Page 41 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

24 K. Ott et al.

the factual power of establishing a definition of the term for decision-making, while
discursive work on the concept based on a rational formulation of moral intuitions in
the face of other real or virtual discourse participants challenges power-holders to
deliver well-founded arguments and to reveal their assumptions and personal interests
as well as the implications of their activities. Sustainability communication, which
works through persuasion, can be considered an essential ‘soft instrument’ for imple-
menting sustainability. However, it is important to note that persuasion can be accom-
plished in different ways. Following the theory of strong sustainability, the right
balance for persuasive discourses is the so-called reflexive equilibrium between one’s
own basic intuitions and reasonable, rational arguments (including both common
sense and a rational reflection transcending instrumental calculus), which take place
in an intersubjective setting. Reflexive equilibrium requires a constant examination of
one’s own deepest beliefs in the face of the beliefs held by others, even when those
others are not actually present. It enables a participatory process of learning and facili-
tates the further development and reinforcement of one’s own ethical and social values
while strengthening one’s own sense of ‘making a difference’. Lifestyles are also the
outcome of habitualization processes, which can lead to a reduction of one’s own
options for social action. The reflexive process described here can thus have an eman-
cipatory power and open to individuals new paths for the shaping of social patterns
relevant for a sustainable development.
Promising ways to specify a concept are to make use of frames, images and
visions, since they open the field for widely accessible ‘story lines’. These seem
necessary if the guiding principles and myths sustaining prevalent institutional
practices that impede the diffusion of new concepts are to be challenged (see Brand
in this volume). Sustainability will thus cease being a platitude and become a com-
plex discursive field that provokes and even polarizes (see contributions in von
Egan-Krieger et al. 2009).

References

Biesecker, A., & Hofmeister, S. (2009). Starke Nachhaltigkeit fordert eine Ökonomie der (Re)
Produktivität. In T. von Egan-Krieger, J. Schultz, P. P. Thapa, & L. Voget (Eds.), Die
Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit: Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik (pp. 169–192).
Marburg: Metropolis.
Daly, H. E. (1997). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA:
Beacon.
Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faber, M., & Manstetten, R. (1998). Produktion, Konsum und Dienste in der Natur: Eine Theorie
der Fonds. In F. Schweitzer & G. Silverberg (Eds.), Selbstorganisation (pp. 209–236). Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot.
Frankfurt, H. (1987). Equality as a moral ideal. Ethics, 98, 21–43.
Gowdy, J., & McDaniel, C. (1999). The physical destruction of Nauru: An example of weak
sustainability. Land Economics, 75, 333–338.
Grey, W. (1996). Possible persons and the problem of posterity. Environmental Values, 5,
161–179.