Villain, 1996
Summary
Sustainable development is a complex concept. It involves understanding the links between different domains and applying some unusual notions. To prepare an exhibition requires knowledge of the visitor's conceptions about the presented subject. How might individuals manage the complexity and understand interactions? Which particular obstacles are linked to this kind of management? What are the reasoning modes for envisaging sustainable development? Is it necessary to embark upon a complex approach to be motivated to participate actively to this process?
Key-words
Sustainable development, Complex approach, Complexity, Exhibition, Conceptions, Museology
How to present sustainable development
This presentation is connected with three questions:
To answer the first question, it's necessary to know that, when the research began (between 1997 and 1998), 76 % of the people affirmed they never heard about this concept. For the others, this last one was often assimilated to a new environmental, or ecological approach, often linked to helping emerging people. It's true that in 1992, just after the congress of Rio, newspapers talked a lot about the different ecological aspects (climatic changing, biodiversity, desertification) and less about social and especially economical aspects.
Considering the importance and the urgent nature of the subject, of its social consequences and the modifications it implies, an adequate "mediatization" is essential. If the medias contribute to conveying information about this subject, we notice that its inherent complexity is very badly retranscribed.
Moreover, opposite to what a museum can offer, the interaction between information's source and learner is not possible, or not easy. That's why this subject needs a really new museology's approach. This one must go beyond the museology of "the point of view" defined by Davallon or "interpretative", as Schiele and Montpetit call it. This new kind of museology must offer the visitor the possibility of involving himself, and give him not only the tools but also the desire to enter in a concrete action for the sustainable development. The necessity to plan a new approach of the museology underpins the second question.
What's the difference between sustainable development and an other exhibition's subject?
The answer is simple. Sustainable development is a complex concept. But what does it really mean? If we are looking the sustainable development's definition given by the Brundtland's Commission in 1987, we find just a really simple sentence:
"Le développement durable satisfait les besoins des générations présentes sans compromettre la possibilité pour les générations à venir de satisfaire leurs propres besoins". ["Lasting development satisfies the needs of the present generation without compromising the possibility for generations to come to satisfy their own needs."]
In appearance this one can be understand by everybody. In reality, it remains on a philosophical level. It conserves the "good intentions" declaration's style, but doesn't clearly show the relations among the different domains, even between the different social actors that are the bases of all the process. To smooth over this difficulty, sustainable development is often schematised by the way of the intersection of three circles in interaction.
But this schema is not sufficient. First we have to realise that each domain is a system. The systemic approach is necessary to understand them, and binds us not only to consider each element inside its specific context but also to consider all the organisation of the context through its links with the element.
Villain, 1996
One of the particularities of sustainable development comes from the fact that these different systems, also complex themselves, must be seen in a perpetual interaction. This notion of system will be not develop here, because there are already a lot of publications about it. On the other hand, it's important to realise that to enter upon this notion, and also sustainable development concept, several factors linked to an analytic approach, typical of the Cartesian thought, have to be rethought. Now the Cartesian thought is the one carried by a school. To give an example, the new pedagogies, called "active", promote "problem solving". But we know that THE solution never exists! Sometime there is no solution. Sometime there is perhaps several solutions, offering some advantages and also some disadvantages. Their consequences are often doubtful, these ones being subdued to the relativity of time and space. More, you can have an amplification of the effects when several different factors are adding. We find this kind of reaction inside the dialogical and recursive principles, typical of the complexity. Effects and ground feed back acting together, we can observe an evolution, a history of the elements which are changing through the irreversibility of time.
Moreover, these last ones are creating links with other factors implying interactions, even interdependencies. Theses links will continually modify the entire context. That's why we have to give up with the idea of finding THE solution. What we have to do is to think in term of "fluctuating optimums", if we want to handle paradoxical, contradictory, woolly or doubtful elements. These optimums try to manage a regulation, to find a balance. They need a perpetual readjustment or refitting depending of the evolution of the process and its environment.
Sustainable development: example of complexity
But why this interest in understanding the concept of sustainable development in matter of reasoning's mode and complexity? Simply because, at the time of the Rio's consents, each government signed to promote this kind of development. And to realise this aim, it's not enough to decide laws and orders. An active participation of all the individuals is necessary. To access to this aim, information is not sufficient. Creating an exhibition about this subject, one in which the visitor could really enter a responsibility and action proceeding, is the way we have chosen. To know if this project is workable or not, we have to answer a the third question.
How can we manage to transform sustainable development in an exhibition's subject?
First of all ,by asking the principal potential public of the exhibition: Mr. and Mrs. Everybody, "What do people understand about this concept?" More particularly, "Which was the place they were ready to give or not to their own action inside this process?" The complexity inherent in the concept plays an important role in the way people enter this field of enquiry.
We have to realise that, if the idea of complexity has been accepted about 30 years ago in some research's circles, it isn't yet part of our everyday life. Since Bacon - in the16th century - humans always have wanted to control and deal with reality. Sciences and technologies are certainly the best examples. All the school system, with the disciplinary and summative evaluations of knowledge, comes from this Cartesian fragmentation, in spite of some tries in environmental education. This kind of thought is used every day in our life. It splits the individual from the collectivity, promoting the liberal approach of the individual liberty's notion, which characterises our industrialised and economically easy countries. "To do what I want, when and where I want" could resume this vision of individual liberty, which is close to what Guichet1 calls "free arbitrator."
