In this sense, the overarching question appears to be how can Transition be ‘translated’ as a set of instrumental strategies through which a range of desirables are to be achieved.62
A similar understanding appears to surface in the work of North and Longhurst. In one paper, for instance, they examine Transition (again, understood as a set of strategies for the implementation of normatively-fixed goals) under the lens of replicability.63 What this means is that they are interested in clarifying what conditions can enable the expansion of Transition in urban, as opposed to rural, settings. Hence they undertake an inquiry focused on the comparative dimension: they try to understand the moving of Transition extensively, by abstracting a set of variables or indicators that can enable prediction and control/adjustment for Transition to reach out to ‘urban’ settings (some of the factors they single out are ‘alliances with local development agencies’, ‘urban cosmopolitanism’ and ‘grassroots activism’).64 This is again an analytical reduction of Transition, precisely because it singles out a number of traits for the purpose of facilitating the achievement of pre-specified goals.
Longhurst equally shares a similar focus in his PhD dissertation.65 That work is based – like this book – on a period of fieldwork in Totnes. Its main concern, however, is framed in analytical terms. What he does, in fact, is to begin by abstracting a number of ‘variables’: namely the presence of what he calls a ‘progressive’ milieu and the development of ‘alternative’ or ‘post-capitalist’ economic institutions. The scope of his study is then framed in terms of ascertaining whether or not there is a relation between these two discrete variables; it is to ‘test’ the hypothesis that these are correlated.66
The most recent, and to an extent the most exemplary, addition to this strand of literature is a working paper by Feola and Nunes.67 By relying on Seyfang’s work,68 they also begin with a definition of Transition as a strategy of ‘grassroots innovation’ to address the socio-economic challenges posed by climate change. It is in order to examine Transition as one such strategy that they go on to undertake a study of the relative success and failure of individual Transition initiatives. For this purpose, they identify a number of variables against which to then go on to measure the achievements of different initiatives. In their paper, the quantitative way of seeing that has been discussed earlier is made most explicit as a range of simplifications have to be undertaken in order to morph Transition into a manageable dataset. The paragraph below gives a flavour of the linearisation that is imposed upon it when working in a quantitative frame of mind:
[T]he success of TIs [Transition Initiatives] is defined along the lines of social connectivity and empowerment, and external impact or contribution to environmental performance. In this paper we have correlated the success of TIs to objective measures of activity and participation (i.e. members, duration, activities undertaken – steps to transition) [...] our results do suggest that, whilst there is no formula for more, or less success, TIs can be arranged into four typical configurations or clusters of variable success and failure.69
The standard of discourse that appears to shine through this strand of ‘policy-oriented’ literature is one that is centred on analytical precision and dissection, for the purpose of evaluation, assessment and measurement of any unit of analysis against a number of normatively established goals and in competition both with itself (between different Transition initiatives) and with alternative ‘strategies’. The ensuing picture of Transition is akin to an assemblage of parts and variables ‘that retain their character irrespective of whether they are part of the assemblage or not’.70 In this sense, when subjected to analytical divide-and-rule tactics, Transition as an assemblage becomes simple and manageable, whereas Transition as a living, growing whole lies dead.71
In sum, the logic underlying such studies is akin to what Bortoft calls the logic of ‘solid objects’ (and which I referred to earlier as the ‘quantitative way of seeing’)72; where the attempt is to establish extensive correlations between bounded objects of analysis. When it turns to Transition, this way of seeing forces one to have to stick to commonplace definitions of it that have not kept the pace of the transformative processes of diversification; as they transpire from our earlier engagement with various collections of Transition-flavoured stories.
So it is the case, for example, that one point where most of the literature agrees is in the definition of Transition as a ‘response to climate change and peak oil’. Interestingly, all of the works by these authors appear to resort to or adhere to the more normative presentation of Transition contained in the Handbook.73 Transition, in other words, is analytically simplified as a set of strategies to address the problem of peak oil, and – from that initial definition – it can then be set in relation to other terms of measurement or comparison.
My quibble with this approach is not in it somehow being ‘incorrect’ (if it makes a difference, which it does in the contexts in which such analyses are uttered, it is as real a presence as any to be reckoned with). It is, instead, with the different possibilities living within Transition for which it does not provide a suitable form of expression. In perusing the Companion, for instance, it is possible to witness a change in focus that embraces more than peak oil and climate change. In that work, the representation of Transition becomes more diversified, sampling a number of different motivations and aspirations that get people entangled in its moving. What is lacking, therefore, is an account that is able of creating a form of communication where even the more nuanced facets of Transition may find expression, so as to articulate a richer thicket of reasons and orientations through which people resonate and become involved with the movement of the social that is Transition. Transition, as I hope to illustrate in the following chapters, can be like the proverbial elephant touched in different parts by blind people, each of whom believes that the part he/she feels is the whole elephant when, really, a whole animal speaks to them through the particular aspect or quality of it with which they can connect. This is precisely the account that I aim to offer in this book. One that focuses on Transition by trying to follow its movement, the increasing diversification and multi-dimensionality that appears to transpire from even a superficial run-through of Transition literature. At the same time, it would be pushing this too far to take the account I offer here as superior to – or exclusive of – other approaches, like the ‘policy’ stance I have previously discussed. Transition is, of course, also about peak oil and climate change, and there is nothing inappropriate about relating to it as a form of ‘grassroots innovation’ to address these. It is, in fact, eminently possible that this is the best way through which to ‘translate’ or connect the moving of Transition to the world of meaning and the languages adopted in the culture of ‘policy-making’. However, Transition, and writing about Transition, need not end there, and this book attempts precisely to open a space to apprehend more dimensions of it beyond this more ‘canonical’ one. Transition, I suggest, speaks as a set of strategies about peak oil if the observational framework through which it is approached is one that looks for such policy strategies about peak oil.
My intention here, instead, is to inquire whether it is also possible to produce an account of Transition through an intensive, caring engagement with it, like an act of midwifery, tending to the progressive coming-in-the-world of a new being. In a way, therefore, my goal is to try and develop a language for talking about Transition that resonates with the dynamic quality of its moving. In technical terms, this is often called a ‘phenomenological’ approach (see box below), because it takes the appearance of any phenomenon that catches one’s interest as the primary focus of inquiry, seeking to appreciate ‘from within’ the modulations through which it constitutes itself an organised setting for its continued unfolding and self-differentiation, rather than dissecting it for the purpose of making it amenable to evaluation according to extrinsic criteria.
An invitation to the phenomenology of Transition
What academics call ‘methodology’ is simply the process of justifying and making accessible, to others who encounter it for the first time, the evaluative equipment through which one has tinkered one’s way to his/her account of a particular situation. However, a justification only has traction to the extent that it manages
