Perception of Options to Improve the World

In “Four Directions for the Environmental Humanities”, Sergio Gomez discusses problems that “frame our relation to the environment” and then goes on to propose shifts in environmental humanities that could address these problems. One interesting problem that Gomez mentions is the “Dominant Technocratic Approach”, which frames environmental issues as something that can simply be solved by science and technological innovations. Science and “careful management” can solve all issues under this approach. The technocratic approach can greatly affect our perceptions of options available for improving the world. Under the technocratic approach it is only the “administrators” or “experts” that are “qualified” to improve the world. This leads to the perception that is not within “our power” to improve the world or that it is not our place. Ideas can’t improve the world unless they come from a qualified expert. And even those ideas aren’t said to make much improvement unless there are “material results”.

Options available to improve the world under the technocratic approach also become “simple” and “efficient”. Any option to improve the world that is deemed “too complex” will either be ignored or reduced to simple terms that will lead to ineffective and damaging solutions. The technocratic approach can also go hand in hand with negative framing. It becomes very easy to frame things in a negative light or deny that there are even options available to improve the world when the only options are deemed as “management” or “scientific innovations”. When only “management” or “scientific innovations” are said to be options, it is easy to say there are not enough narrowly defined “resources” to improve the world. Instead, when innovative thinking is thought of as a way to improve the world, there are of course much more “options” and negative framing is not quite as easy. Scientific innovations can be rare but innovated thinking happens every day.

Developing citizen humanities is just one solution to address the problem of the dominant technocratic approach. Citizen humanities “reengages publics” as producers of knowledge, and in turn “reengages publics” in improving the world. It is more than just the “experts” that have the option to improve the world. When “publics” cultivate new ideas and discussions, they are not only coming up with new options to improve the world, but they allow for others to see just how important “non-experts” are for improving the world. These diverse “environmental imaginaries” that bring in human experience and different worldviews show that there are not always “efficient” solutions. Options to improve the world will not always be a linear progression and they may be messy and difficult. This complexity is not a sign to “give up” or “simplify the option”, but instead is often just a part of diverse collaboration. Improving the world will not always be neat and tidy, and acknowledging this will help prevent options/solutions that are in the end only more damaging.