Human-nature resonance in times of social-ecological crisis – a relational account for sustainability transformation

Figures & data

Table 1. Main terms of the resonance theory and their embedding into human-nature resonance.

Main pillars of the resonance theory	Explanation by Rosa (2019, 2020)	Conceptualisation in human-nature resonance	Related key references and sections
Affect	A passive ‘(…) experience or condition in which the subject is affected, i.e. touched and moved, by some segment of world (…)’ (Rosa 2019, p. 163).	System knowledge: Describing “what is” in terms of being passively externally (materially, experientially) and/or internally (cognitively, emotionally, philosophically) (not) affected by the social-ecological crisis in the Western living environment.	Ives et al. (2018); Section 3.1
Transformation	A resonating relation is a quality of relation that is mutually manifesting itself as a successful ‘adaptive transformation of world (…)’ (Rosa 2019, p. 58, italics in original) beyond making the world available (Rosa 2020).	Target knowledge: Targeting a transformation of relational qualities aiming at non-hierarchical human-nature relations informed by a positive vision of human-nature partnership that respects material and immaterial limits of nonhuman nature´s availability as a meaningful necessity for a good life.	Böhme et al. (2022);De Groot (1992); Brand et al. (2021); Muradian and Gómez-Baggethun (2021); Section 3.2
Response	Actively and intentionally responding to a segment of the world and experiencing self-efficacy to reach, move, and touch a relating object.	Transformation knowledge: Addressing responses that foster nonhuman nature´s self-efficacy to speak with an own voice based on Indigenous ontologies and strengthening human capacities to hear it through inner transformation and ecopsychology thereby fostering intentional responses for sustainability transformation.	Adams (2012); Ives et al. (2020); Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina (2016); Kohler et al. (2019); Wamsler and Bristow (2022); Section 3.3

Figure 1. Potential ways the Western living environment is becoming externally and internally (non-) affected by the social-ecological crisis (graphic: by author, icons: by Flaticon.Com).

Figure 2. Exemplary qualities for human’s and nature’s self-efficacy to speak with an own voice for a human-nature partnership (graphic: by author, icons: by Flaticon.com).

Rosa H. 2019. Resonance: a sociology of the relationship to the world. Medford, MA: Polity Press.

 Google Scholar

Rosa H. 2020. Unverfügbarkeit. Medford, MA: Suhrkamp.

 Google Scholar

Ives CD, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Dorninger C, Klaniecki K, Fischer J. 2018. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Sci. 13(5):1389–1397. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Böhme J, Walsh Z, Wamsler C. 2022. Sustainable lifestyles: towards a relational approach. Sustainability Sci. 17(5):2063–2076. doi:10.1007/s11625-022-01117-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Groot WT. 1992. Environmental science theory: concepts and methods in a one-world, problem-oriented paradigm. Elsevier. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=41106

 Google Scholar

Brand U, Muraca B, Pineault É, Sahakian M, Schaffartzik A, Novy A, Streissler C, Haberl H, Asara V, Dietz K, et al. 2021a. From planetary to societal boundaries: an argument for collectively defined self-limitation. Sustainability. 17(1):265–292. doi:10.1080/15487733.2021.1940754.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Muradian R, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2021. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecol Econ. 185:107038. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Adams M. 2012. A social engagement: how ecopsychology can benefit from dialogue with the social sciences. Ecopsychology. 4(3):216–222. doi:10.1089/eco.2012.0037.

 Google Scholar

Ives CD, Freeth R, Fischer J. 2020. Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds. Ambio. 49(1):208–217. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kealiikanakaoleohaililani K, Giardina CP. 2016. Embracing the sacred: an indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustainability Sci. 11(1):57–67. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kohler F, Holland TG, Kotiaho JS, Desrousseaux M, Potts MD. 2019. Embracing diverse worldviews to share planet Earth. Conserv Biol. 33(5):1014–1022. doi:10.1111/cobi.13304.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wamsler C, Bristow J 2022. At the intersection of mind and climate change: integrating inner dimensions of climate change into policymaking and practice. Clim Change. 173(7). doi:10.1007/s10584-022-03398-9.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar