficult task of collaborating to negotiate meaning in an uncertain environment, creating spaces for discussion, making recombinations possible, allowing for adjustments as ideas evolved, and providing access to a wide range of actors. These affordances also facilitated cartographic efforts to draw boundaries around the scope of a strategy by certifying certain ideas and allowing document owners to include or exclude certain slides or participants. These discursive practices—collaboration and cartography—are part of the “epistemic machinery” of strategy culture. This analysis demonstrates that strategy making is not only about analysis of industry structure, competitive positioning, or resources, as assumed in content-based strategy research, but it is also about how the production and use of PowerPoint documents that shape these ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coal, snow and the desert of the real #auspol

Scott Morrison, Australian Treasurer, brought a lump of coal to the show-and-tell at school today.  Sorry, I mean, to the House of Representatives.  It was a big lump of coal, metaphorically if not literally in the shape of a wedge.  Because this was about trying to make the Labor Party look weak/green/out-of-touch.  Meanwhile, in the real world, there is a heatwave of the real that is sending those rich enough to have them and afford them to their air-conditioners.  (Can the desert be far behind?).

Journalists are bewildered. Katherine Murphy began her piece thus

There is no way you can write the sentence, “The treasurer of Australia, Scott Morrison, came to question time with a lump of coal on Thursday,” and have that sentence seem anything other than the ravings of a psychedelic trip, so let’s just say it and be done with it.

Scott Morrison brought coal into the House of Representatives. A nice big hunk of black coal, kindly supplied by the Minerals Council of Australia.

The obvious link, which I’ve not seen made, is with another buffoon in another country, almost two years ago.

These seem like desperate claims by desperate men, who are the epitome of the political class (“out of touch”) using props to try to build to their constituents, earnestly proclaim themselves to be “real”(1) and ‘authentically working class’ (In July 2014 Senator Ian MacDonald came to parliament in a fluorojacket, provided to him by the same people who gave Morrison his lump of coal).

What does it all mean? These are bids for a foundational ‘common-sense’, for ‘authenticity’ by a dinosaur breed that can’t accept that the meteor has struck.   There is going to be a mass extinction event.  The only question is what – if anything – is on the other side. Bye Brasil.

 

Update- a further thought – The Liberals and Nationals have clearly “decided” – as far as you can say there is a central organising intelligence- that they cannot win on price or emissions reductions. Instead they are remorselessly focusing on only one of the three legs of the energy trilemma – namely security of supply.  It may “work” politically. It will not on any other metric – economics, environment…

Footnote

(1) Gramsci, Baudrillard, Derrida and that crowd would have a field day.

Emergent, emergency, urgency. “Properties for sale…”

Hmm, am puzzling over the distinction between synergy and emergent properties. I found this –

“Today, unfortunately, the term emergence is used in a bewildering variety of ways, often as a synonym for synergy. However, I side with the early theorists; emergence should properly be confined to those forms of synergy in which different parts merge, lose their identity and take on new physical or functional properties. Thus table salt has emergence properties…”
(Corning, 2003: 23)
Corning, P. 2003. Nature’s Magic: Synergy in Evolution and the Fate of Humankind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

and I guess it’s about a dialectic – where the “two” “opposing” “forces” are both/all changed into something – ‘rich and strange‘.

And being able to leverage and guide ’emergent properties’ – either to monetise them or Save The World  (“transition management and other forms of hubristic cock-pitism).  Well, I reckon the former is easier than the latter, sadly…

 

Meanwhile, the coincidence (?) between emergent and emergency rattled my brain and out popped two song lyrics.

“And it happens to be an emergency
Some things aren’t meant to be
Some things don’t come for free”
Put down that weapon by Midnight Oil

and

“We need all hands helping, the urgency is overwhelming” (TV Smith, Home Town)

That’s just how my (odd?) memory works, as distinct from beserk autobiographical memory.

See also –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiographical_memory

Sokal so good; on targets, reports, fantasies…

 

The “keeping anthropogenic global warming (global average) to less than 1.5 degrees above pre-Industrial levels” at COP21 was never a serious proposal, surely?  I mean, you’d have to be totally fricking scientifically illiterate to… oh, wait.

But look, even if the policy-makers put it in there to keep the AOSIS (fn1)  crowd from vetoing the agreement, then the scientists themselves ought to know better, and tell the UNFCCC lot that it is a waste of time and bandwidth to study ‘how to hit 1.5 degrees”?  Or would that be too fraught? Is this just a Nekkid Emperor shituation, independent of it being  a nice little job creation scheme and prestige-arena for some social scientists?

