[closed] The Socio-Technical Imaginaries of Energy Transitions and Environmental Justice.

2024-10-17

La versione in pdf della cfp è possibile scaricarla qui.

 

Guest editors:

Federica Viganò, Free University of Bolzano, federica.vigano@unibz.it

Monica Musolino, University of Messina, mmusolino@unime.it

Elisabetta Bucolo, Conservatoire National des Arts et métiers-Cnam/LISE-CNRS di Parigi, elisabetta.bucolo@lecnam.net

 

The call aims to stimulate a critical debate on the socio-technical imaginaries that accompany and guide the energy transition (hereafter ET), shaping both collective and individual practices, as well as public policies on various scales (global, European, national, and local). In fact, technocratic imaginaries, centered on the central and prioritized role of technological innovation, have established themselves as the dominant narrative in various fields of knowledge and the sharing and transmission of knowledge (Pellizzoni, 2011; Fisher, 2009; Jasanoff, 2003).

The technical-scientific discourse has produced imaginaries characterized by a strong normativity and an aversion to non-aligned approaches (for example, the perspectives of marginalized populations carrying local knowledge or weaker social groups), which ends up depoliticizing the ecological issue. This sets the terms for the question of environmental and epistemic justice (Drique, Lejeune, 2017; Fricker, 2023, 2007). Indeed, structural conditions create injustice from a socio-economic point of view, and the groups most disadvantaged by these conditions are also those who bear the highest costs of the climate crisis (Rosignoli, 2020; Martinez Alier, 2014). In addition to a condition of double exclusion, public policies add further marginalization by constructing themselves around the needs and resource availability of the most advantaged social groups, further sidelining the most vulnerable populations. These latter groups become subjects of a double misrecognition: they are not legitimized as actors in the ecological transition, and their knowledge is not recognized as expert knowledge of the ecological issues that concern them. Instead, their perspectives are made invisible by dominant knowledge and narratives (Bucolo, 2024; Godrie, Dos Santos, 2017).

Furthermore, it is important to observe that the production of urgent technocentric rhetoric is often tied to the notion of "urgency": many governmental bodies and international organizations promote technology as the main solution to achieving temporal goals that often do not consider the human component, collective actions, or individual behaviors. These factors relate in complex and culturally situated ways to the application of technological innovations, making these simplified representations problematic.

An important aspect of the critical perspective that this call aims to stimulate concerns the recognition that imaginaries about ET can be expressions of a multiplicity of actors: governments, the science and technology (S&T) sector, universities, private companies, and civil society. In this regard, the co-productionist paradigm (Chilvers et al., 2021, 2018; Chilvers, Kearnes, 2020) has recently gained prominence within the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), emphasizing the importance of aligning different subjects within decision-making processes regarding TE to construct a counter-hegemonic perspective against the dominant paradigm. Experiences of civic participation on climate and TE issues are an important signal of the awareness that TE is not predominantly technical-normative in nature. Numerous civil society organizations contest the governance imposed by the socio-technical imaginary, proposing alternative perspectives and practices that value social justice, democratic participation, and ecological sustainability. These range from groups that denounce the current technocratic and economic elite status quo to local alternative initiatives based on traditional knowledge and sustainable practices, aiming to strengthen community and ecosystem resilience. They also include more radical movements of civil disobedience.

 

The call invites theoretical or empirical contributions on the following topics:

 

- Possible combinations or prevalences of factors that can lead to systemic change in ET: the capacity for agency embedded in different actors, justice, power, the role of politics and policies, representations of imaginaries, involvement, and governance.

- Local socio-technical imaginaries of indigenous or local populations that assign their own meanings to ET strategies focused on technological innovation linked to the use of renewable energy sources, counterposing their own knowledge and ecological practices.

- Socio-technical imaginaries with a strong political connotation, such as when local populations overturn the subsumptive approach guiding the construction of massive infrastructures, transforming it into a tool of emancipation or political autonomy on a narrative level.

- The intersection between environmental injustice and epistemic injustice with reference to how public policies regarding ET are developed in relation to these practices and knowledge.

 

References

Bucolo E. (2024), Au croisement de la justice sociale et épistémique, Sociographe, 86 : 39 – 51.

Chilvers J., Bellamy R., Pallet H., Hargreaves T.  (2021). A systemic approach to mapping participation with low-carbon energy transitions. Nature Energy, 6: 250-259.

Chilvers J., Kearnes M. (2020), Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 45, 3: 347-380.

Chilvers J., Pallett H., Hargreaves T. (2018). Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: The case of energy system transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 42: 199-210.

Drique, M., Lejeune, C. (2017). La justice sociale à l’épreuve de la crise écologique. Revue d’éthique et de théologie morale, 1/293 : 111-124. 

Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and Expertise. Reorienting Policy Inquiry, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Fricker, M. (2023). Vers la justice épistémique, entretien réalisé par Garrau, Marie et Lavergne, Cécile dans la Revue Quart Monde, 265, 1 : 2-6. 

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press. 

Godrie, B., Dos Santos, M. (2017). Présentation: inégalités sociales, production des savoirs et de l’ignorance. Sociologie et sociétés, 49, 1 : 7-31.

Jasanoff, S. (2003). (No?) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy, 30, 3:157-162.

Martinez Alier, J. (2014). L’écologisme des pauvres. Une étude des conflits environnementaux dans le monde. Les Petits Matins. 

Pellizzoni, L. (2011) (Ed.). Conflitti ambientali Esperti, politica, istituzioni nelle controversie ecologiche, Bologna, Il Mulino.

Rosignoli F. (2020), Giustizia ambientale. Come sono nate e cosa sono le disuguaglianze ambientali, Castelvecchi.

 

Key Dates:

  • Abstract submission by January 15th, 2025
  • Notification of acceptance/rejection by February 5th, 2025
  • Full paper submission by May 30th , 2025.
  • Notification of the peer review decision by July 30th, 2025.
  • Reviewed paper submission by September 15, 2025.
  • Notification of the peer review decision (second round) by October 7th , 2025
  • Final paper submission by November 15th, 2025
  • Publication of the issue by December 2025.

 

Abstract submission

The file containing the abstract, five keywords, and the authors' details (first name, last name, affiliated institution, institutional email, ORCID) must be sent via email to redazione@fuoriluogo.info. The subject of the email should be «CALL Socio-Technical Imaginaries». The order of authors must follow the order of publication, and no additional authors can be added at a later stage.

 

Full paper submission

Once the abstract has been accepted by the editorial board, the paper submission must be made exclusively through the platform at the following link:

http://www.serena.unina.it/index.php/fuoriluogo/about/submissions.

Submissions via email will not be accepted.