Reiner Grundmann | |
---|---|
Born | Freudenstadt, West Germany | 29 September 1955
Nationality (legal) | German |
Alma mater | Free University Berlin |
Scientific career | |
Fields | |
Institutions | |
Thesis | Marxism and Ecology (1991) |
Doctoral advisor |
|
Website | nottingham |
Reiner Grundmann, (born 29 September 1955) near Freudenstadt is Professor of Science and Technology Studies (STS) at the University of Nottingham and Director of its interdisciplinary STS Research Priority Group.[1] He is a German sociologist and political scientist who has resided in the UK since 1997. Previous appointments include Aston University and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
His books about the relationship of Marxist thought and the enivironment, the power of expertise, and the role of experts in the public realm are of ongoing international academic and public interest.
Grundmann has contributed to four areas of research: social theory, sustainability topics, the relation between knowledge and decision making, and media analysis. In most of his work he uses a comparative methodology. He participated in larger research programs on topics such as urban habitat sustainability[2] cross border media reporting, transnational environmental policy (see ozone depletion and global warming) [3] and the future of the automobile.[4]
Grundmann took his A-levels at Schelztor Gymnasium in Esslingen. He studied sociology in Berlin and received his doctorate 1989 at the European University Institute (EUI), Florence (Italy). His habilitation about environmental policy on the ozone layer challenge took place at the University of Bielefeld in 1998 under the auspices of Peter Weingart from the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Bielefeld. Grundmann held post-doctoral positions, at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, at the Graduate college Risk and private law at the University of Bremen, and at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne. In 1997 he took up a position at Aston University and is since 2012 at the University of Nottingham.[5]
He has been influenced by Niklas Luhmann's system theory and Bruno Latour's Actor–network theory, but remains ambivalent about both. His position has been discussed on the theoretical level in a controversy with Klaus Peter Japp about Luhmann's system theory and Ulrich Becks risk sociology.[6] Renate Mayntz, the longtime head of the Max Planck Instítute for the Study of Society, was influential as well. [7]
Grundmann's interest in the role of expertise in modern society is influenced by frameworks such as Post-normal science and Roger Pielke Jr.'s Honest broker. Both are in line with basic works in the sociology of science and technology doubting a direct influence of "certain knowledge" or "settled science" on political decision making, which is being discussed as the linear model of science policy interaction. His work challenges widespread believes in global sucess or failure of environmental policy as result of scientific consensus, or as an outcome of corporate power.[8] In contrast, he shows the relevance of transnational policy networks.[3] Practical outcomes include contributions to a common proposal of Regional Climate Services as an alternative and expansion of the IPCC global approach[9]and contributions the Hartfield Paper.Other activities include e.g. contributions to Hans von Storch's Klimazwiebel blog.[10] and presenting the Sociology and Social Policy Section of the British Science Association e.g. at the British Science festival.[11]
Grundmann is married with two daughters and a cycling amateur.
Grundmann started his academic career with an analysis of the legacy of Marx’s theory for the understanding of environmental problems. This work was a direct product of his PhD research at the EUI in Florence, in the late 1980s under the supervision of Steven Lukes. Grundmann described ecology as being not longer confined to the realms of biology since the 1970ies. The term, as it had been coined in the 1870ies by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist and monist, was about a branch of biology dealing with the interaction of organisms and their surroundings. The current use of the term started to put the interaction of pollution in a political context and was later to describe a political movement as well. The thesis was published by Oxford University Press in 1991 and a related article by Grundmann himself and an answer and review of the study appeared in the same year in the New Left Review.[12][13] The basic approach used Hans Magnus Enzenbergers Zur Kritik der politischen Ökologie[14] published in 1973 in the German Kursbuch[15] It has been translated in English in Ted Bentons Greening of Marxism in the 1990ies.[16]
Grundmann saw orthodox marxist thinking being caught between Marx disrespect for the idiocy of rural life and his believe in a resurrection of nature. He attempted to identify problems which could be still dealt with convincingly with Marx thought and approach. Grundmann dealt in detail with Marx and Engels discourse on the 'domination over nature’, which he claims of being of value. Grundmanns explicit advocacy of the term is exemptional [17] and his introduction into the topic has been quoted as late as 2010 by leading Chinese Scholars as being wonderful.[18] Grundmann avoided to depict the domination as being a precondition of desctruction, but allowed for interpretations as mastery or stewardship.