ABSTRACT
In Voß et al.'s (2006a) recent analysis of the different contexts for the governance of sustainability and what they refer to as “steering” processes, ambivalence is identified as a defining characteristic and as more or less problematic. Given that they argue that sustainability involves inherent “subjectivity and ambiguity” and “divergent values”, the goals of governance and steering processes are rarely simply and unequivocally defined (Voß et al., 2006a, p. 6). These observations are themselves not especially novel. They resonate with long-standing interest in the multiple definitions and descriptions of sustainability (Dobson, 1998; Lele, 1991; McNeill, 2000) and with critiques of the term's ambiguity, fuzziness, divergent meanings and ‘misuse’ (Holland, 2000; Mitcham, 1995; Porritt, 1993; Redclift, 1996). However, in this paper it is argued that the implications emerging from a more careful and thorough analysis of ambivalence—its foundations, manifestations and, in particular, its politics—do raise interesting and challenging questions for various styles of governance that can be applied to the pursuit of sustainability objectives. Specifically, we are interested in understanding how ambivalence plays out for the more systemic, adaptive and reflexive approaches to governance that have been advocated recently for the steering of sustainable socio-technical change. In what ways is ambivalence better incorporated into these approaches to governance when contrasted with more conventional modernist models? How might it still be unwisely problematized, obscured or underplayed?
