We are lost, or: sustainability doesn’t make sense because we don’t know what it is

Author: Toni Ruuska, University of Helsinki, toni.ruuska@helsinki.fi

Sustainability discourse is all around us. Constantly, we hear people talking about the need to change their/society’s ways towards “sustainability”. Curious thing about this is that nobody actually knows what they are talking about. In contrast, we do know the opposite. The un version of it. 

Each passing moment, our lives and societal arrangements, in the affluent North, are organized more and more unsustainably. It seems that the further we get from “sustainability”, the more we talk about it, become obsessed about it, and plan societal reforms around it, while at the same time refusing to accept the opposite. It’s as if a culture based on war and destruction would repeatedly announce how wonderful thing peace is, or expects to achieve peace by declaring a war on everything and everyone. 

There has never existed a sustainable nation or community with a notion of sustainability (I think Tere Vadén has said this or something similar). The paradox is that the concept of “sustainability” has been produced by an utterly destructive and exploitative civilization, that is, the industrious and productivist one. And this civilization, as any other before, is driven by the status quo: it attempts to keep the things as they are (such as the standard of living, modern technology, division of labour, private ownership, urbanism) as it supposedly somehow, and very fast due to, let’s say climate change, becomes also “sustainable”. This shake-the-magic-wand type of “sustainability” is to be reached with the same or similar kind of toolkit that has brought us unsustainability – only instead of industrial capitalism or socialism, we would call it “green” capitalism.     

Now, I’m not saying that sustainability is irrelevant as a concept, or that it would not be important, but arguing instead that we don’t know what sustainability is, or what does it mean in practice. This is because there is little cultural or habitual understanding left that would point us just that. Maybe our grandparents or their parents possessed some knowledge and some of the practices, but sadly we, the over-educated, who were born in the latter part of the 20th century, don’t seem to have a clue anymore. Worse still, most don’t even seem to care, or are completely unwilling to take the responsibility of the fulfilment of their basic needs. 

Instead of really ‘going back to nature’, as Rousseau already suggested, modern folk have mostly tried to cut down the ties to subsistence. Get rid of it. As Ivan Illich’s writes in Shadow Work: it’s been a 500-year war against subsistence economies and communities. This war goes on still, now with bottom of the pyramid economics, micro credits and Western education curriculum, because these things are claimed to lift global South from poverty. 

Can we thus argue that modern way of life is the actual antithesis to something that would last a very long time? And if this is so, it’s no wonder we are lost. Because aren’t we trying to understand and make sustainability happen amidst a culture that is based on destroying its foundation, that is, natural habitats and subsistence economies. 

Secular nihilism or postmodern relativism didn’t help the case. If everything matters the same or is a relative construct, then nothing actually matters, or at least lack motivation. Sustainability is then what we choose it to be, as we have done. It is a matter of perspective, a choice, an identity, a product, a label, an export. Airplanes, freight vessels, pulp processing plants and nuclear power are all sustainable as is clear-cutting of forests only depending on the perspective. 

The conclusion from all this can’t be other than the following: modern industrial civilization and sustainability don’t fit together. There is no reform of it that is sufficient in scale or in quality, nor should we hope for one: ‘I have long thought that the most pessimistic view is one that hopes for the survival of modernity in something like its present form’ (Jason W. Moore, Capitalism in the Web of Life, 2015, p. 87) 

To be sure, one can’t simply turn one’s back from the civilization of unsustainability. It is everywhere all the time. If anything the Anthropocene tells us that. 

So what to do then? 

Why not embrace hopelessness? And try to revive and preserve whatever subsistence economies there are left. Build refugees for humans and non-humans. Make time and space to heal and recover. Reconfigure and reconcile.

What about sustainability then? Time will tell. If sustainability in our time is impossible, after the fall it has a new chance. Although it might be that nobody uses the term anymore. After all, it may be that it was only needed to describe the unsustainability of our time. 

On the ‘sustainability’ of sustainable businesses: a reflection

Author: Alizara (Lisa) Juangbhanich, Bartlett School of Planning at University College London (UCL), a.juangbhanich.11@ucl.ac.uk

What is a sustainable business? A simple answer to this question would be “a business that operates within the principles of sustainability – say, the Triple Bottom Line or the three pillars (economic, social and environmental). The complex answer to this question would be “it depends”. While there can be some common understandings to what we mean by ‘sustainability’, there is a hidden paradox, one that is especially complicated to untangle for business and industry.

The past decade has seen a soar in number of businesses that have transitioned towards sustainable practice. Concepts such as the “Circular Economy”, “cradle-to-cradle”, “Creating Shared Value” are increasingly adopted by the industry as part of their operational framework. Industry practices are changing, and sustainability is placed at the forefront. Companies are going above and beyond regulatory compliance. These efforts demonstrate the accountability of the private sector to drive forth sustainable change, offering solutions that bridge the for-profit nature of their business conduct together with the pursuit of social and environmental welfare.

However, the relationship between the private sector and the sustainability agenda is one that is complex, and fundamentally paradoxical. The capital system in which our industry is designed to operate is one that is based on the foundation of ‘capitalising’ – or exploiting – potential opportunities. Thus remains a challenge of drawing boundaries: to what extent can businesses be seen as sustainable under the continuous consumption of resources? Even if measures are integrated to mitigate social and environmental impact while the business continues to exploit natural capital, can they be considered as being ‘truly’ sustainable? 

