In the fields of governance - particularly in health and environment - new forms of normativity have emerged in Africa (as elsewhere), leading to an increasing alignment with normative standards of the globalized world. This has resulted in the widespread use of indicators and statistical models, articulated with complementary or antagonistic deontic repertoires, in a movement towards the densification, or even hyper-densification, of normativity in contemporary societies. The paradox is that this hyper-densification, intended to improve governance of societies and the environment, leads to conflicts of interpretation, dissenting alternatives, and subsequently, uncertainty. It may even result in a relative denial of scientificity, which can take the form of over-determination or under-determination of scientific statements regarding the nature of things by statements concerning responsibilities towards them. Both attitudes do not deny the scientificity of science, but consist of managing - based on other orders of magnitude - the scope and, in some cases, the validity of the statements referring to them. Scientific statements are thus embedded in discourses that regulate their application to the everyday world.
[automatically translated from the original]
- Summary:
- Context and justification:
In the fields of governance - particularly in health and environment - new forms of normativity have emerged in Africa (as elsewhere), leading to an increasing alignment with normative standards of the globalized world. This has resulted in the widespread use of indicators and statistical models, articulated with complementary or antagonistic deontic repertoires, in a movement towards the densification, or even hyper-densification, of normativity in contemporary societies. The paradox is that this hyper-densification, intended to improve governance of societies and the environment, leads to conflicts of interpretation, dissenting alternatives, and subsequently, uncertainty. It may even result in a relative denial of scientificity, which can take the form of over-determination or under-determination of scientific statements regarding the nature of things by statements concerning responsibilities towards them. Both attitudes do not deny the scientificity of science, but consist of managing - based on other orders of magnitude - the scope and, in some cases, the validity of the statements referring to them. Scientific statements are thus embedded in discourses that regulate their application to the everyday world.
If we follow the majority of speeches warning about climate change and the scientific arguments they contain, the path to follow appears, however not simple, at least clear. However, the question arises about the practical measures to be taken to fight against it, their social acceptability, and their impact on the development of the continent. From an African perspective, it is not illegitimate to consider that developed nations should make the main effort. This perspective, however, refers to another principle of order than the one that leads to promoting the fight against global warming. Here, the principle of equity underdetermines the ecological urgency and the scientific statements on which it is based.
The questioning of these statements raises an epistemic (and epistemological) question, that of embedding data about nature in normative narratives alone capable of making them guides for action. There is no naturalness in science, and therefore there is no naturalness (in the sense of self-sufficiency) of pro-environmental positions, but rather a process of realization of these positions, as emphasized by the German ethnomethodologist Thomas Scheffer. This process involves making these positions real for actors by linking them to norms and deference, similar to deference to science. It is work carried out by members of society (in different capacities) and not simply the observation of an obvious fact. It primarily mobilizes epistemic communities (in the sense of Haas: Epistemic communities, constructivism, and international environmental politics. London, Routledge, 2015), whose task is to give social meaning to scientific statements based on expert knowledge. However, this epistemic production is itself embedded in more manageable narratives in order to promote action by public authorities or mobilize public opinion (as advocacy NGOs do, for example). It is at this stage that controversies arise. Indeed, while scientific results are difficult to challenge (due to a lack of necessary technical expertise to refute or support them), it is not the same for the narratives that incorporate them. Many of these narratives also contain normative dimensions that can be used to support positions contrary to those they state. The concept of justice, for example, can justify the idea that African states should not contribute to endangering the planet, but it can also justify the fact that they should not sacrifice their development in order to reduce the impact of carbon-intensive energy sources, of which Europe, America, and parts of Asia are the main consumers. More broadly, these narratives can reject a one-sided definition of global issues. This position implies, in one way or another, adopting a relativization of climate issues – that is, the level of risk associated with them – and therefore a relativization of the scientific results upon which the realization of the climate crisis is based.
- Objective :
Documenting and analyzing this dynamic, showing in particular that it does not simply result from skeptical attitudes based on particular interests or scientific illiteracy of certain segments of the population. It stems, first and foremost, from the unavoidable embedding of scientific work in contextualized narratives that enable its dissemination and, at the same time, relativize it, making it accessible to other viewpoints and, more importantly, to normative issues that are just as existential as climate anxiety. Determining priorities is not a question that can be considered in isolation, that is, independently of the statuses and relative positions of the diverse communities for whom it is relevant.
As a result, epistemic communities do not all speak of a planetary path. They also speak, and most often locally. And, in any case, they are heard locally. This interplay of scales needs to be described for what it is, in order to properly grasp, understand, and describe the phenomena of the relativization of scientific statements.
- Main methods:
1. Semi-structured interviews
The interviews will be conducted with members of epistemic communities and advocacy NGOs, as well as with ordinary individuals. They will not be the core material of the research. They will primarily serve as an introductory step, allowing for the documentation of the circumstances, means, and motivations of positions related to climate change.
2. Collection and analysis of documents
The material will consist of press debates, publications on websites, and reports. We will specifically search for publications that refer to each other, forming a dialogical network (Nekvapil and Leudar: Media dialogical networks and political argumentation. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(2), 247-266, 2004), as they constitute public beliefs on a given thematic. We will also search for exchange sites or comments related to press articles.
3. Participant observation
In meetings related to climate change, whether scientific, advocacy-related, or linked to the work of certain epistemic communities.
The approach will be comparative, focusing on Morocco and Senegal. The connection with Côte dIvoire will be made during the initiation phase of the project, with the aim of establishing a more extensive research program.
