As briefly mentioned in my first post, this intro class importantly exposed me to new tools to help untangle webs of causes and effects, actions and reactions, processes and outcomes. How do these all play out in reality? Obviously processes don’t pan out in a linear fashion, as characterized by the “Facts & Action” framework we learned about in lecture. I increasingly operate in something more akin to the “Contemporary Framework,” which keeps hybridity and interconnections of actors, perspectives, and outcomes in mind. Making sense of reality within this framework relies on engaging and asking the right questions. Oh, always asking questions!
The four important types of questions are Descriptive, Explanatory, Evaluative, and Instrumental. ENVS 160 has definitely ingrained in me that I can’t possibly address (should hardly think about!) the instrumental questions before addressing the first three, so as to not get overwhelmed, or act on assumptions (missing pieces of the puzzle). These questions, along with Actor-Network mapping, which we just touched on the first week of class, are crucial to understanding the complexities of the problems and non-problems we face. A key point to this process is channeling Hulme (2009), in that we must consider how we all operate in this world with different values. If we do not ask the right questions of the actors and effects, in the right sequence, we’ll begin to operate under assumptions – a dangerous game. These questions can help me understand an issue realize why I don’t at all understand an issue. They help me to push myself, and also help to push others, in my daily life – question cause and effect, dig deeper (this was particularly helpful in a conversation with friends about population growth), even as it relates to why I think a certain way (hence the title… I love being told I’m wrong). What I like about ENVS is that these questions, concept maps, and situated-ness feel very grounded in reality – it all relates to economics, politics, culture, place… the interdisciplinary-ness coming into play. These relate to the ways we act in, and create, this world.
I see how these methods could be very effective in what Steinburg (2016) calls “Process Expertise.” In this section, he describes some of the rulemaking processes that go unnoticed, because they tend to be so context specific. His advice here is literally just make connections within the institutions you seek to change, ask advice, reach out, and “diversify your sources” (Steinburg 2016, 276). That advice probably would have terrified me two years ago, but I want to make that my reality. Somehow, I feel as though this relates to what I said about ENVS scholars making good mediators. I don’t really know what this means, still. But for a good chunk of this semester I couldn’t shake the feeling that I probably will go to law school. This thought was rekindled upon seeing a presentation by a representative of OPAL, during which he described how minorities are so easily pushed out of their neighborhoods or otherwise experience environmental injustice – they’re working so hard, and do not have the time, money or resources to attend city council meetings or to make a case for themselves, given they’re in a system where the language/jargon/locations are inaccessible. Somebody needs process expertise for that situation to lean in favor of the marginalized community. And process expertise comes from… making connections – physical, social, theoretical. Always communicating, always listening, always mediating between ever inevitable difference.
Abstracting this Steinburg example a little bit leads me to my next point – in order for these skills to really be meaningful, I have to hone in on expertise. I’ve always considered myself a “big picture thinker” but man, this semester has felt somewhat frivolous… Simply too big, too theoretical (in all of my classes!). However, I now feel confident in my foundations (not too confident though – I am usually receptive to being told how wrong I am), and am eager to apply these new skills to more situated contexts next semester (and beyond) in ENVS 220, as well as in HIST 297 – History of Science, Race and Gender (hoping to “diversify my sources”) and Environmental Econ. It’s all well and good to say ask questions, map actors and process, make connections. I would very much like to do (more of) that, now, in a context that grabs me (wahoo, concentration!).
References
Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, United States: Oxford University Press.