The answer to this question would depend on how one defines ‘sustainability’. I was given the opportunity to teach a cohort of sixty postgraduates at a geography department in the UK on sustainable business practice this term. It is from the dialogues we had over this six-week period– those around the nature of and rhetoric used in describing sustainable businesses – that has prompted me to outline some of our discussions in this piece. There are some takeaways that I believe are worth sharing and brought to the fore when discussing sustainability in the business context. Specifically, what is meant by a “sustainable business”; how one could look like; and more importantly, how one should look like. 

Our current discourse

The dialogues our class had on our perspectives of what constituted a sustainable business often diverged ever so slightly. We had our common agreements on ‘sustainable practice’ as encompassing the pursuit of social and environmental welfare. However, when it came to the actual operations or business model of how this may look like in practice, this is where views diverged. For example, if a company operates on business-as-usual principles but does so through environmental technology would that be enough to label them as a sustainable business? What if a company utilised and operated based on a closed-loop cycle but do not purchase from local suppliers or have diversity across their workforce? Boundaries are blurred when lines should be drawn to in identifying the sustainability of a business. 

Weak vs. Strong paradigms of sustainability

One way to conceptualise the major differences in our expectations of sustainable business is to frame it under the weak vs. strong sustainability paradigm. While there is an understanding in the literature that there is no universal agreement of the term ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’, there is also the understanding that they way one chooses to define sustainability – which will ultimately lead to what one anticipates of sustainable business practice – can be positioned on a spectrum, depending on one’s worldview. On the two ends of the spectrum are what has been referred to as the weak and strong sustainability paradigms. 

Weak sustainability is one that encapsulates our society’s dominant worldview. A technocentric worldview largely based on the idea that humans have control of natural resources and can make-up for their consumption of them (namely by means of technological advancement). This view is largely anthropocentric where human wants and demands are prioritised over natural capital. An example would be, in the case of businesses, thinking primarily about technical solutions (say in the manufacturing process) to reduce environmental impact while still enabling the company to maximise its profit. Discourse within this paradigm tend to be formed on the basis for ‘sustainable growth’. 

On the other end of the spectrum is the strong sustainability paradigm. Here sustainability is perceived through an ecocentric worldview. The strong sustainability paradigm addresses nature for its own intrinsic value; natural capital is not seen as expendable or substitutable by other forms of human-made capital. The view is about operating within our ecological limits, thinking about ‘preservation’ rather than the ‘conservation’ of natural resources. Discourse under this paradigm tends to question our position for economic growth at the expense of the environment. 

Landrum (2018) refers to the debate as “a basic division between worldviews”: one where “humans control nature” versus one where “humans are part of nature”. A debate that has long existed and is “still an active point of debate today” (ibid) 

Sustainable business model archetypes

Depending on the view we identify with (or if we are somewhere mid-way along the spectrum), our thought patterns on the subject of sustainability would conform accordingly. The argument here is that the way we view sustainable business and our anticipation for a sustainable form of business practice would also differ according to these views.

In 2014, through an investigation of current literature and examples from practice Bocken et al. proposed that our current models and strategies for sustainable business can be classified into three main groups: those that are technology-oriented, social-oriented, and organisational-oriented. The three terms (technology, social, organisational) represent different sets of mechanism behind the delivery of sustainability (the paper goes on to detail eight archetypes of sustainable business models across the groups). It is my attempt here to discuss these further and connect some of the archetypes to the weak vs strong sustainability paradigms to provide an overview of how sustainability has been addressed in our current industry landscape.

• Technology-oriented models of sustainable business are used to describe strategies that address sustainability in their operations primarily through technical innovation (consider e.g. the circular economy, closed-loop supply chains, cradle-to-cradle strategies to be categorised as part of this grouping). The main contribution of this group is on increasing efficiency in resource-use. This includes, for example, seeking opportunities to create value from waste (e.g. reuse, recycling, repurposing resources), substituting raw material with renewable resources. Technology-oriented typologies often choose to tackle sustainable change through the redesign of their product and operational processes to become more efficient, posing less strain on the natural environment. I would argue that this sits within the weaker paradigm of the sustainability debate where environmental ‘conservation’ is prioritised, technological solutions are offered, and firms tend to be concurrently in pursuit of economic growth. 

•  Social-oriented typologies represent strategies for sustainable business that is based off social innovation. The examples given include those that seek to change the type of service they provide (e.g. selling a service rather than ownership of a product – consider instead leasing phones or washing machines and selling upgrades to these as part of the company’s service); those that seek to address change in consumer behaviour (e.g. slow or sustainable fashion); as well as strategies where the firm uptakes a stewardship role in their work with stakeholders across the supply chain (e.g. working with Fair Trade, Marine Council Stewardship, Forest Council Stewardship etc.).

• Organisational-oriented the last grouping of sustainable business firms are those that work with (organisational) change as their dominant innovation. In the case of sustainability and business, this ‘change’ often denotes a change in the fiduciary responsibility of the firm. Firms that sought to ‘repurpose’ themselves for social and/or environmental purposes, for instance, is seen as an archetype in this group (i.e. those that no longer prioritise economic growth as their primary agenda – swapping these out for socio-environmental missions). Real-life examples would be those classed as hybrid organisations (see also Haigh and Hoffman, 2011) that often maintain their for-profit nature but redistributes their profit for social or environmental causes. Many of the social enterprises, for instance, can be seen as hybrid organisations; and same goes to the more recent B-corporations. Other examples given under this grouping are businesses formed under alternative ownership or on the basis of crowdfunding or crowdsourcing. Organisational-oriented typologies, I would argue, share characteristics closest to the strong sustainability paradigm in the way they address the subject of economic growth (though their anthropocentric nature can still supposedly be extensively argued). 

