Читать книгу Towards a Political Education Through Environmental Issues - Melki Slimani - Страница 28

In the studies on transitions, Avelino and Wittmayer (2016) discuss four types of explicit treatments of the notion of power: a mechanistic perspective, a governance perspective, a horizontal perspective and an emancipatory perspective.

In the mechanistic perspective, power relations between collective actors (mainly industrial policy makers) constitute a causal mechanism of the targeted change. This type of change is perceived as a result of conflicts, power struggles, protests, lobbying, coalition building and negotiation between these actors and different social groups. Such a change thus results from a change in the power relations between the actors involved (Avelino and Wittmayer 2016).

From a governance perspective, transitions are conceptualized as changes in the dynamics of power relations and the struggle for dominance (Voß and Bornemann 2011) involving, in addition to individual actors, citizens and civil society (Geels and Schot 2007). Three levels of power are distinguished:

 – the relational aspect related to the immediate interactions between the actors reflecting their interests;

 – the dispositional aspect related to the rules and resources available and to the dominant representations of the actors;

 – the structural linked to broader orders of signification and legitimization (Hofmann 2013; Geels 2014).

From this perspective, it is impossible to reduce the political character of socio-technical transitions to sustainability (Meadowcroft 2009; Voß et al. 2009).

The horizontal perspective is based on a qualitative typology of power relations. It asks how different actors (government, non-governmental organizations, citizens and scientists) manage to exercise power relations at different times (Avelino and Wittmayer 2016).

The empowerment perspective refers to emancipation in a broad sense as a process of empowerment (Avelino 2009, 2011). According to this perspective, the management of a transition is a kind of empowerment of niches by facilitating their grouping as well as the emergence of regimes that can eventually take over or replace regimes that are in place.

The management of socio-technical transitions constitutes a new concept of piloting the dynamics of this type of system which goes beyond the managerial conception generally associated with the idea of management control: the starting point of transition management is in fact “complexity and uncertainty”, allowing a limited degree of steering with such societal dynamics (Rotmans 2005; Paredis 2013). Human geography criticizes the technocracy within the managerial perspective of socio-technical transitions for being “geographically naive” by conceptualizing space and transferability beyond a narrow range of case studies. Political ecology, a field of human geography, explicitly addresses the problematic power relations that underlie the production, transmission and sharing of knowledge and technology in socio-technical regimes (Lawhon and Murphy 2011).

The management of socio-technical transitions is also considered as a reflective and participatory mode of governance, which aims to orient socio-technical systems towards social goals by engaging actors at several levels and putting ideas to the test through experimentation, learning and adaptation as factors of change.

The transitions of socio-technical systems to sustainability have also taken the form of social movements such as the “cities in transition” movement in Belgium (Costa 2013; Kenis and Mathijs 2014). It represents a new culture that is developing: the culture of transition interpreted as a hybrid social and environmental movement (Neal 2013). Nevertheless, these social movements are not free from the pressures of depoliticization that can originate from different sources.