| 英文摘要: | To the Editor —
Castree et al.1 are correct that a 'single, seamless concept of integrated knowledge' cannot do justice to the diversity of meanings that need to be brought to bear in addressing the challenges of global environmental change. We also agree with them that environmental social sciences and humanities (ESSH) can make important contributions to global environmental change (GEC) science. However, their charge that we ignore the full range of anthropological contributions to understanding of climate change reflects a misreading of our recent Perspective2 in this journal, as we only attempted to discuss a few exemplary strands of the many contributions from anthropology to a richer understanding of climate change (for a more detailed discussion, see our forthcoming edited volume3).
Secondly, Castree et al. suggest that we are reinforcing the status quo in GEC science and 'pulling our punches' by using terms common in Earth systems science (such as system and mechanism). Our use of such terms reflected a strategy to use familiar language to raise awareness of anthropological contributions little known to most GEC scientists, along the lines of the 'clumsy solutions' proposed by anthropologist Steven Rayner4. Rayner calls for these solutions to 'wicked problems' such as climate change — problems marked by deep underlying conflicts about the nature of the problem itself — because they can allow different actors to work together without sharing ethical or epistemological principles. We agree with Castree et al. that other strategies are possible, but not that theirs is the only route to a wider dialogue.
Castree et al. focus on three texts to illustrate how GEC scientists evoke the notion of seamless, totalizing knowledge. They single out the use of terms such as 'integration' in discussions of knowledge to be considered in GEC analyses and policy decisions. By contrast, we interpret at least some of these texts and their authors as facilitators of a genuine opening for ESSH perspectives and contributions, not least the cited passage from the 2012 'State of the Planet Declaration'5. In our view, it would not have made a difference if the declaration's authors had used the words 'inclusion' rather than 'integrate' when calling for consideration of a broad range of knowledges, including indigenous ones. It is not at this superficial level of language choice that the real politics reside. Moreover, some of the authors criticized by Castree et al. have been central in creating the opening of the GEC science agenda represented by Future Earth, an evolving 10-year research programme and platform for international engagement fully launched in 2014 to produce more action-oriented knowledge for an equitable transformation to environmental sustainability (http://www.futureearth.org). In fact, Future Earth recognizes and solicits contributions not only from the natural sciences and ESSH but also from professions such as law, engineering and medicine.
We agree with Castree et al. that the sustainability challenge requires moving beyond the long-standing, exclusionary emphasis on Earth system numerical modelling to inclusion of a broader variety of approaches to the study of GEC, and that a diverse range of thus far largely overlooked approaches from ESSH is crucial. The problem is that Castree et al. misfire in their choice of targets. A more obvious and justified target for their criticism is the international group of geoscience funders united under the Belmont Forum, assisted by the International Council of Science (ICSU). Even after the development of a much more inclusive research agenda under Future Earth, the Belmont Forum's website (https://www.igfagcr.org/belmont-challenge) singularly promotes an overarching “seamless, global Earth System Analysis and Prediction System”. Moreover, it presents as the best articulation of “a funders' vision for the priority knowledge and capabilities derived from environmental research that society needs” a White Paper that acknowledges its own proposed research agenda as “conspicuously” lacking in “socio-environmental research dimensions,” concentrating its priority list of “critical interventions” instead on model predictions at regional and decadal scales”6. With more careful and informed aim of their otherwise justified critique, Castree et al. would more effectively nurture an intellectual climate that is sufficiently permissive to build coalitions with sympathizing GEC scientists and ESSH scholars. |