I don’t know. But I DO know the last time what happened the last time some social scientists didn’t understand basic physics and ignored shit.

Hilarity and egg on face is what happened. It was called the ‘Sokal Hoax‘-

The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor atNew York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal’s intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether “a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions”.[2]

The article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”,[3] was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 “Science Wars” issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[4][5] On the day of its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as “a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense … structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics.”[2]

The hoax sparked a debate about the scholarly merit of humanistic commentary about the physical sciences; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor.

What should we be doing, then, smart arse?
Thinking about social movement failure, state democratisation, resilience rightly-understood.  Thinking about how to put the politics ‘back’ into Transition Management, and thinking what social movements that applied relentless and irresistible pressure for both technological and social innovation (the two are entwined) would actually LOOK like. What support would they need from academics, for instance?

Footnotes

  1. This would be the same AOSIS folks who, since 1990 [indeed earlier] have been pleading for rich (mostly white) people to take this seriously)

(Wind) Power to the People – Denmark, Tvind and bricolage

So, two years ago I read this

Hendry, C. and Harborne, P. 2011. Changing the view of wind power development: More than “bricolage.” Research Policy 40,, pp. 778-789.

and wrote this about it –

This was mentioned in a reading group/symposium yesterday by one of my supervisors. It’s a response/elaboration to a paper by Garud and Karnoe comparing the Danish and US wind energy industries and how they came about. Hendry and Harbone heartlessly puncture the lovely romantic notions that Tinkerers Matter throughout the process (they did, but once you get to a certain point, there’s no substitute for “science” and deep pockets.) Reminds me a bit of Manuel de Landa in “War in the Age of Intelligent Machines,” where he makes the point that there are tactics, but strategy will overcome them, and there is strategy, but in the end, logistics – being able to feed, clothe, arm and replace members of your army at a more efficient rate than your enemy – is what matters.

Well, the Danish wind industry is the gift that keeps on giving, if you are interested (like me) in niches that become regimes and ‘bottom-up’ pressure that actually, you know, ‘works’.

The latest I have found is this paper, which is brilliant.

Hoffman, J. 2013. Theorizing power in transition studies: the role of creativity and novel practices in structural change. Policy Science, Vol. 46, pp.257-275.

Just brilliant [full disclosure – for two years of my life (minus a year here and there) I lived in the shadow of the Tvind windmill. True story.].

Here are a couple of empirical chunks.  Far more interesting (well, as interesting) is the theoretical contribution, around ‘carrier waves’ and also the shortcomings of a multi-level framework,and the assumptions that innovations just, you know, happen.  –

Because the MLP assumes the presence of a ‘novel practice’, it hides from view how actors draw upon regimes and incorporate exogenous trends in shaping and defining what the [page break] ‘novelty’ is about and how it relates to the regime.
(Hoffman, 2013: 262-3)

But that’s for another time.

I shall distinguish between two key episodes of interaction between wind energy experiments and outside groups, both within and outside the energy sector. Although both very crucial for further development, the two episodes differed in terms of entrepreneurial activities, strategies, and the outcomes. In the first episode (1950s), entrepreneur Johannes Juul put up wind energy experiments in collaboration with power company SEAS. Even though the later popular 200-kW Gedser turbine resulted from these experiments, the energy sector’s support for wind energy waned and wind energy production in the 1960s was literally left to fall into disrepair. Danish wind energy experienced a second coming, however, when parts of the Danish democracy movement in the 1960s and 1970s adopted wind energy as a form of decentralized energy production. In this episode, wind energy became primarily an affair of the democracy movement, with little involvement of traditional energy companies. In contrast to the collaborative relationship between Juul and incumbent actors, wind energy actors in the democracy movement moved into an antagonistic relationship with incumbents; wind energy actors in the democracy movement openly contested incumbent practices and presented themselves as a decentralized and democratic alternative. In its decentralized form, wind energy production grew to substantial proportions resulting in a relatively strong industry that obtained a market share of half the world market for wind turbines.
(Hoffman, 2013: 259)

and

How do these insights help us make sense of the dynamic interplay between actions at the level of novel practices and power? Let us now draw on the case of Denmark to answer this question. The rising prices of import fuels in the 1950s formed a structural power that discredited incumbent practices and raised expectations about novel practices. Among others, the entrepreneur Juul proposed wind energy as a complement to the use of imported fuels, which regime players appreciated as a way to tackle the increasing costs of imported fuels. In collaboration with the power supplier SEAS and a Wind Energy Committee (Vindkraftudvalget) from the ministry of trade, Juul could draw on sufficient technical and financial resources to start experiments. This relational power resulted in the later widely used 200-kW Gedser wind turbine. At least for a while, rising prices for import fuels formed a carrier wave for novel energy practice. However, just when wind turbines were ready for upscaling, nuclear energy became a serious alternative and regime players’ expectations for wind energy practices were lowered. As a result, all wind energy projects were cut short and resources were withdrawn. Wind energy practices were left to ‘hobbyists’, bereft of relational power.
(Hoffman, 2013: 261)

