Beneath you can read an article by Anna de Zeeuw, Rosa Koetsenruijter, Erik Jansen en Ilona van Breugel.
This article has been retrieved via: https://publications.hva.nl/bewogen-stad-16/de-rol-van-taal-in-energietransitie
The energy transition brings together many different worlds: housing associations, energy companies, municipalities, social enterprises, and research institutions must work together, but that is never easy. Sometimes it seems like a battle in which each party must defend its own interests, views, and solutions as best it can. To bring these worlds closer together and learn from each other, we are working together in the Just Prepare project—an NWO-KIC project that investigates how we can achieve an effective and equitable local energy transition—in so-called living labs and learning labs. The living labs, which we organize in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Nijmegen, and Gemert-Bakel, consist of local partnerships and learning networks of the various parties involved in the energy transition. The accompanying learning labs consist of broader learning sessions with research and practice partners (such as municipalities, energy companies, welfare organizations, consultancy firms, publishers) from the various living labs. In these learning and living labs, we work thematically and facilitate co-design processes with local partners and stakeholders. In this way, we create space for learning processes.
We regard the living labs as an arena, a place where the various partners in the energy transition come together and interact with each other (see also Straathof, 2009). The learning labs can be seen as the grandstand, a place for joint reflection on those actions. In the arenas, the different ‘languages’ of the participants come together, which can lead to misunderstandings. For example, when different definitions come together but no common language and understanding has yet been developed to understand the meaning and sensitivities surrounding each other's language. These ‘language barriers’ can then have social consequences: they can cause obstacles in collaborations and sometimes even lead to unintended friction in mutual relationships. In this article, we look at what happens when different ‘languages’ come together in the arenas of the living labs.
To understand the role of language in processes of energy justice, we must recognize that our view of the world is not a direct reflection of reality, but rather a construct of our own meaning-making, or discourse. We construct our image of reality using language, among other things. Moreover, the way we approach the world is historically determined, depending on how we are accustomed to doing so. Our perception of our own position and identity, and our image of the world, can change over time. In short, how we understand the world is the product of all kinds of social processes of meaning-making, and language is both a means to that end and a reflection of it.
Knowledge is therefore not a separate aspect of the world. What we consider to be knowledge is also created through social interaction, whereby we construct a common ‘truth’ and constantly argue about what is true and what is not. Our own actions then flow from this specific socially constructed view of the world (see also Jorgensen and Philips, 2002). Based on this premise, in this article we examine the language and concepts we encounter in the project. The question is not whether they are actually true, but whether and in what way they are meaningful to actors in the field and shape their actions (Thomas & Thomas, 1928; see also De Zeeuw, 2012).
One of the words or concepts about which there are many different ideas is energy justice. From a scientific perspective, the following three-way division is often used to define the concept: distributive justice, procedural justice, and recognition justice (Jenkins et al., 2016). Distributive justice concerns the distribution of the benefits, but above all the costs, of the energy transition. Procedural justice concerns the extent to which people can participate in the development of ideas or decision-making processes about the course, implementation, and evaluation of energy transition projects, such as a citizens' consultation on the construction of a wind farm. Recognitive justice concerns the extent to which the perspectives of groups or individuals are taken into account in an equitable manner in the energy transition. Consider, for example, the extent to which a municipal heating vision pays attention to minority groups or groups of residents with special needs or limitations. In addition, energy justice sometimes also refers to restorative justice: the extent to which those involved can claim redress for previous injustices before other energy measures are taken (Hazrati & Heffron, 2021). This fourth variant already indicates that the above three-way division is not set in stone.
This is also reflected in our living labs. The function of the term ‘energy justice’ differs depending on the perspective or discourse. Whereas for scientists it is an analytical concept that provides as objective a grasp of reality as possible, for neighborhood professionals it is something completely different. Based on their practical experiences and context, they often see energy justice as a utopia: something that is impossible to achieve in its entirety. The professionals therefore argue that we should look at where the injustices lie and approach justice more as a process than as an end goal to be achieved.
The above example shows that the images and experiences that the various parties have with the term energy justice and the words that characterize the types of energy justice influence the way in which they approach the energy transition. The way in which parties approach the energy transition (based on their role in it) also influences their perceptions of the term energy justice. This applies to professionals, but just as much to residents and researchers.
When we look at the differences in the definitions used for the concept of energy justice, we see that language directly affects recognition and procedural (energy) justice: the use of certain concepts or words can, for example, exclude certain groups from a process (because they do not understand the language used in an invitation to participate), such as a public consultation evening for residents, or give them a certain “label” that causes them to be treated differently (“we are going to help vulnerable residents”). We illustrate this with an example.
