Abstract

Various social ontology inquiry trends have formed close ties with empirical social research, employing a range of methods to pursue diverse purposes. For instance, while emancipatory perspectives have aimed to develop new conceptual resources to address social change, others have emphasized the salience of analyzing modelling tools for an effective understanding of the modification of social worlds. With this in mind, systematically examining how applied social science research plans and manages interventions might be beneficial to different theoretical stances. Following this line of reasoning, it is worth noting that some applied social science fields have recently investigated the impact environmental crises have had in terms of climate and intergenerational justice. New social risks and inequalities are often elicited by the interaction between climate change and mitigation/adaptation strategies, such as ecological transition. Furthermore, new phenomena (such as climate vulnerability) and entities (e.g., carbon credits) are the outcomes of conflictual relational processes. To cope with these challenges, eco-social inquiry is exploring the need to implement more “ecological” institutions, such as a sustainable welfare system. Nonetheless, based on the theses on social powers formulated by Åsa Burman, it remains unclear if eco-social applied research constitutes a coherent attempt to transform oppressive relationships. Similarly, developing ecologically sustainable institutions demands clarifying how their etiology and teleology can interrelate, as analyzed by Francesco Guala and Frank Hindriks. Considering this, my aim is twofold. Firstly, to evaluate how the perspectives of Burman on social powers and Guala and Hindriks on institutions could improve the current eco-social research concerning climate-related social vulnerabilities. Second, I will examine the possibility of a distinct kind of epistemic social power (enacted by scholars, professionals and practitioners) which, by enhancing the conceptual and epistemic transparency of social kinds and instances, opens up new abilities for agents, partially through legitimizing obligations, social norms, and structures. Following these broad objectives, I will examine Burman’s account and highlight some issues that fall between its interpretation of contestation, conflict, and opacity, and Hindriks’ descriptions of resilience, securing values and fairness of sustainable institutions. Hence, I will examine some conflictual cases of new eco-social risks where deep uncertainty surrounding decision-making hinders collective actions and challenges defining values, norms and powers that all involved parties perceive as legitimate. In the third phase, drawing on the contributions of Sally Haslanger on social practices, I will draft an analysis of the role of epistemic practices in enabling new capacities for cohabitation in contexts impacted by climate change and legitimizing new eco-social norms, structures and roles. I will then elaborate on this analysis to provide an understanding of the development and interdependence of diverse social powers, suggesting that, in order to combat oppressions related to climate change, epistemic social power and intentionally driven epistemic practices are essential. Nonetheless, when it comes to the perceived fairness of eco-social norms, formal and informal roles and associated powers, different relational approaches to managing social interventions produce significantly different outcomes. Finally, I will outline some potential avenues for future research concerning the relationship between social powers, resilient institutions and collective epistemic agencies.