Between evidence first and political fight – understanding dynamics of (de-)politicization in US climate movements’ future narratives

Another world is possible? – Climate movements’ bounded politicization between science and politics

“…However, the observed pattern of politicizing and de-politicizing elements compares well to other elements, such as the observation that NCMs display a limited trust in political and economic systems, a commitment to climate justice and a rejection of notions of modernity, yet, NCMs continue to understand changes mainly in terms of existing institutional and dominant temporal structures of apocalypse or emergency action and control (Kenis, 2021;Knops, 2021;Knops and De Vydt, 2024). Furthermore, a similar analysis focusing on NCMs in the United States (Pavenstädt and Rödder, 2024) showed an overall politicizing tendency, yet already more elements of conflict around fights for a Green New Deal as early as 2019. Nevertheless, the results may reflect a broader trend: the post-political consensus and adjacent narratives of progress and wealth appear weakened (Marquardt and Lederer, 2022).…”

“…The results show a nuanced and complex picture, which may be best described as 'bounded politicization' (Pavenstädt and Rödder, 2024). Two key elements connected to this appear to be the notions of consensus and urgency, informing how climate movements formulate climate futures, and especially how they understand processes of change.…”

“…The literature review (see 2.1 and 2.2) has highlighted the connections between post-politics, climate science-policy interfaces, and the crucial role of imaginaries for processes of politicization and social change. Given the inconclusive research on NCMs, I argue that a more detailed analytical framework can shed light on the different dimensions that constitute dynamics of (de-)politicization, and will make use of a framework introduced by Pavenstädt and Rödder (2024) and extended for this article in order to incorporate insights from studies on the role of future visions and imaginaries. 1 It defines three dimensions: First, visions that are brought forward that may broaden future trajectories and which may politicize climate discourses by linking climate change to other issues.…”

“…The principle framework of the three dimensions visions, agency and process was introduced and elaborated inPavenstädt and Rödder (2024). For this article, the framework has been extended through the inclusion of two elements per dimensions, represented through the questions in Table1.…”