It is important to note that these divisions are not distinct (Bocken et al., 2014), and strategies across multiple groupings can be used as part of a firm’s strategy for sustainable business. The three groupings were designed as a framework of reference to capture exemplars in sustainable business model innovation. My intention in outlining the above is to showcase the various ways in which sustainability in business has been addressed and how these strategies may closely conform to one end of the sustainability paradigm more than the other.

The question I received from the student cohort while outlining the above groupings, however, was slightly more complicated. Does a business have to incorporate one or more of the three groups of strategies to be deemed sustainable? Do they have to incorporate all strategies across the three? Even if we address all of the strategies from the above groupings, is this what we truly mean by a being sustainable business?

Whether or not I agree, I found myself expressing as a response that in our current industry landscape, it is probably the case that we usually address a business as being ‘sustainable’ even if they advocate one strategy from the above groupings. 

Is strong sustainability missing from today’s discourse?

This brings me back to the weak vs strong sustainability paradigm and how our anticipation of sustainable business stems strongly from how we define sustainability in the first place. For those that orient themselves more strongly with the weak sustainability paradigm (anthropocentric and technocentric worldviews) then perhaps addressing the use of green technology and promoting green growth can be acceptable definitions for sustainable business practice. I would further argue that this is the dominant view in our society. 

In fact, recent research has found that corporate sustainability models (from academic literature and industry practice) are still framed around the weak sustainability paradigm (Landrum, 2018). Moreover, that our current discourse in business is anchored towards the weak sustainability framework. The example given by Landrum is how our reference to the term ‘environmental management’ in itself signifies the control (i.e. managing) of nature that can be construed as a technocentric worldview.

Landrum in her work identified five stages of corporate sustainability in parallel to the weak vs strong sustainability spectrum (Figure 1). The framework helps to envision how businesses may seek to comply with sustainability at different degrees along the spectrum. Her study found that there were much less conceptualisations of sustainable business practice at the firm-level around the strong sustainability paradigm (particularly those that demonstrate ‘regenerative’ or ‘coevolutionary’ pathways). Drawing on her research, she concludes how “strong sustainability is outside current frames of reference for business and industry” and that it is “these restricted parameters [of] defining sustainability that confine the array of corporate actions and behaviours necessary to achieve sustainability” that is sought after.   

Figure 1. Stages of Corporate Sustainability Source: Adapted from Landrum (2018).

Conclusion

My intention of outlining the above is not to commend or criticise particular views on sustainability or advocate for a certain paradigm. It is my aim to shed light on the importance of the need to critically reflect on the present rhetoric within sustainability discourse. The way we discuss sustainability will feed into the way we apply and action its principles in practice. 

While increased efforts towards sustainable business should not be taken for granted (and it is not the purpose of this piece to undermine any past effort), it is also necessary to continue to question some of our taken-for-granted assumptions. The balance of growth and consumption in the context of sustainable business practice for instance, is a crucial one that remains complex to address. Critically reflecting and challenging our current modes of practice is, however, the means by which we gain and make progress towards transformative and radical change.  

References

Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of cleaner production, 65, pp.42-56.

Haigh, N. and Hoffman, A.J., 2011. Hybrid organizations: the next chapter in sustainable business. Organizational dynamics, 41(2), pp.126-134.

Landrum, N.E., 2018. Stages of corporate sustainability: Integrating the strong sustainability worldview. Organization & Environment, 31(4), pp.287-313.

How to make a change? Try first not killing mosquitoes

Authors: Anu Valtonen, Tarja Salmela and Outi Rantala, University of Lapland, outi.rantala@ulapland.fi

It is evening. It is the time of the summer when mosquitoes are still everywhere – the beginning of mosquito period is already long gone, and the end is not yet approaching. We are laughing. We are standing on our bed. I am wearing my old nightdress and my partner is wearing boxers. We have a hoover with us. A hoover! This is it. We cannot stand this any longer. We have to do something; we need to be able to sleep. We hoover the mosquitoes. How did I ever think that I could do something like that? But here I am, with a hoover in my hand. We take a picture with our phone of the situation – it is such an absurd situation. Vuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmm – the hoover is on. I do not want to think what we are doing. And still, we are laughing. And we need to sleep.

In our research group “Intra-living in the Anthropocene”, we approach diverse multispecies encounters with the concept of care. Recently, we have focused on mosquitoes, on those tiny earthly creatures with which we share our lives – and cabin lives as the above extract illustrates. In Finland, where we all live, the mosquitoes are not toxic ones, but they are many. More precisely, there are masses of them, in particular, during the so called ‘räkkä’ period that starts around the mid-summer festival and continues until early August. How is it to encounter these tiny insects? Why should we study these multispecies encounters? How do we make a change by working with these creatures that oftentimes are found as troublesome?