Bloody compassion and the bloody smugosphere

We talk about “carbon capital”, “fossil fuel historical bloc”, ‘technological lock-in’.  Yep, them corporations and states sure are sclerotic, ain’t they? But, aside from talking about foundations and how NGOs take their money and sell a fake rebellion,  we don’t talk about social movement hegemonies and blocks or ‘social lock-in’. This bores me.

Descriptions of how we got into this mess are plentiful, and some of them are excellent. Some might say we have a plethora of these.  Much more rare are critiques of “blockadia” for its manifest (?) and manifold failings.

Where we are

Marches are “acceptable”  agreed format.  A dominant design, whatevs.

  • “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM”
  • Keynes “Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.”
  • “Better the devil you know..”

And if you criticise marches, then Gaia help you, for you are criticising The Tribe.

What happens when you criticise marches
People don’t/can’t hear and (so) create binaries/strawmen

  • “You want us to quit”
  • “You are like supporters of Apartheid”
  • “You are mentally unwell”

[Digression – in response to an enthusiastic call out for yet another goddam march on climate change – I wrote this

“And all the other marches achieved what exactly? Marches just give an excuse for people to turn up on one day (maybe having spent a couple of hours perfecting a snarky sign) and feel good about themselves. They are emotathons (and before you reply, why not try googling that word). Organisers lack imagination, ability to enhance their groups’ absorptive capacity. So instead they stick to their goddam zombie repertoires. It’s a good thing it is already too late to do anything substantive about climate change, or I’d be quite annoyed by this latest example of failure.”

Here’s what transpired, with the other people’s names blotted out, fwiw.

smugosphere

smugosphere2

smugosphere3

 

In the same way the joke ends with the bear saying “this isn’t about hunting, is it?” this isn’t about the marches.  These are proxies, surface responses to deeper anxieties.

All these add up to – ‘Don’t attack my tribe!’  And it’s hardest to take when comes from someone who ‘should be’ in the tribe, who can’t be dismissed as a denier or an official enemy.

Why are people so scared? (thus the ‘bloody compassion of the headline – I would prefer to be able to label people who don’t ‘get it’ as stupid and/or complacent. Reality is more complicated, dammit).
Over and above the standard operating of the smugosphere, there seems to be an extra level of fear that is clouding people’s ability to absorb new information, or even hear suggestions that we have to change our standard operating procedures. I think that is

  • Because the situation is – objectively – fucking terrifying.
  • Because, as Lennie sang, we know that we lost
  • Because (some of us?) know that our previous methods haven’t helped to create the movement we need.
  • Because people look at the last large-scale/publicised ‘innovation’ in social movements – Occupy and the Arab Spring – and they go ‘damn, that didn’t work’ and so we retreat into what makes us feel good, what is easy – the cycle of meetings and marches, marches and meetings.

We have to swallow the fear  and actually innovate, actually listen to critiques of our current failures

Dismissing them (by claiming someone is mentally unwell, advocating quitting, or analogous to an Apartheid supporter) is – at its best-  intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous.  I would argue strongly – or at least emphatically –  that it is harmful and morally indefensible, but that would be another blog post.

 

We have to ask some questions

Do marches build social movements?

Well, if they did, wouldn’t we have won by now?

Let’s get beyond the marches/no marches binary, and reframe that question.  “Do marches, on their own, build social movements.”

Okay, I hope we can all agree the answer to that is “no.”

Are there loads of people who care about these issues but don’t get substantively involved in the actions of social movement organisations?

I hope we can all agree the answer to that is “yes.”  (If the answer is no, we’re totally fubarred.)

So, in order to ‘win’ (whatever that means) do we need a proportion of those people to become involved and to stay involved?

If your answer to that is ‘no’, then you may as well stop reading.

So, given that social movement organisations have been holding marches and meetings, meetings and marches, what have we been doing wrong?

What do we need to do less of, what do we need to stop doing altogether?

