We can provisionally use problematic structures/concepts. All action is already piecemeal and political

(Robyn Eckersley (2018): The Green State in Transition: Reply to Bailey, Barry

and Craig, New Political Economy, DOI: 10.1080/13563467.2018.1526270 chool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australi)

However, it is useful to revisit Cox’s distinction with a critical eye, since it raises several problems for critical theory in grappling with the politics of transition towards greener states. First, it has had the unfortunate effect (even if it was never intended) of treating problem-solving as a distinctly second-class activity because it is ideologically biased in favour of the status quo, as if critical theory’s deeper, structural analysis is objectively correct and therefore free of ideology (Brown and Eckersley 2018, p. 7). Clearly, this implicit assumption cannot stand; critical theorists must articulate and defended the normative purposes that guide their critiques; and if they wish to realise these purposes, then they must approach problem-solving as a further and equally necessary phase of theorising that would follow a more general critique. Second, Cox’s distinction suggests that only structural reforms that can usher in post-capitalist relations will do, and that anything less would perpetuate the status quo. This paints critical theorists into an awkward corner when it comes to the politics of transition, since the depth of the structural transformations of states and markets that the critique requires are, to put it mildly, politically demanding. Ecological problems are ‘over-determined’ by the interlocking dependencies between states and markets but it is politically impossible to do everything at once, but anything less would be ‘mere’ problem-solving. So how might political legitimacy be won for the structural changes that are required, bearing in mind that political support must be mobilised within the distorted arenas of political contestation provided by existing liberal capitalist states that are the primary subject of critique? Greener states, if they are to emerge, are most likely to be built, piece by piece, as the result of political struggles. This means that they will always be works in progress or ‘works in regress’. The politics of transition is therefore not an interim period or a means to an end state – the green state – but rather an ongoing political condition. If critical theory hopes to shape this politics of transition, then it needs to develop its own account of critical problem-solving based on ‘strategic bracketing’ of problematic social structures in recognition of the political fact that everything cannot be done at once. By ‘strategic bracketing’ I mean holding certain social structures as provisionally given, in order focus on policy debates and policy prescriptions that are likely to carry high transformative potential. By ‘transformative potential’ I mean the potential to invite critical reflection and piecemeal reform of any of the many social structures – understood broadly to encompass any recurrent pattern of social activity – that are routinely generating environment degradation and environmental injustices. This includes liberal states and capitalist markets but it also includes discourses (recurrent patterns of meaning) and the subjectivities, rules and practices that they sanction. This would require careful historical and policy analysis of particular state-society complexes, including the particular varieties of capitalism, the character of the political institutions, political cultures (including cultures of risk) and the configuration of ‘social forces’ in different states, with an eye on identifying particular policy interventions with the most transformative potential in particular contexts. Critical theory should also look for interventions with the potential to ‘travel’ across different jurisdictions, bearing in mind the increasing convergence around neoliberal economic policies in many OECD countries. In what follows, I draw on the contributions of Barry and Craig in responding to Bailey’s trilemma, and offer one illustration of critical problem-solving by way of a response. The discussion takes it as given that, despite their dependence on capital accumulation, for the foreseeable future states remain the institution with the greatest capacity to discipline capitalism (including investors, producers, and consumers) in order to uphold ecological sustainability (Eckersley 2004, p. 12). It follows that they need to be kept afloat if they are to be ecologically repurposed.(3-4)