Social tipping points everywhere?—Patterns and risks of overuse

Abstract

The last few years have witnessed an explosion of interest in the concept of social tipping points (STPs), understood as nonlinear processes of transformative change in social systems. A growing body of interdisciplinary scholarship has been focusing in particular on social tipping related to climate change. In contrast with tipping point studies in the natural sciences-for example climate tipping points and ecological regime shifts-STPs are often conceptualized as desirable, offering potential solutions to pressing problems. Drawing on a well-established definition for tipping points, and a qualitative review of articles that explicitly treat social tipping points as potential solutions to climate change, this article identifies four deleterious patterns in the application of the STP concept in this recent wave of research on nonlinear social change: (i) premature labeling, (ii) not defining system boundaries and scales of analysis, (iii) not providing evidence for all characteristics of tipping processes, and (iv) not making use of existing social theories of change. Jointly, these patterns create a trend of overusing the concept. Recognizing and avoiding these patterns of "seeing the world through tipping point glasses" is important for the quality of scientific knowledge generated in this young field of inquiry and for future science-policy interactions related to climate change. Future research should seek to identify empirical evidence for STPs while remaining open to the possibility that many social change processes are not instances of tipping, or that certain systems might not be prone to nonlinear change.

An interdisciplinary framework for navigating social–climatic tipping points

“…Based on the interdisciplinary efforts of the team of co‐authors, and following the lead of recent scholarship on the topic (Milkoreit, 2023), we put forward desirability and intentionality as actionable concepts that help explain how social processes co‐constitute abrupt, non‐linear change in climatic systems, which we term social–climatic tipping points. These two concepts highlight a previously under‐considered ‘social’ layer in tipping point scholarship and give new ground for assessing how human agency shapes social–climatic states.…”

“…Based on the interdisciplinary efforts of the team of co-authors, and following the lead of recent scholarship on the topic (Milkoreit, 2023)…”

“…acceptable or just) depends on the current and historical social context and on who interprets what is (un)desirable. Thus we not only need to consider the extent to which human agency can bring about transformative change (as per Milkoreit, 2023), but if such human agency exists, whether it is possible to disrupt existing social networks and resources to ensure that intentional actions do not further exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and injustices. This requires recognition that navigating social–climatic tipping points challenges the power of those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, and paying close attention to who are the winners and losers.…”

“…Similarly, Winkelmann et al (2022) recognised that agency, encompassing intentionality and desirability, is a main driver of social tipping processes, but used it as a concept for distinguishing between social and climate processes, rather than studying them together. While Milkoreit (2023) focused on social tipping points, she welcomed a ‘flip in the script’ that the concepts of desirability and intentionality bring to social tipping points within climate action debates because if ‘desirable’ change can be intentionally induced, then ‘we no longer looked at tipping points only as threatening, potentially even catastrophic events in nature that appear largely unstoppable … Instead we look for them as much‐needed policy tools at our disposal to speed up our responses to climate change and move along the transformations demanded by publics and decision‐makers’ (Milkoreit, 2023, p. 3). Yet she warns against uncritically embracing these concepts because ‘[t]hey imply a possibly false sense of control and agency with regard to highly complex processes in social‐environmental systems that are likely characterized by emergence and surprise’ (Milkoreit, 2023, p. 4).…”

“…For example, bringing together social–environmental research fields, such as social and industrial ecology, with diverse social and natural science disciplines, such as history and paleoclimatology, among others. An associated challenge involves establishing a common interdisciplinary terminology of concepts (Milkoreit, 2023; Milkoreit et al, 2018; Rineau et al, 2019) and developing more comprehensive theories (Feola, 2015; Korhonen et al, 2004) of how tipping points in biophysical environments can be simultaneously understood as socio‐cultural tipping points and vice versa. Here we focus on developing the concepts of intentionality and desirability that are emerging as highly salient to understanding social–climatic tipping points and that require further interdisciplinary deliberation (Milkoreit, 2023).…”