| 英文摘要: | To the Editor —
Castree et al.1 are absolutely correct that we need to change the intellectual climate surrounding climate change. Research targeted at guiding senior decision-makers is especially in need of an overhaul2. But, although such research may well require far greater collaboration and a “wider dialogue”1, a critical perspective requires far more than an 'add-in'. Instead of simply celebrating boundary-crossing as an end in itself, we need to think carefully about who is involved in collaboration and to what end. All paradigms and collaborations are not equal when it comes to climate change or social outcomes.
For newcomers, the existing climate change research landscape they may be invited to traverse is far from even3. Although their participation in climate change discussions may create the appearance of a wider dialogue, their perspective is likely to remain marginal if it challenges existing problem framings4. The form of much qualitative social science and humanities knowledge is also incommensurate with the prevailing positivist logic5. Important meaning (and critiques) can be lost if such knowledge is inappropriately made to 'integrate' with other dominant forms6.
More problematically, the admirable ideal of broadening perspectives and pluralizing action can inadvertently support a wide, but dangerously thin, eco-modernist worldview7. In such an approach, climate change is habitually viewed as a pro-growth opportunity and fundamental change of the sort needed8 is eschewed. Such an approach also tends to constrain the role of researchers to simply displaying options to those in power9 regardless of the depth of their understanding or concern. Eco-modernism is associated with the incremental 'clumsy solutions' approach8, 10 that Castree et al. express support for alongside their calls for widening dialogue. Whether motivated by an eco-modernist worldview or not, on its own this approach risks inadvertently legitimizing a response to climate change based less on available knowledge, possible outcomes or justice considerations than on the existing preferences of those in power on the day.
If we are to collectively adapt to the very uncomfortable position we are now in as the first climate change generation, social science and humanities scholars are not the only ones who need to 'get out of their comfort zones', as Castree et al. encourage. Because if we are to achieve genuinely informed and effective engagement on climate change, changing the intellectual climate requires critically assessing, not simply adding to, prevailing knowledge frameworks. |