4.7 Editorial Material

Alternatives to sustainable development: what can we learn from the pluriverse in practice?

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 1149-1158

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s11625-022-01210-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. project Global Future Health - European Research Council (ERC) [759414]
  2. Maria de Maeztu Unit of Excellence ICTA UAB [CEX2019-0940-M]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [695446, 947713]
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [759414, 947713] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the history and sustainability of the debates on sustainable development, highlighting the contradictions and limitations of the concept. It presents case studies of alternative approaches to sustainable development and identifies the frictions with capitalist modernity emerging from these alternatives.
The debates on the sustainability of development have a long history. Although the Brundtland Report popularized sustainable development, this slippery concept sidelined previous critiques of development and has been compatible with a wide range of conflicting agendas. A notable example of this contradiction is the uncritical promotion of capitalist growth in the pursuit of social justice and ecosystem health by the sustainable development goals. In contrast to this reliance on the one world of Euroamerican market economies, this special feature presents 12 case studies of alternatives to sustainable development. These case studies question the anthropocentric universalism of the development project and enact radically different relational ontologies, often gathered under the conceptual umbrella of the pluriverse. They focus on territorial, community, and network initiatives that intend to move methodologically beyond discourse analysis with a situated and empirical analysis of how pluriversal practices might flourish as well as generate tensions. We identify three frictions with capitalist modernity emerging from these contributions: (1) how alternatives to sustainable development relate to state institutions, (2) how they engage with the distribution of surplus, and (3) how they unsettle scientific epistemologies, at times regenerating past resources-and at other times radical futures. With this special feature, we hope to re-politicize the debates on the science and practice of sustainability, and weave the contributions of anticolonial and indigenous science studies into neo-Marxist and post-development critiques.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据