Workshop 2012's theme IV (Rationalities)

Expected Papers

  • Liana Müller1
  • Silvia Bruzzone2
  • Anonymous Practitioner and Ingmar Lippert3
  • Jürgen Hauber4

Introductory considerations

In the received view, environmental management presupposes plans and ideas: management has objectives, such as reaching a specific point or reaching a dynamic trajectory around a certain state. Two examples should suffer: the former might be the re-introduction of a specific species; or an example for the kind of target might be ensuring a specified continuing yield of resources. In response, critics conceptualise a rationality, mostly imagined as a singular but multi-backgrounded phenomenon - such as The Western, Capitalist and/or Masculine rationality of Rational Control5/6 (and opposed to an Ecological Rationality7/8) - which is heralded by hegemonic players.

While we are cautious about labelling rationalities this way (because we are unsure about how this reconfigures our understanding of the rationalities), we nevertheless assume that in a management situation, somehow some rationalist approaches are relevant. Theme IV serves to focus on how these "somehow present rationalities" meet the manager and her practice. Thus, if the workshop is interested in how management processes are enacted in practice, this particular theme serves to draw together contributions which shed light on how the rationalities of the management approach are negotiated, reconciled or co-exist in friction with the practical rationalities of the actants (Latour9) within the management situation. Specifically, this theme entails to ask how the imagined managers conceptualise the situation, themselves and the management project. Thus, this theme is supposed to be instrumental in developing grounded critiques and, consequently, providing ground for grounded utopias (Bloch), which may contribute to the theorising of better rationalities in environmental management (as exercised, for example, by Bäckstrand10).

Environments are imagined as manageable through a certain rationality. The management approach, therefore has to deem present at least some form of apt knowledge of the subjects/objects under management (a historic approach might relate to Francis Bacon11). However, actors in practice know that this knowledge is limited. Drawing on Suchman12, within this theme we take the vantage point that any management action is taking place in specific practical situations which can never be totally grasped by prescriptions and policies. As persons, they have to somehow relate to corresponding limits of manageability. How does this effect their rationality as managers or as private or political agents?
Post-hoc, at least, we know that reflexive rationalisations of management situations are possible (Asplen13). However, this does not address how rationalities are structured within management situations or before. We may suspect that the rationalities of actors are influenced by discourses of greening (e.g. Fineman14/15) while daily practices which are environmentally relevant may be partially de-coupled from discursive prescriptions16. At the same time, this issue can also be addressed as one of colonialisation. Management rationalities can be feared to colonise "indigenous" cultures17.

Questions for this theme

How are agents rational? Given the accepted complicatednesses in environmental management, how can actors imagine themselves as rational? How can we research the rationality of actors who have to perform multiple identities, caught between hegemonic environmental discourses and values while having to constantly engage in practical compromises?