Page 32 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

2 Strong Sustainability as a Frame for Sustainability Communication 15

of strong sustainability presented in this chapter does not take as a mere given the
pre-deliberative agreement on sustainability (as established after Rio in societal,
political and scientific documents). This agreement combines commitments to
future generations with the so-called three-pillar model, by which economic, envi-
ronmental and societal objectives are to be (somehow) balanced. From a philo-
sophical perspective, this is an insufficient foundation for a genuine discourse on
sustainability. The theory of strong sustainability goes beyond this widespread
agreement to critically address the very core of the sustainability idea (inter- and
intragenerational justice, a diversified concept of ‘natural capital’ etc.) in order to
shape a comprehensive normative theory that can offer a well-founded orientation
to societal and political decision-making processes (Ott and Döring 2008; Grunwald
2009; Norton 2005).
Drawing on Habermas’s discourse ethics, the theory of strong sustainability
assumes that discourse is a particular form of communication in which argumenta-
tion takes place (Habermas 1981). Rather than being considered successful to the
extent that actors achieve their individual goals, as is the case for strategic action,
communicative action and its second-order mode of argumentation succeed insofar
as the actors freely agree, on the basis of rationally supported arguments, that their
goals are reasonable and acceptable by all participants. Thus in order to reconstruct
the normative presuppositions that shape discourse one cannot simply, from a mere
observational point of view, describe argumentation as it empirically and factually
occurs; rather, from the participant perspective, it is possible to articulate the shared
and often implicit ideals and rules that provide the reasons for regarding some argu-
ments as better than others.
The theory of strong sustainability therefore aims at:
• identifying criteria for distinguishing sustainable and non-sustainable paths on
the grounds of a wider consideration of arguments than merely economic ones,
• specifying the proper scope of the discourse by setting up a framework of fields
of action and application,
• delivering a basis for operationalisation in policy and politics,
• performing as a ‘rational corrective’ to clarify the diffuse discourse on sustain-
able development taking place in society (Grunwald 2009).
By drawing on Lakatos’s and Stegmüller’s post-Popperian assumption that every
theory is constituted by core elements and a set of applications, some of which are
paradigmatic, some secure and some contested, the theory of strong sustainability
avoids the risk of transforming sustainability into a ‘theory about everything’ with-
out any specific boundaries of application. For example, global climate change
would be a paradigmatic application of a theory of sustainability, whereas the issue
of juvenile criminality in urban areas is only marginally related to sustainability
issues, although not completely independent from them.
Consequently, the theory of strong sustainability consists of different ‘levels’
(see Table 2.1 below), which are not intended as a deductive hierarchy. The first two
levels – the core elements of the theory – consist of a theoretical reflection framing
the concept of sustainability as a regulative ideal. The last three levels open the field