First of all, there is not just one but several ways of encountering mosquitoes. Some of us use any available lethal technology and poisonings, others let the mosquitoes to enter our skins and try to get used to them, some try gently to push the mosquitoes away, away from our bedrooms, tents, and cabins, and some employ local knowledge in trying to avoid them by staying in sunny and windy places. But the mosquitoes – the mass of them in particular – can drive even the gentlest of us crazy. We can end up standing on our beds, hoovering mosquitoes. 

Second, we should study mosquitoes because of their tiny size. In western societies, we tend to focus on large, charismatic species leaving smaller creatures such as insects untouched (See also Maxim’s blog posted on November 18 about how we tend to concentrate on growth). This is well visible in the proliferating field of human-animal studies: much of the studies explore species that are cute, charismatic, furry, and beneficial for humans, either socially or economically. Yet, the small ones are vital for our ecosystem. 

Mosquitoes, for instance, provide an important source of nutrition for insect-eating birds, bats, and some fish, and they also pollinate plants together with horseflies. When taking into consideration how e.g. in our home country Finland there have been signs of the decrease of plant-pollinating insects, our orientation towards the killing of mosquitoes for our comfort in holidays etc. changes. Or, at least, our taken-for granted practices become wobblier. They also become wobblier when we pause to think why the (female) mosquitoes suck blood in the first place: our, and other animals’, blood is their nutrition to reproduce, to lay eggs. Why would any creature be ripped off their purpose and right to reproduce? This question is ever more important when we think about the entanglement of life where human situates in a more-than-human web of relations: we all know what happens if we do not have creatures that pollinate plants. This would mean an end of life to every species, including human. Moreover, mosquitoes affect the ecosystem through controlling the migrations of large animals such as woodland caribou in Canada (Shelomi on Quora, 2017). [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/13/what-would-happen-if-we-eliminated-the-worlds-mosquitoes/#2ca9122a11f6, last visited  19.10.19] Opinions vary in how important insects are to the ecosystem: what would actually happen if they would ‘get rid of’? What would be the consequences for the ecosystem? Yet what seems to be agreed is that the disappearance of mosquitoes from our ecosystem would have effects, and they would be far greater than the ones merely dealing with mosquito-human intra-actions.

Thirdly and finally, we might make a change by pointing out that there are also other ways to encounter the mosquitoes than to kill them. What about trying to living with them? But… how would that happen? To start, we might start wondering their beauty; appreciating the shapes of their tiny bodies and their amazing capability to still fly with their bodies full of human blood; respecting their perseverance to get to our skin – to try over and over again even when faced with various forms of hostility such as clapping hands trying to defeat them; and marvel at the work they do in the earth – and have been doing many million years before our species. Giving oneself up to a mosquito encounter forces us to acknowledge the humankind’s ridiculous attempt to control other earthly creatures. Mosquitoes, and other insects, are uncontrollable. As Hugh Raffles says in his book Insectopedia: “They’ll almost never do what we tell them to do. They’ll rarely be what we want them to be. They won’t keep still. In every respect, they are really complicated creatures” (Raffles, 2011, 4). Yes, they are… and some of them definitely found their way out of the hoover!

References

Raffles, Hugh (2011) Insectopedia. New York: Vintage Books.

Dialogues about post-growth futures – notes on the transition conference in Umeå

Author: Maxim Vlasov, Umeå University, maxim.vlasov@umu.se

The interest in degrowth is booming, at least in the academic circles. More and more papers engage with this umbrella term, there is a vibrant online community, and the international biannual conference attracts hundreds of activists and researchers.

In Sweden, where downscaling the economy appears especially relevant, disillusionment by the story of perpetual growth is also entering the societal debate. Last year, the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) published a report about possible future scenarios for Sweden that does not depend on GDP-growth[1]. Media are addressing the limits to growth too[2]. Even Johan Rockström, professor in environmental science at Stockholm University who had shown much hope in technological progress, recently came out with a statement that green growth is “wishful thinking”[3].

Back in the summer of 2018, at the Degrowth conference in Malmö, the idea for a transition conference focusing on post-growth futures was born. While by day I work on my doctoral project, much of my energy outside the university walls goes into the transition movement. Transition movement defines itself as “a movement of communities coming together to reimagine and rebuild our world”. It could be described as a search for local solutions to the global challenges of ecological and geopolitical crises. Transition Network Sweden (Omställningsnätverket) is a national branch of this trans-local movement. It is a non-profit association that aims to educate, encourage and support local transitions initiatives in Sweden that break with the fossil-based growth economy. We organize courses, spread information and good examples, network and organize an annual conference.

This year, Umeå took the turn to host the annual conference, and degrowth seemed like an urgent theme to engage with. The goal with the conference was to offer a meeting space where the participants could explore, together and from a multitude of perspectives, possible futures where ecological balance justice and well-being are more important societal goals than economic growth. The conference welcomed over 180 participants from all over Sweden and also Finland. It featured activities, talks and workshops by over 30 inspirators who work with transition in their daily lives. It also had nine partners and sponsors, all coming from different societal sectors – from business to civil society to public sector.

As Pella Thiel, who started the Transition network in Sweden along with many other initiatives including End Ecocide and Rights of Nature, said during her keynote: “There is a fear that the end of growth would entail asceticism, that we would not get to satisfy our needs, that we have to refrain”. But does it need to be like this, or can an economy with less metabolism offer something better to us, humans and other beings, than what we have today? 

