Alexandra Nikoleris

Narrating climate futures: shared socioeconomic pathways and literary fiction

In parallel with five new scientific scenarios of alternative societal developments (shared socioeconomic pathways, SSPs), a wide range of literary representations of a future world in which climate change comes to matter have emerged in the last decade. Both kinds of narrative are important forms of “world-making.” This article initiates a conversation between science and literature through situating, relating, and comparing contemporary climate change fiction to the five SSPs. A parallel reading of the SSPs and the novels provides the means to make links between larger societal trends and personal accounts of climate change. The article shows how literary fiction creates engagement with climate change through particular accounts of agency and focalized perspectives in a different way than how the factors important to challenges of mitigation and adaptation are narrated in the SSPs. Through identification with the protagonists in literary fiction, climate futures become close and personal rather than distant and abstract.

Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory

The most prominent framework for studying socio-technical transitions to date is the multi-level perspective (MLP). While appreciated for its flexibility and usefulness for studying socio-technical transitions it has not been without its critics. In this paper we focus on the ontological foundations of the MLP and its (in)ability to explain transitions and how they come about. The purpose is to initiate development of an explanatory theory for socio-technical transitions, by carrying out an immanent critique of the ontological foundations of the MLP together with a methodological critique. We show that the ontological foundations of the MLP to a large extent inhibits explanatory capacity. The argument is fourfold: since structure and agency are understood as inseparable, (i) the causal influence of material properties are undervalued, and (ii) different degrees of structural constraint and freedom of actors are ignored. As a consequence (iii) transitions are reduced to shifts in the maturity and spread of socio-cognitive rules, without analysis of systemic change. Moreover, (iv) mechanisms are reduced to recurring patterns of events which cannot explain why some transitions fail while others succeed. To remedy these limitations we outline alternative critical realist foundations for transitions theory.