The Anthropocene rift and social policy – rethinking ontological and epistemological perspectives

Purpose For over two decades, diverse social sciences disciplines have placed the Anthropocene among the key factors influencing contemporary ontological and epistemological advancements. However, social policy research and literature focus little on the Anthropocene discussion loop. This article, therefore, discusses how debates on the Anthropocene unfold in social policy understanding and practices; and how they challenge core premises in the path-dependence model on which policy processes are explained. Design/methodology/approach With a brief reflection on social and public policy studies, we summarise the core literature from the debates regarding the Anthropocene. In this regard, we revisited established policy school traditions that, to our knowledge, have never yet provided a solid basis for responding to the epoch of the Anthropocene rift around the globe. Findings The Anthropocene crisis is characterised by constantly evolving social-ecological problems that lack fixed reference points for ending. However, globally, social policy decisions remain bound by conventional practices and ways of thinking developed in static, path-dependency-oriented institutional models. These models and practices ignore the “non-human world”, which has become a central threat to human civilisation and its institutions. As a counter to discourse hegemony, we then present an alternative ontology and epistemology that can navigate uncertainty and socio-ecological relationality, primarily linked to the proposed idea of path-situational. We also emphasise the need for co-production governance that involves meaningful collaboration among various stakeholders within policy-making. Originality/value This article contributes to the literature on the intersection between social policy and Anthropocene issues by offering a new narrative that embraces uncertainty and a more assertive political ontology in describing the actual and objective conditions of the crisis. Our argument evolves around two well-established fields of social and public policy scholarship: policy process, policy paradigm and policy practices for outlining future ontological and epistemological elements of policy studies that require researchers and policymaking to move away from static territories (such as path dependency or gradualism) and towards a more dynamic one.