Much of the discussion about sustainability transitions is always concentrated on the so called “outer” dimensions that can be measured. The figure below shows that outer transitions concern our individual choices and lifestyles, as well as the large socio-technical systems such as energy, transportation and construction. There is no doubt that these thing need to change – that we need to eat and move differently and we need alternative systems of provision of energy, food, housing etc that do not rely on fossil fuels for example. But without turning to the “inner” dimensions, such as feelings, needs, values, or shared societal norms and worldviews, it might be hard and even impossible to write new stories and change the expansionist system in its root.

Figure 1. The four dimensions of transition, based on Hillevi Helmfrid/Ken Wilbur[4]

This holistic framework on transitions offered a fruitful ground for the conference. In line with conferences of the past, the event was organised as a co-creative effort where presentations and talks were blended with interactive dialogues under the guidance of two professional facilitators, Amanda Martling and Emilia Rekestad. We invited those researchers from KTH to present their scenarios. We also got to hear about downshifting, local economy, alternative business, Gross National Happiness, hunter-gatherer perspectives on living, ecosystem-based forestry, non-violence, active hope and much more.  

It is with both excitement and sadness one leaves conferences like this to return to the “normal” of life and work, which are deeply enmeshed into the growth machinery. It feels great, or as some say “cosy”, to have such spaces where one can dare to imagine something radically different. But as long as these spaces remain at the margins of the economy it becomes hard to even believe that systemic transition to a post-growth economy is possible. A local food market here and a downshifter there have their value, but they remain so far from the deeper transformations that are required in the highly developed world. Indeed, thinking and working with these issues is a no less than a self-sacrifice. I have already lost count of the moments when I felt desperate, both as activist and as researcher. 

It is perhaps here where the critical distinction between optimism, pessimism and hope is useful. As Johan Örestig notes in his sharp analysis, hope is different from the first two in how it is constantly pushed about, strengthened and weakened with time and through embedded human experience[5]. In this sense, all kinds of action that are currently challenging the expansionist patterns of the growth economy deserve hopeful attention and critical discussion. This includes the growing protest movements such as Fridays For Future or Extinction rebellion, which are disrupting the system by means of civil disobedience. These movements arise as a moral response to the emergency and desperation, even if they face the critique of hypocrisy and lack of inclusion of a larger society beyond its core of “middle class” activists. Another example are the numerous local transition initiatives. These initiatives balance on the day to day basis between activism and entrepreneurship, idealism and pragmatism, to organize for alternative way of living. Hope is at the core of resistance, and resistance can take different forms: whether it is protesting on the streets, or developing practical alternatives to the growth economy while remaining pretty much in it.

It might well be so that degrowth, in one or another form, is already the inescapable fate of humanity. The remaining question is whether we will be forced into it, or whether we can find a “prosperous way down”.  

Over 180 people from Sweden and Finland participated in the transition conference in Umeå

The transition conference Dialogues about post-growth futures was organised in Umeå, 21-22 September 2019. The website (in Swedish) can still be accessed via the link https://bortomtillvaxt.weebly.com/      

[1] KTH, Bortom BNP-tillväxt project web, http://www.bortombnptillvaxt.se/

[2] SVT, Ny studie: Grön tillväxt är inte möjlig i stor skala, https://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/ny-studie-gron-tillvaxt-ar-inte-mojlig

[3] SVD, Johan Rckström, Önsketänkande med grön tillväxt – vi måste agera, https://www.svd.se/onsketankande-med-gron-tillvaxt--vi-maste-agera

[4] Amanda Martling, Inre omställning https://urkarlektilljorden.se/2018/07/24/inre-omstallning/

[5] Johan Örestig, Från optimism och pessimism till hopp https://www.vk.se/2019-10-21/fran-optimism-och-pessimism-till-hopp

From critical mathematics to utility series

Author: Tommi Kauppinen, tommi.kauppinen@helsinki.fi

Paulo Freire’s (1970) work on critical pedagogy has left us with far-reaching ideas of how critical approach to different aspects of the society can be helpful for people looking for change. Furthermore, Freire contributed to pedagogical discussion by showing schooling as a political institution. In addition, Freire shows clearly the dichotomy that exists in power relations. Freire himself called this dichotomy a relation between the oppressor and the oppressed.

One of the consequences of Freire’s work is discussion on critical mathematics (Frankenstein 1983, Skovsmose 1994, Valero 2004, Rawn & Skovsmose 2019), which demonstrates the possibilities of mathematics education to transform the society. 

Addressing the critical role played by mathematics in society implies an understanding of the risks and uncertainties that mathematics and societal progress conveys. In the field of mathematics education, a critical approach can involve confronting students with situations in which mathematics seems to format the way they understand and act upon reality. (Pais et al. 2012, p. 1).

Pais et al. (2012) show the key element of critical mathematics: the way applied mathematics “formats” our understanding of the society. This blog post seeks to alleviate this formatting by showing how applied mathematics can be used in different ways to generate new possibilities for understanding societal interactions. Moreover, the discussion is held on possible new society-applied mathematics that would enable a way forward in the current stalemate of economic growth and environmental concerns.

Here society-applied mathematics and options to current mathematical concepts available are emphasised. The blog post considers first the present understanding of applied mathematics, shows how this can be transformed into a more sustainable view, and relates this discussion on individual gain. The developed concepts are then applied to environmental aspects of economics and utilized to develop novel mathematical conceptualisation, e.g. new formulations concerning of game theory and microeconomics. The idea of shared utility, where individuals benefit also from giving (e.g. Berking 1999) as well as getting, can then be directly applied to the concerns of anthropocene.

