From nouns to verbs: How process ontologies enhance our understanding of social‐ecological systems understood as complex adaptive systems

Abstract

1. Research on social-ecological systems (SES) has highlighted their complex and adaptive character and pointed to the importance of recognizing their intertwined nature.2. Yet, we often base our analysis and governance of SES on static and independent objects, such as actors and resources which are not well suited to address complexity and intertwinedness. This bias, which is largely implicit, has its roots in substance ontologies that have influenced most of contemporary science.3. This paper argues that it is useful to critically reflect on this ontological grounding and develop SES research from a process ontological perspective.4. Key insights are that process ontological concepts such as process, event and possibility space are able to overcome the dichotomy between the social and the ecological and allow for a conceptualization of continuous change (dynamism) that enhances our understanding of SES as truly intertwined and complex systems.5. This will enable SES researchers to conceptualize problems as well as corresponding solutions in novel ways which will ultimately support the development of novel governance approaches, from rethinking the aims of policies from managing people towards managing relations between and among people and the natural system. 6. To fully tap the potential which comes with a change in worldview towards a process ontology, changing research approaches and ways of abstracting are required. K E Y W O R D Scomplexity, dichotomies (or dichotomy nature/society), events, relational ontologies, social-ecological systems, substance ontologies, the practice of abstraction

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

“…Whereas modernist approaches propose that entities are distinct and essentially static, and systems approaches that entities are distinct but move and interact with each other, relational approaches suggest that what we perceive as entities are themselves already constituted by movement (Ingold 2011). For instance, what we experience as a (relatively) stable human being is produced through the temporary convergence of various processes (breathing, cell renewal, occurrence of thoughts) that unfold through the formation of relationships within the surrounding world (Ingold 2004;Hertz et al 2020). This applies from complex organisms like humans 'all the way down' to genes and molecules (Mesle 2008;Nicholson and Dupré 2018).…”

“…Sustainability scientists are therefore increasingly engaging with research associated with the 'relational turn' in the humanities and social sciences, as a means of revising substantialist assumptions and better capturing the complexity of human-nature connectedness (Darnhofer et al 2016;Gillard et al 2016;Stenseke 2018;West et al 2018West et al , 2019bLejano 2019;Hertz et al 2020;Darnhofer 2020;Walsh et al 2020;Mancilla Garcia et al 2020a, 2020b. The relational turn does not refer to a single, unified approach, but rather describes a broad shift in scholarship across multiple disciplines, encompassing many distinct commitments, theories and ideas (e.g.…”

“…The hope is that this leads either to more rigour and clarity around existing concepts or, as Mancilla Garcia et al (2020a) note, to the development of new, non-dualistic concepts such as de la Cadena's (2015) 'earth beings' or Haraway's (2016) 'cyborgs'. Hertz et al (2020) suggest that a 'paradigm shift' in coupled systems thinking from substantialist to relational assumptions can help overcome dichotomies and dualisms between humans and nature, better conceptualize complexity, and generate novel governance, management and policy approaches towards sustainability.…”

“…In this paper, we contribute to this lacuna by tracing why and how sustainability scientists are engaging with relational thinking; presenting some personal experiences from our own research projects; and critically reflecting on how relational thinking might contribute to sustainability transformations. Our aim is not to articulate a specific relational approach to complex systems research or sustainability science more broadly -this task is being conducted by others (Weinbaum 2015;Lejano 2019;Hertz et al 2020;Mancilla Garcia et al 2020a). Rather, we aim to produce a useful synthetic and reflexive piece that identifies the many different ways in which sustainability scientists are drawing on relational thinking.…”

Philosophy of science for sustainability science

“…In fact, recent debates on process ontologies in sustainability science (e.g. Hertz et al 2020) draw heavily on the philosophy of biology (Nicholson and Dupré 2018). Social ontology is also relevant to sustainability science, in particular the performative and constructive functions of scientific models at the science-policy interface, as well as in the co-production of knowledge and governance, which philosophers and sociologists of science have discussed in some detail (MacKenzie et al 2007; Van Egmond 2010 and references therein).…”