Hegel is, among other things, famous for his dialectic: every thesis creates its opposite antithesis, which combine to form a synthesis, which becomes a new thesis. Thus, the historical process advances. Others, such as Bertrand Russell, have posited the principle that controlled conflict appears to be an essential mechanism for the continued evolution of human culture. Conversely, cultures dominated by a single point of view tend to be relatively stagnant. Hall, in Cities in Civilization, notes that periods of maximum cultural creativity occur in cities — such as ancient Athens, Renaissance Florence, and Elizabethan London — that are somewhat violent, in historical transition, economically inequitable, open to the world, with no comprehensive authority. The trick is in the term “controlled”: too much chaos and anarchy reigns; too little and a culture may be overtaken by more vigorous competitors.

What does this have to do with sustainability? Actually, a lot. Consider the cultural construct “sustainable development”: why was it created when it was, and what was the intent behind it?

This is a complex question, but a primary concern was the growing conflict between environmentalism and development. It appeared in many guises, from developing country charges that environmentalism was an elitist tool to maintain hegemony over the rest of the world; to the internecine divide among the “deep greens,” such as Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!, and “social ecologists,” such as Murray Bookchin; to debates as to whether population growth (a developing country dynamic) or consumption (a developed country dynamic) should be controlled to reduce human environmental impacts; to very basic arguments about whether a biocentric (environmentalist) or anthropocentric (human development) ethic should dominate. People of goodwill who desired both economic development and environmental quality were concerned that the conflict would hinder one or both goals.

“Sustainable development” explicitly combined the idea of environmental quality with economic development. At the cultural level it was wildly successful, becoming pervasive in adjective form: “sustainable firms,” “sustainable cities,” “sustainable consumption,” and the like — despite the fact that no one knows what a “sustainable” anything really is.

But is it a true synthesis? Not really. The fact that we now repeat “sustainable” like a mantra does not mean there aren’t difficult tradeoffs between environmental and economic development concerns. One need only think of the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development, where commentators noted that the fundamental conflict, environment versus development, was very close to the surface. Other examples include the opposition of environmentalists to genetically modified foods with the potential to save lives in the developing world; or the conflict between environmentalists wishing to ban DDT, and medical personnel who view DDT as one of developing countries’ few effective tools against malaria. The physical reality of development in an environmentally constrained world is not altered one iota by adopting new terms that finesse, rather than resolve, conflict.

So, is “sustainable development” simply an inadequate synthesis of two powerful and conflicting discourses, environmentalism and economic development? Certainly, it is initial and incomplete: while it recognizes the need for integrating these discourses, it provides little guidance on how to actually do it. Perhaps a more important contribution of “sustainable development” is the creation of a context within which creative conflict can occur. Taken this way, sustainable development is neither guide nor synthesis, and much of the “sustainability” discourse is misguided.

Perhaps the construct can be understood as a playing field upon which the conflicts between environmentalism and development can be conducted in ways that are creative and productive, rather than simply harmful. Its benefits, then, arise not because it offers new insight or guidance, but because it is a mechanism that bounds conflict in a way as that incents innovation and evolution of creative solutions.

In this latter sense, it may be a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue between humans and their anthropogenic world.

Allenby is Environment, Health and Safety VP for AT&T, an adjunct professor at the University of Virginia’s Engineering School and Princeton Theological Seminary, and Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Business School. The views expressed herein are those of the author, and not any institution with which he is associated.