The reconceptualisation of some key elements of economics is not to undermine the use of the conservative economic calculus. The concepts introduced are backwards compatible with well-tested economic theory, but they show that there exists a wealth of alternative applied mathematics that is available to rethink societal interactions. Even without accepting the concepts in this blog post, one is confronted with the possible use of mathematics as a spearhead for a new framework in which societies can function. This notion relates directly to the foundation of critical mathematics (e.g. Kauppinen 2019, in Finnish).

Society-applied mathematics

Mathematics is the science of logical structures (e.g. Putnam 1967), and applied mathematics tries to employ these structures to identify them an empirical use. To find empirical uses for mathematics is not simple and some abstractions, approximations and assumptions are needed to mold the phenomenon under scrutiny into a meaningful equational form. This holds also for technical and business-oriented studies, but here the focus is on society-applied mathematics. One could define this type of mathematics as political mathematics, because there is a need to identify the ethical and political dimensions (Rawn and Skovsmose 2019) of society-applied mathematics. 

Mathematics is used in the society to describe it’s functions, but it is also possible that the description begins to redefine the social context which was originally described. This is something society-applied mathematics needs to take into the account when being developed and ultimately, the discussion needs to be taken to the objectivity of mathematics (e.g. Weyl 2009). Is mathematics objective? Are society-applied mathematics also objective? Does a model become objective just by using mathematical formulation? What is objectivity, anyway?

Daston and Galison (2007) note that objectivity itself is a relatively new concept, which evolved in the middle of 19th century and has gradually developed into its present form (see also a blog on the subject and a summary on Daston’s and Galison’s work). Why is objectivity such a pursued target for economics and envinronmental sciences? Because objectivity historically also takes a stand on freedom, moral good and just society.

Instead of freedom of will, machines offered freedom from will—from willful interventions that had come to be seen as the most dangerous aspects of subjectivity (Daston and Galison 2007, p. 123) … It is this internal struggle to control the will that imparted to mechanical objectivity its high moral tone…(ibid. p. 178).

The notions of objectivity and justice relate to the present structures of the society, that are supported with mathematics. Moreover, the mathematics that is society-applied seldom has the reflective quality of redefinition when the needs of the society change. The demand for objectivity is here the key to understanding why this is so. 

In addition, the mathematics does not often relate to demands of just society, but this is a crucial perspective into application of mathematics on a society level. When considering e.g. climate science, the mathematical models show climate as being a system in complex dynamic equilibrium, which can develop into many different climate states (e.g. Somerville 2012). It is therefore interesting to note that, firstly, mathematical modelling of climate reinstitutes climate as a system and, secondly, that it not only describes us the system but shows possible future scenarios. Both notions serve as examples of society-applied mathematics’ influence.

This discussion relates to critical mathematics, which can be put into two bullet points. The project of critical mathematics is two-fold:

1. Critical mathematics seeks to show that applied mathematics is always imperfect in relation to the issues in a real-world scenario (Frankenstein 1983), and

2. Critical mathematics tries to develop optional (albeit imperfect) solutions to technical, commercial and societal issues (Skovsmose 1994).

It is therefore the aim in this blog post, where some optional mathematics is developed for game theory and microeconomics, to find out novel ways of considering individual and shared utility.

Game theory and individual utility

Game theory offers a formal model for social interaction, which is often used in economic computation. In game theory, there is a predefined notion of each individual or group trying to maximise their own utility. Therefore, when game theory is used to characterize a negotiation, e.g. a climate negotiation, each party maximises their own utility and not the shared utility. In this section, the assumption of individual utility is eased and a novel solution to the classical prisoner’s dilemma is presented. This solution differs clearly from the traditional game theoretical solution to shared utility, namely cooperative games (Peleg and Sudhölter 2007).

Prisoner’s dilemma (see Tucker & Kuhn 1950) defines a following problem: there are two individuals A and B, which are being accused of a crime they have committed and are being questioned. They can either (1) trust the other accused, or (2) betray the other accused. If they both betray one another, they both are imprisoned for two years. If both trust each other, both get one year of jail. If only one of them betrays the other, and the other one trusts, the one who betrayed gets free and the one who trusted gets three years of prison. In game theory, the situation can be described as in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Prisoner’s dilemma.

It is acknowledged that if both accused behave rationally, they are to give each other in. This is because the option to betray gives better results for the decision-maker, no matter what the other decides. If A is the decision-maker, then he gets free by betraying if B  trusts (if A trusts, he gets a year of jailtime). If on the other hand, B betrays, then A only gets two years (if A trusts, he gets three years). In game theory, it is formally said that the decision to betray therefore dominates the decision to trust. In the following, we ease the assumption of individual utility to enable shared utility. First, the information in Figure 1 can be shown in two-dimensional plane just by plotting the numbered pairs (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Prisoner’s dilemma in two-dimensional (A, B) coordinate system.

In the Figure 2, there is a right angle between the utilities of prisoners A and B. If the notion of individual utility is eased towards shared utility, the right angle is no longer necessary. In this case, the prisoner A gets part of the utility of prisoner B, and B gets some of the utility of prisoner A. Therefore, it is possible to release the right angle into an angle α (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Prisoner’s dilemma in two-dimensional (A’, B’) coordinate system.

