PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

97
strongly agree with these authors that no matter how dramatic these changes may seem,
they are not paradigmatic in the strict Kuhnian sense. 16
And in the end, the described
differences in the belief systems are not so much successive as parallel phenomena, and
they are altogether less meta-theoretical and epistemological than socio-political in
nature. This is why I revert to the term “discursive framework” and define it in the above
described manner. Note that this neologism also accounts for the fact that it is not only
the ensemble of theories embodied in a framework that matters, but also the particular
way in which these are organized as a body of discourse.
3.4.2 Discursive Frameworks vs. the “Ladder” of Sustainable Development
Probably one of the best known and most widely distributed contributions to the
topic of sustainable development in the EU is the edited volume The Politics of
Sustainable Development – Theory, policy and practice within the European Union.” In
the introductory chapter to this volume, Baker at al (1997:8) propose the following:
The diversity of policy options associated with the different meanings attributed to
sustainable development can best be seen in terms of a Ladder. … This enshrines a
number of alternative frameworks for putting sustainable development into practice:
the treadmill approach; weak sustainable development; strong sustainable
development; and the Ideal Model. … The variety of approaches to sustainable
development are an indication of differing ideological beliefs about the natural world,
which for simplicity can be divided into the ‘anthropocentric’ and ‘ecocentric’
positions.
from Foucault’s The Order of Things (1970), whose original French title is Les Mots et les choses. Une
archéologie des sciences humaines (1966)).
16 However, Mastermann (1970)) points out that even Kuhn himself uses the term “paradigms” in at least
20 different ways. Taylor (1999:342) also refers us to Kuhn’s postscript to his original essay to point out
differences in Kuhn’s use of the term. Nevertheless, although some of Kuhn’s uses are indeed less
fundamental than others, all of them are still narrower uses than those now common in the social science
literature.