Technologies of Humility for a Just Transition

Jasanoff (2003)’s ‘technologies of hubris’ encompass various prognostic techniques, developed to comfort public sentiment and ease administration and regulation, which assert themselves to be impartial and rigorous analytical frameworks (Jasanoff 2003).

These techniques – which include risk assessment, analyses of costs and benefits, and the development of climate models (Jasanoff 2003) – are plagued by “peripheral blindness” (Jasanoff 2003:238) as regards doubt or vagueness, do not permit arguments of normativity; and are unable to fully address threats lying beyond the boundaries of their own premises (Jasanoff 2003).

As a counterpoint, ‘technologies of humility’ confronts challenges in framing, vulnerability, distribution, and learning (Jasanoff 2018). By acknowledging gaps in information and understanding, this approach allow us to be aware of unanticipated impacts, expose the value judgments behind empirical predictions, and embrace the significance of diverse perspectives and co-learning (Jasanoff 2018).

I am cautiously optimistic about the role of ‘technologies of hubris’ in supporting a low-carbon transition.

Despite the predominantly positivist and rational foundations grounding mainstream climate science and mitigation/adaptation policies, I believe that the growing interest and scholarship in more contextual and radical conceptions of vulnerability and justice will continue to become more prominent themes. The question is whether this momentum can match or outrun the exigencies of the climate crisis.

(207 words)

References:

• Jasanoff, S. (2003). ‘Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science’. Minerva 41: 223–244, 2003

• Jasanoff, S. (2018). ‘Just transitions: A humble approach to global energy futures’. Energy Research & Social Science 35 2018, pp.11–14.