To engage with sustainable development and the SDGs, I present a heuristic framework to explore the underlying aspirations and actions from different perspectives: the worldview framework. In essence, it distinguishes the dimensions of I--local--particular from We--global--universal, and body--material from soul--immaterial. It is a methodology to experiment with, not a (scientific) theory. Its conceptualization is based on a historical analysis of Modernity (previous chapters), on insights from perennial philosophy and on empirical surveys. The four corners of this space are denoted Subjective Materialism (A2), Objective Materialism (A1), Objective Idealism (B1) and Subjective Idealism (B2). I apply it to interpret the roots of Modernity in European history and I offer a tentative social dynamics theory as a broad canvas for exploring sustainable pathways. The centre of this worldview space is the locus of the integral worldview, where dialogue, partnerships and coalitions are the means to overcome the -- often polarized -- differences in values and ideas of the competing worldviews.

The odd-nosed monkeys represent a monophyletic group of phenotypically unique primates. They include five species of snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus), three species of doucs (Pygathrix) as well as simakobu (Simias concolor) and the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus). These species are ecologically diverse and inhabit a gradient of environments in China and southeast Asia, from wet equatorial forests to alpine forests. Odd-nosed monkeys tend to be shy and difficult to habituate, and often range over relatively large areas. Many are also renowned for inhabiting remote areas with rugged terrain and inclement climatic conditions. It is thus not surprising that, until fairly recently, they were among the least studied and most enigmatic extant diurnal primates. However, since the beginning of the new millennium, an expanse of new and exciting research has been conducted on these colobines. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the current knowledge of the ecology and behaviour of odd-nosed monkeys and analyse some of their key behavioural traits and ecological adaptations in light of what is known about other colobines and primates as a whole.

Imperial images have been at the heart of historical debates on Roman history for several decades. This paper reflects on the historiographical context in which these debates took place, focusing on two debates in classical studies: the discussion about ‘propaganda’, which highlights the transmission of ideology (how and why imagery was communicated), and the debate about agency (who was communicating with whom). In many ways, this volume, with its emphasis on the social dynamics of imagery, places itself in that debate. Yet, the two larger historiographical debates should themselves be contextualised, as they were heavily influenced by contemporary politics and by the introduction of two major concepts in the social sciences: ‘framing’ and ‘agenda setting’. Political and academic contexts have consistently influenced the study of Roman imperial images. It may be useful to make the importance of ‘contexts’ – geographical and chronological – more explicit. An imperial image is always an image, but only in certain contexts will it have functioned as an imperial image. It may be worthwhile to focus less on what an image is and more on how and when images function in certain ways.

The introductory chapter explores the methodology of approaching imperial imagery, from definitions and categorisations to modes of analysis. Defining imperial imagery as imagery that relates to imperial power, the authors reject universal models that purport to encompass all aspects of the production and use of such images in favour of context-based approaches which focus on the ways in which they became embedded in local image systems. The authors single out social dynamics, a term borrowed from economics, sociology, and psychology indicating how large-scale phenomena are the sum of many individual interactions. Social dynamics gives a way to understand how and why imperial imagery was created and used in Roman society at all levels. Imperial imagery had roles to play beyond the emperor’s own sphere, and he was often neither its author nor its audience; instead, individuals used imperial images to communicate with their immediate neighbours, geographically and socially. Multiple users and viewers across the spatial and social spectrums of the empire (and beyond) brought their own experiences to imperial images, and to understand them, we must analyse them in their local contexts.