A Learning Lab for the project took place in a theater on the edge of a Just Prepare research area. Various stakeholders from the municipality, including the energy supplier, housing association, an artists' collective, a social entrepreneur, a local energy cooperative, researchers, and guests from other municipalities, came together here.Prior to the meeting, a project poster was distributed in which the term “onderbedeelde wijken” (underprivileged neighborhoods) was used as a translation of the term “underprivileged neighborhoods” from the grant application to NWO. During the plenary session, a discussion arose about this term. Some participants found the term stigmatizing and negative towards the residents and indicated that they did not use this term in their work in the neighborhood, while scientists defended the use of the term as an accurate translation. This point came up again in a subsequent invitation to a learning lab because the term “underprivileged” was again used in the invitation. The municipality's program manager insisted that the term be changed in public communications in order to ensure an equal and respectful approach to residents. She argued that language is essential when talking about and approaching residents, and that terms such as “disadvantaged” and “underprivileged” undermine the power and influence of residents from the outset.
This example illustrates the impact of language, specifically the different meanings that can be attached to it, on the processes in the living labs. While some participants considered the term ‘underprivileged’ to be unfair and harmful to the residents, other participants attached great importance to a scientifically correct description. The words ultimately used are therefore not neutral, because they are linked to systems of meaning and, in this case, to the different roles and values associated with them: scientific ‘correctness’ or neutrality versus equality in contact with residents. This means that living labs are not, in fact, neutral meeting places. We cannot view these ‘arenas’ in isolation from social and political structures, power relations, and interests (cf. Pijpers 2024). After all, who participates and who does not, and how does everyone get a voice? In other words, what about procedural and recognition justice in these kinds of living labs?
When the role of language is discussed during symposiums and workshops on neighborhood-oriented energy transition, participants often suggest that a new language should be developed through collaboration; that a common language should be sought so that everyone is on the same page. The question is whether this actually addresses the core of the problem, in which language is also an expression of an underlying worldview that may not be so easy to change. The example described shows that this is indeed not easy: after all, new language will always raise new questions and ambiguities.
Creating a common language may also be quite cumbersome: after all, those involved already have language to express and understand their perspective on the situation. It therefore seems much more productive to invest in understanding each other's perspective and the associated language than to come up with new words that each party will have to reinterpret. Moreover, each perspective and the associated language also contain knowledge about how things work from the corresponding position. Learning about each other's perspectives is therefore productive in collectively understanding the complex reality as it is perceived from different points of view.
From a scientific perspective on energy justice, there is another argument in favor of such an approach. Learning to listen to each other can be part of recognizing and experiencing recognition of those involved in the energy transition and can enable everyone (if they so wish) to participate in the processes of deliberation and decision-making. This makes learning to listen an essential element in the practical implementation of procedural and recognition justice. This ties in with the theory of “negotiated knowledge”: knowledge is the result of an interactive process in which actors share their views and, by talking and discussing them, come to a better understanding of each other's perceptions. By doing this in a structured way, new and different perspectives are shared, leading to new insights (de Bruijn and Leijten 2007).
The above examples from the context of Just Prepare's living and learning labs do not stand alone. They apply more broadly. In the energy transition, terms such as disadvantaged neighborhoods, social deprivation, energy poverty, and underprivileged neighborhoods are used extensively. These terms are used to address inequality in the energy transition as effectively as possible, but they can have the effect of making people feel stigmatized, dependent, marginalized, or disadvantaged, causing them to act differently or refrain from involvement in the energy transition. Distributive justice (i.e., addressing the unequal distribution of costs and benefits between different neighborhoods) and the “correct” terms used in this context can then (unintentionally) come into conflict with procedural and recognition justice (who can participate and how are these perspectives taken into account in an equitable manner). That is why we argue that living labs should explicitly not be regarded as neutral arenas, but as a space where you actively work together on this (new) meaning. It is important that we learn about the different interpretations of concepts such as justice among those involved and also understand how these different interpretations affect mutual relationships. In addition, it is essential that we take the daily lives of residents as a starting point in order to understand, together with local partners, what injustice actually means in the specific situations that residents encounter on a daily basis. Continuously engaging in dialogue and making the concept of energy justice discursive is at the heart of what needs to happen in the arenas of the living and learning labs, but also in the entire energy transition. Because in this way, we harness the power of social processes of meaning-making, rather than allowing rigidity and conflict over definitions and meanings to unintentionally hold the processes in the local energy transition hostage in opposition and conflict.
References
Auteurs: Rosa Koetsenruijter en Anna de Zeeuw van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam in samenwerking met Ilona van Breugel en Erik Jansen van de HAN University of Applied Sciences.