In Figure 3, the coordinate system is A’B’-coordinates, for when α is not a right angle, A and B do no longer trigger a two-dimensional coordinate system. However, the effect of the decision (trust/betray) can still be mapped on the Axes A and B, and the values can then be given in A’B’-coordinates. 

Figure 4. Prisoner’s dilemma after coordinate system change, α = 36° = π/5 rad.

In Figure 4, the results for prisoners A and B are given, when α = 36°. Numerically it seems that the situation has reversed. Before (see Figure 1) it seemed that both prisoners A and B should betray one another (betrayal dominates trust), now it seems (Figure 4) that they should trust each other (trust dominates betrayal). What has changed?

It is paramount to note that in the solution presented the premises of game theory have been modified. When right angle between the individual utilities of prisoners A and B is released into angle α, at the same time the notion of shared utility is presented: part of the well-being of prisoner A comes from the well-being of prisoner B and vice versa. Next, the notion of shared utility is formalised using utility series.

Shared utility as utility series

It is of interest to find a formulation for shared utility, as many societal issues stem from the fact that people are advised to maximise their individual utility. By finding a sound basis for shared utility, which was already used in game theoretical setting, one can hope to affect the discussion held in many forums on utility. This is clearly a project embarked on with the help of critical mathematics.

In economics, a utility is a mapping U, s. t.

where x is n-vector, which describes the resources needed to attain the utility z. Total utility id given by z, which is a m-vector, and both n and m belong to natural numbers. Therefore,

U(x) = z.

Let us assume we have a infinite series q1,q2,…,qi-1,qi,qi+1,…, and that the sum of this utility series is as follows: 

In addition, assumption is made that 0 ≤ qi ≤ 1 with all i, qi≥qi+1 with all i, and that Q=1.

Now one can reframe the utility function given above with the multiplier Q (=1). One gets

U(x) = Qz.

The utility function given through the utility series is almost the same as the traditional utility function. However, one can now assume that the utility series Q includes preference relations qi, which describe the preferences of an individual as follows: q1 is the individuals own gain, q2 is the gain received by his most important thing or being, q3 the gain of the next important, and so on, as long as there are preference relations to identify and define. One may not that this classification is made on a cardinal scale, where the numerical values are defined only in relation to the other values given. As an example, qi can be given the following values: q1=0.5, q2=0.2, q3 = 0.2, q4=0.1, qi>4 = 0 satisfy the conditions given to the members qi of utility series above. We may also note that in a classical formulation, q1=1 and the rest qi, i  ≠ 1, are zero. 

To create a possibility to have different utilities, one needs to consider the utility z transforming with every different qi, in effect giving zi. It should be noted that now we differ from the classical formulation, but justifiably so, as the different types of utilities with preference relation qi need different numerical values. One gets

It is now evident that when utility function is calculated, there are shared utilities with other individuals. To account for these shared utilities, one considers the following in relation to given qi and zi pair:

Uown(x) = qizi, and

Ushared(x) =  Aqizi.

The Uown gives individual’s own utility, but the Ushared is the benefit of the shared utility to the receiver of the utility, considering the resources x used by the giver of the utility. The alteration matrix A gives the mapping of the utility of the giving individual as utility of the receiving individual. In general case, then, A is a m x m matrix.

One more thing to consider is the total utility Utot of an individual. It is formulated by

Utot(x)= Ʃ Uown(x) + Ureceived, 

where Ureceived = Ʃ (Ushared (by others with the individual)) is the amount of utility shared with the individual by others.

It is of interest to note that in this formulation, one unit of certain resources, e.g. money can amount to a total of more than one unit, which makes utility a more complex system than a zero-sum game. 

As an example, let us consider monetary utility. Let us assume that there is a movie theatre, which shows a movie. Each film enthusiast gives ten euros to see the film and let us assume that 10,000 people do this. Let us consider these people as an average, having a utility function U(x) = Ʃ Uown(x) = -x1+ p x2, where x1 equals money spent on work-related expenses and x2 equals time individuals on average spend working and p is the average salary. 

Let us assume that the film has utility series qi value of qi =1/256 for every individual and that the average salary is 2560 EUR. Then each of the ten thousand individuals has Ushared = A*10 EUR, and alteration matrix A is (m=1) a scalar with value of A=1. Therefore, the film makers (neglecting the movie theatre and other beneficiaries) receive a shared utility of Ureceived = 10,000*10 EUR = 100,000 EUR. 

How can the game theoretical finding in the last section be formulated with utility series? This is clearly a case of relation between q1 and qi, as this relation determines the amount of shared utility between the prisoners. From the Figure 3 we can (when α = 36° = π/5 rad) solve (when we know that the angle is defined by (90° - α)/2):  

qi/q1 = tan [(π/2 - π/5)/2 rad], 

which gives

qi/q1 = 0.5095. 

It is therefore appropriate to note that the relation between prisoner’s own utility and shared utility in the utility series must be little over a half to account for the emergence of trust in game theoretical setting.

Finding resource limits for sustainability

One can use the same mathematical structure as in the utility series to find for use of resources x in the utility functions. Now we can impose a limit on these resources x by calculating the total carbon budget for each individual (Le Quere et al. 2015) as approximately 0.7 tons of CO2-eq. per individual on this planet.

Let us then have all the resource vectors used in an ordered series s. t. x1,x2,…,xi-1,xi,xi+1,… scaled according to the total resource use possible. In effect, one gets
0 ≤ xi ≤ 1 with all i, xi≥xi+1 with all i, and that sum of these resource vectors is X=1.

It is therefore applicable to further limit the possible utilities by giving resource use limits as well. It can be noted that this limiting makes it more important to have shared utilities, as individuals can find it hard to fulfill their needs by just maximizing their own utility. Really, what ought to be done is to maximise own total utility by receiving as much shared utility as possible. It is left to the reader to imagine possible ways to do this, but examples are plenty. Rewarding social interaction can be one way forward. 

Conclusion

This blog post demonstrates the power of critical mathematics both in finding novel ways of thinking but also in providing political alternatives to common societal issues. It is clear, that the models presented are introductory, and they need to be further refined to deal with exceptions. However, the whole process of understanding and evaluating these models is a process in critical mathematics and a possible learning process for all interested in mathematical thinking. One would hope that this learning process sparks more vivid and free relationship with mathematical creativity, not bounded by traditional right and wrong answers.

One can also note that shared utility therefore is a type of crossbreed between economic, environmental and social resource use. The exact modelling of these utilities is more involved than in classical models, but these pose no difficulty to modern-day computing power of e.g. a basic laptop.

There are infinite amount of mathematical structures and some of them can be applied to societies. There should be scientific discussion on the effects of using certain mathematical models on society-level, and political discussion on the alternatives available for current mathematics applied in the societies.

References

Berking, H. (1999). Sociology of giving. Sage.

Daston, L. & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. The MIT Press, US

Frankenstein, M. (1983). Critical mathematics education: an application of Paulo Freire's epistemology. The Journal of Education. 165 (4), 315–339. 

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (Pedagogia do oprimido). New York: Continuum, 2007.

Kauppinen, T. (2019). Oikeudenmukaisuus ja matematiikka – kohti soveltavan matematiikan poliittisuutta. Wordpress Blog. (in Finnish). URL: https://oikeudenmukaisuusjamatematiikka.home.blog

Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R. M., Peters, G. P., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P. & Boden, T. A. (2015). Global carbon budget 2014. Earth System Science Data, 7(1), 47-85.

Pais, A., Fernandes, E., Matos, J., & Alves, A. (2012). Recovering The Meaning Of "Critique" In Critical Mathematics Education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(1), 28-33.

Peleg, B., & Sudhölter, P. (2007). Introduction to the theory of cooperative games (Vol. 34). Springer Science & Business Media.

Putnam, H. (1967). Mathematics without foundations. The Journal of Philosophy, 5-22.

Ravn, O. & Skovsmose, O. (2019). Connecting Humans to Equations. Springer International Publishing.

Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a critical mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 27 (1), 35–57

Somerville, R. C. (2012). Communicating the science of climate change.

Tucker, A., W. & Kuhn, H., W. (eds.) 1950. Contributions to the theory of games, Annals of Mathematical Studies.

Valero, P. (2004). Socio-political perspectives on mathematics education. In Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education (pp. 5-23). Springer, Boston, MA.

Weyl, H. (2009). Philosophy of mathematics and natural science. Princeton University Press.

Welcome to Sustainable Change Research Network!

You may rightly ask if we really need another research network. Do we even need more research? The initiation of this network was coupled with the conviction that the world already had enough scientific knowledge to ignite sustainable change. What is missing is putting it in use. Other priorities often continue to rule, however, and most research, just like human activity in general, is based on concerns and aims other than sustainable change, or is even against such change.

Even policies and activities under sustainability labels are often problematic, as they tend to be add-ons to priorities and practices which in their essence are both environmentally destructive and unjust in terms of the distribution of costs and benefits. While this kind of weak sustainability is still to be preferred over vigorous destructive forces such as Bolsonaro and Trump, it might also be a more realistic target for a radical research-based dialogue.

Research and research-based activities are not least needed in order to expose the rift between mainstream sustainability policies and the need for change. More environmentally realistic and ethically inclusive voices are also needed within the research community, to promote paradigmatic changes within scientific disciplines, and radical researchers need to be involved in various activities in society, developing visions and new practices for sustainable well-being. 

The world with its inhabitants are in dire need of sustainable change, a change that must go much further and deeper than present ambitions in the mainstream social and economic landscape. Such change must also build alternatives to many of our dominant perspectives and theories within science. Obvious examples are alternatives to economic growth as measure of progress and alternatives to the instrumental view normally adopted towards nature. 

Jeremy Leggett once argued that we have been partners in crime since the first IPCC report, and while we can discuss the “we” in such a claim, it is a relevant description of most of the educated wealthy elite of the world, its policymakers and corporate executives, as well as us in the research community. How to change this? The proof will be in the pudding: The forms and details are up to us, to what happens with the network as a facilitator of the exchange of ideas and activities that promotes sustainable change.

With this introduction, we welcome the present and future members to use this emerging platform in support of sustainable change. At this moment, we particularly ask you to initiate action and share it with us in the event calendar and in this blog. These actions can include, but are not limited to, organising working groups and seminars; editing special issues and books; publishing guest editorials, scientific articles, chapters, and other texts; communicating outside the network about the network; attracting new members and arousing interest in relevant parties; and participating in direct action.

Please inform the Steering Committee via email suchresearch.net@gmail.com so that we can add your initiatives on the SUCH webpage, and thus inspire others to engage in sustainable change. The time is now.

Too warm regards

Karl and Pasi