This is not without consequences on the vision people have of their responsibility in the face of sustainable development's process and also on the attribution of their own power inside a democratic system. Through the answers analysed during this research, a lot of different parameters are found. In a first part, these ones define some factors favoring or not complexity's approach; in the second part, they define the factors favorising or not the individual's implication inside sustainable development's process. If this second point is not developed, this schema presents the different parameters favoring or not the complexity's approach.
We see some reasoning's modes like synthesis' spirit and its Cartesian antonym; some attitudes, curiosity and critical spirit and the lack of them on the other part; and some values, brought together under a civic and responsible attitude when it appears favourable to the complex approach, and under irresponsible attitude when they are limiting it. Theses factors are expressed through different examples. If these examples can be easily categorised in two Cartesian part (because to approach complexity, we are using this method, but it is not sufficient), you can see, going through theses dichotomic frontiers a special phenomena called "a drop of water syndrome" in reference to the most well known expression using by people to express how he feels when acting facing the collectivity. This expression means two different attitudes:
Theses two attitudes are not only the expression of the individual's conceptions, but they are directly linked with the reasoning's modes and the values which are the bases for mastering or not mastering a complex approach. This paradox is very interesting and needs development through some examples issued from the interviews of this research.
If we are looking at the negative aspect of this "syndrome", we observe that it can be linked to a global vision. This one offers the possibility, for example, to understand the interactions between supply and demand. And it is on this law that the individual action as consumer could have an impact. In spite of this understanding, the people who considers this "syndrome" as a factor making the sustainable development's process impossible, use it to prove the inefficacy of their own action, or to give the responsibility to an other instance, often a political one.
"When I had a restaurant, I always bought supplies through Max Havelaar 2 and I always paid attention about that. But it didn't change anything in the society".3
In the other parts of the interview, this person presented a really good approach of complexity. But he didn't see the real consequences of his acts. For example, in Switzerland, 5 years ago, you could only find Max Havelaar's coffee, and only in specific shops. Today you have lots of different produce and in almost every supermarket.
But this kind of argument can also come from people who don't understand anything about market law or any other interaction between local and global action or between the different domains of sustainable development.
"Sustainable development must be developed by the authorities. I can't do anything by myself."
"It must be coming from "on high", from the government. We can just have a local influence and only in the ecological domain."
Now, if we are looking at the positive aspect of this "syndrome", when the people say that the drop is necessary, the arguments given by the persons who have a good approach of complexity use a parallelism between the democratic system and the consumption's choices. The citizen's responsibility can be found in all the answers.
"Our choices can influence all the chain, already from the way of production. The law of the supply must follow the demand, and we are the demand."
"For us farmers, we have to produce with respect of the environment and respect of the laws imposed about that. But everybody, even if he's not a farmer, can participate if he thinks about the consequences of his acts."
For the people who don't understand the complexity of the processes, but are always convinced of the utility of their action, the argument is principally built on the well being they can procure and the influence they can have on their close area.
"First, it's possible on a familial level, by the education, and in a village. It's more difficult if you think that for a town, a country, etc. In my situation, I can do something as a consumer, if I begin to refuse some produces like polluting sodas for washing, for example, but also if I separate aluminium, paper, iron, etc. But that's only on my little individual sphere; it never goes further than the limits of my close area."
We could deduce that the vision of the impact of individual action in sustainable development doesn't depend on complex thought, since, eventually, it first depends on a general attitude in life.
Conclusion
"But then, you will ask, is the complex approach really important, especially to promote sustainable development?" We have no doubt about it. Nevertheless, we notice that in the particular case of sustainable development, only the capacity to make links between its different domains is not sufficient. In this specific case, complex thought can be achieved only if the interactions between the social actors are integrated. But theses ones are rarely presented. If somebody talks about different actors (international instances, government, industries, etc.) it's not to show the importance of their synergy, but to design them as responsible for everything.
We can see a real understanding about this complementarity only by the persons who are staying positive facing the impact of their action, but who recognise that only their own action is not sufficient.
"Yes, even if I am conscious that only my own action can't change all the world".
Symptomatic of this lack of interaction, neither the governmental actions, nor the efforts of some business which are setting a new system of certification and environmental management are ever described. Even direct consumers' action on the boom of biological and ethical products' market is rarely mentioned.
If we really want to prepare an exhibition about the sustainable development, we have to consider all of theses factors. They are precious information if we really want to offer to individual the possibility to go from theoretical knowledge to action. To show him the interactions between the different domains and actors, but also his individual power to influence his way of life, to offer him a specific museological environment where he could "live" what it means in reality, all those are ways to develop, elements to create to give the visitor the strong desire to become a "Consumate Actor".
Towards this end, we have developed some "implication's elements"… But that is an other story, for another article…
1. J-L. GUICHET, (1998) La liberté, éd. Quintette, Paris
2. Max Havelaar is a foundation promoting ethical exchange.
3. All the interviews are conducted in French. These examples have been translated.