[18] Grundmann' defence of ‘mastery over nature' as a metaphor in ecologically informed socialism was however not in line with Ted Benton interpretation of the domination term used by Marx. Benton was positive about Grundmann cutting through a lot of sloppy thinking in the ‘ecocentric’ camp. [13] He furthermore acknowledged that Grundmanns interpretation of Marx view of our relation to nature is insofar specific compared to e.g. Francis Bacon and Nietzsche, since in Marx’s view that ‘man should make an impact on the world’. Such mastery, according Grundmann, would better be interpreted as in mastering an musical instrument.[13] Grundmann concluded "that the pursuit of productivity and the development of a healthy environment need not be mutually exclusive," arguing that only specific technologies, not technology as such, lead to environmental degradation.[19] Whilst the book received some praise and critical attention at the time, it was published at a difficult historical juncture—after the fall of communism there was little enthusiasm for theoretical frameworks inspired by Marx. This has changed, and the forthcoming Chinese translation and recent reviews and papers about Grundmann's marxist ecology published in China[20][21][22][23] indicate an ongoing interest in the topic. [24]
In the years that followed, he moved away from social theory and started engaging with issues about environmental sustainability from the viewpoint of science and technology studies. This move was inspired by the insight of Karl Marx that technology reveals the active transformation of nature, performed by humans and their social forms of organization.[25]
A partial return to social theory was prompted by the co-operation with Nico Stehr with whom Grundmann worked since the late 1990s. Their common work on Werner Sombart led to a re-evaluation of the legacy of this pioneering German sociologist, examining in particular his low salience in the postwar period.[26] Reviewer Lutz Kaelber from the University of Vermont referred to Stehrs and Grundmanns edition of Werner Sombart's Economic Life in the Modern Age as a valuable and accessible addition to the Anglo-American literature on Werner Sombart.[27]
The study of science and technology related issues led him to research large technical systems, which he did during his time at the Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) in the early 1990s. His special interest was focused on the future of automobility.[4] In the mid 1990s he spent three years at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne where he studied the efforts to protect the ozone layer (see as well ozone depletion and global warming). This research was based on interviews with scientists, policy makers, and experts, in the USA and Germany. Transnational environmental policy - reconstructing Ozone was published in German in 1999 and in 2001 in English.[28][29] This work is unique in its challenge to widespread historical accounts which tend to explain the success of ozone policies either as a result of scientific consensus, or as an outcome of corporate power.[8] In contrast, it shows the relevance of transnational policy networks.[3] The successful Montreal Protocol is often taken as an exemplar case which serves as the model for an (so far elusive) climate treaty. Grundmann claims that several problematic lessons have been drawn from this case.[30] The book entry quotes Jim Lovelock stating This readable book is the best treatment of the subject published so far and F.Sherwood Rowland with Stimulating and thought-provoking. [31]
Grundmann contributed to Science, technology and society (STS) with books about the role of experts and the power of scientific knowledge. He sees a role of science as agenda setter in the political process but stays in line with basice STS assumptions about the failure of the linear model of science and policy interaction.[32]. Roger Pielke's Honest Broker assumed with regard to climate studies, that the linear model still is overwhelmingly persistent. The assumption, that STS studies critical of the linear model would automatically translate into practice would echo the very linear model under scrutiny,[33] owever noted already 2015 that previous scholarly critiques already converted into governments attempting to manage of public expectations on technological risk asssumptions. [34]
Together with Stehr, Grundmann published various pieces on the role of knowledge and expertise in modern societies, including two monographs in 2012.[35][36] In The Power of Scientific Knowledge three case studies are presented, Keynesianism, Race Science & Eugenics, and Climate change. Based on the conceptual distinction between knowledge for practice and practical knowledge the argument is made that scientists who were advancing practical knowledge were able to make a difference in policy. His work shows a stunning mismatch between Keynes's one man show and the huge enterprise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and an interesting parallel between the belief in science based policies in eugenics and climate change. With regard to his and Nico Stehrs comparison of the eugenic movement and climate change activism in Experts,[37] he sees a strong belief in science as being a base of politics in both cases. Grundmann states that the very base of sociology as a science was historically to fight different forms of naturalist determinism (environmental determinism, biological determinism) as of the likes of Herbert Spencer or, in Germany, Ferdinand Tönnies.[38] However, the sociologist standpoint, Grundmann calls it sociologism, itself an "ism", came at a cost, as sociology for a long time avoided discussions about the nature-human interaction at all or denied its relevance. Grundmann, as early as 1997, perceived a predominance of natural science in politics, as climate scientists used a successful framing strategy to connect relatively soft scientific findings with straightforward political goals.[38] He asks whether sociology would be in a position to examine ecological problems but avoid to "repolish soild naturalistic goods".[39] A contribution of Grundmann in a conference of the future of modern societies in Germany sees Marx's idea of a nature-society-dialectics as a base for a specific sociological answer, besides the analysis of networks and actors of scientists involved in such framings and to determine their interests and ideas.[38]