What do we need to do more of, what do we need to start doing that we haven’t been?

There are lots of things groups do – websites, newsletters, rallies/protests.
But the ‘big one’ is meetings. Let’s divide it into two kinds (there is overlap, of course)

Business meetings and ‘public meetings’.

What is the experience of new people at both?

From personal experience, it’s not good.  (see recruitment/decruitment stuff).  People get treated as ego-fodder.

If you look closely, you will see some people leave either at the end of the speech or during the Q and A, or right after it and before the ‘mingling’. Did you ever wonder why they left, why they came in the first place, why so many of them you never see again?
It’s like a first date.  They were checking you out. And when they realised that you only wanted to talk about yourself, they left, and stopped returning your calls for a second date.

What are the obstacles for us to doing this? Or “Expect resistance”

  • Habit –routines. Our expectations of ourselves and each other, the ‘scripts’ of the ‘right way’ to do things.
  • Our frustration that we have the high moral ground, that it shouldn’t have to be up to us to work smarter, given the moral arguments are on our side and the bloody corporations and states/bureaucracies ought to keep their bloody promises.
  • Our fear of failure. Many of us are middle-class and our schooling taught us that there was One Right Answer and if we memorised it or mastered the procedure for arriving at that One Right Answer, then we would ‘succeed’.  That reflects curricula and the ease of marking exams, not life.
  • Most of us do not reflect on the format of meetings
  • The current set up benefits some people with some skills and some status.
  • Cops? If they see us becoming more effective, they will up their game. Right now, they don’t particularly have to try that hard, I fear.

What could we do right now?

  • Have lower expectations of the power of marches to motivate existing members (people get foot-sore) and to ‘recruit’ new ones.
  • Have higher demands on ourselves for how we will structure meetings not for us and our mates, but for the new people, the hesitant ones, the ones who are not extroverts.
  • Contest the smugosphere, the emotathons, both when OTHER people suggest them and when YOU do.  Accept that social movement organisations need to innovate as well.

If the rest of the movement was healthy, but we were still doing too many marches, I’d grit my teeth and live with it.  But it isn’t and we are.  As a substitute for action.  So it goes.

Crash test dummies and movement building

Do you ever feel you’re strapped into a car that almost deliberately, wilfully, crashes into a wall? Sort of a Groundhog Day/Source Code mash-up, with Camus ruefully driving a Facel Vega and getting hit by a boulder that some clown had let roll down a hill?

I do.

It’s like we in the ‘social movement activism’ game are crash test dummies – and this song, which is all about arbitrary and inescapable pain –

has a hidden (source) code in its title,  that actually stands for  Mitigation mismanaged – mobilisation murders movement-building – Moments mostly muffed –   Misery mounts momentously.

Where did this come from?

Well, partly from hearing Professor Kevin Anderson do the same speech two weeks apart (I don’t mind, it’s a corker of a speech).  It’s about the pending ecological debacle  and it has this line about how “we” have tried everything else – offsetting, emissions trading, promises of carbon capture and storage- instead of, you know mitigation, and might it not be a good idea to actually try mitigation [FWIW, I think that ship has sailed].

Well, for me at least it’s the same with the various hype cycles of social movement/environmental activism over the past 10 years (actually, a lot longer, if you take in the roads protests morphing into GM crop morphing into Anti-Capitalism (man) from 1996 to 2001.) There were camps, marches, legal processes, tensions between the various perspectives (liberal reformist, state socialist, smash the state anarchism) and endlessly repeated (photocopied? Ctrl C + Ved?) proclamations of the urgent need to Movement Build.  And the answer was never to take a close look at why previous efforts had failed, why so few new faces at meetings/events/camps/marches came back for seconds – or if they did, came back for thirds.  Nope, it was always an emotathonic call for Another Big Event.

emotathons

And wheels on the movement go round and round.  Until they fall off. Again.

Don’t get me wrong – a lot of people have put a lot of brain and muscle power into these things, sincerely believing it was a contribution to a better world.  (I’m talking about offsetting, emissions trading, CCS; the same goes for the Occupies, the camps, the rallies and marches.)

But these are all the appearance of movement-building, they are actually mostly mobilisation. The two can overlap, but they can also be in opposition to each other.

Might it not be a good idea to actually try movement-building [FWIW, I think that ship has sailed].

  • What is there for the person who doesn’t want to/cannot come to the next meeting/march/whatever?
  • Who can’t afford (in any sense) to get arrested?
  • Who is bored by being ego-fodder?
  • Who has some skills and wants others?
  • et. cet. er. a.