In their book on expert knowledge (English translation in 2011: Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise),[40] Grundmann and Stehr develop a specific concept of expertise. Contrary to common definitions that stress the centrality of scientists as experts, expertise is defined as mediating between knowledge production and knowledge application. With the expansion of knowledge intensive professions, ever more persons move into positions of experts—for some issues, some of the time. The rise of the knowledge society leads to a proliferation of knowledge sources which has not been sufficiently acknowledged by some dominant theories of expertise. A review in the Canadian Journal of Sociology pointed out that the book was published as part of Routledge’s “Key Ideas” series and was among the best books in this series, which attempt to both critically review the field and present arguments that reach beyond existing works.[40]
Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise got positive reviews e.g. in socialnet.de.[41] Perlentaucher mentioned e.g. a positive review of Alexander Kissler in Süddeutsche Zeitung, stating Stehr and Grundmann would have successfully started to plough a new field.[42] Climate change is a prominent current case which highlights the question about knowledge and decision making. Grundmann thinks that there exists a mistaken belief that the presence of a scientific consensus will enable ambitious climate policies. He considers that a much praised study overstates the case for scientific consensus.[43] Grundmann is in line with main STS scholars view that science hardly determines policy outcomes.[32] Examples such acid rain ,[44] smoking regulations,[45] ozone depleting substances, genetically modified foods[46] show how cultural, economic and political issues exercised a strong influence. Conversely, the presence of an international science consensus (through the IPCC) has led to different national policies, none of which is on track to achieving the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers postulate as necessary.[47][48]
in 2000 Grundmann has provided a comparative analysis of media discourses in the Balkan wars. The study, a comparative survey of leading press organs in France, Germany and the UK during the Balkan war of 1999 tried to identify the political agenda and perception of the various elite readerships. Besides some synchronization in public attention mediated through the press marked differences among French, German and British contents and perspectives remained.[49][50] 2006 a meta-analysis of 17 studies of a similar kind confirmed Grundmanns findings about a small degree of transnational discourse and a ongoing fragmentation of the - then still disputed European Public Sphere. [51]The meta study noted little empirical research in the field so far, and asked for further systematization. [51] Research on the European Public Sphere increased in the later years, dealing especially with overall European issues like e.g. corruption or BSE.[52] Grundmann assumes that the synchronization of media attention on contentious ‘European’ issues is a more realistic prospect to provide a supranational identity than attempts through public education or the legal system.[53] Over the past years Grundmann has become increasingly interested in the media discourse on climate change. Together with computational linguists and sociologists he has started comparative analysis of climate change reporting in various countries.[7][54][55]
He wrote about the legacy of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy and wether it revitalized or undermined climate science and climate policy.[56] His own experiences with peer review of another paper about the issue are described in an interview with Hans von Storch on Storch's Klimazwiebel blog.[57] According von Storch's intro, Grundmann's paper Climategate and The Scientific Ethos[58] faced severe resistance from social science journals before it was published in Science, Technology, & Human Values.[57]
Grundmann and Stehr had themselves a controversy in the peer revied literature, when they clashed with Constance Lever-Tracy about the role of sociology in climate affairs. Grundmann stated a politicization of climate science which makes science, technology and society (STS) scholars feel uncomfortable with the topic of climate change.[59] Grundmann identifies a problematic approach of climate scientists who believe to have a prerogative to make political suggestions in the field "which society at large should take up because scientists always know best"[57] combined with a basic lack of actual[59] feasible solution proposals.[57] He sees climate change as a long term issue requiring more public involvement and debate, not less[57] and asks social scientists to study the interaction between climate and society, Lever Tracy was more about letting the climatologists having the lead.[59]Research about the media reporting on climate change and Grundmann chairing a session titled Why we disagree about Climate Change by Mike Hulme[60] was as well part of Aston universities contribution to the British Science festival. [61]