The following is a guest post by Kieran Suckling, Executive Director of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity. It follows the discussion begun here and in some AESS conference sessions, including Andy Revkin’s keynote talk (viewable here) and responses to it (such as Clive Hamilton’s).
I
In considering why the name “Anthropocene” has been proposed, why it has been embraced by many, and what might make a better alternative, it is instructive to look at how geologists have named previous epochs. From such a view, “Anthropocene” immediately stands out as an anomaly.
There are ten named epochs covering the last 145 million years. None are named for the cause of changes to the planet. Instead, all the names refer to the changed composition of species present in each epoch. (*See Note 1.)
For example, consider the epoch change caused by the meteor that drove the dinosaurs and vast number of other species extinct 65 million years ago. The resulting new epoch is not called the Meteorocene or Chicxulubocene. It does not refer to a causal agent at all. It is called the “Paleocene” which translates to “ancient recent” or “ancient new.” The reference is to the most ancient period in which the planet’s species composition was similar to its modern composition.
Cenozoic, the name for the era that began 65 million years ago with the Cretaceous Extinction event, means “new life” to indicate that, taken as a whole, the plants and animals in the fossil record (and alive today) changed after the K-T event. The Cenozoic is divided into seven epochs. (The Anthropocene would be the eighth.)
The current epoch, driven by the last global glaciation event and the relative stability since, is not called the “Glaceocene” or “Neoglaceocene”; it is the “Holocene,” which translates as “wholly” or “entirely” “new” (or “recent”). The reference is to the global species composition of the past 11,500 years in its difference from the Pleistocene epoch that preceded it.
So while many, including Andy Revkin, assume that a new epoch must necessarily be named for its causal agent, doing so would actually be anomalous and contrary to long-standing geological naming protocol.
This begs several questions: Why break from the naming protocol in the one and only instance where humans are thought to be the causal agent? Why do we take take this gesture so thoroughly for granted that we barely notice the change in protocol? What belief system(s) drive the shift from epoch names reflecting the global composition of millions of species, to a name based on the power of one species, a species that happens to be us?
If we were stick with the geologic tradition, we’d ask whether there has been a significant shift in species composition between the Holocene and the “present.” The answer is yes. On the one hand, the geologic record of the future will reflect the mass disappearance of species from the global fossil record due to extinction. On the other hand, the future fossil record will demonstrate the sudden arrival and proliferation of a small number of species around the world, such as sheep, pigs, cows, dogs, wheat, rice, cowbirds, starlings, and others.
Taken together, these two recent events will cause the fossil record to reveal a radical homogenization of the planet’s species between the Holocene (or perhaps the Pleistocene) and the current time. A name along the lines of the “Homogenocene” is fitting for such a period. In keeping with the geological naming tradition, it defines and names the epoch in terms of substantial changes in the global composition/distribution of plant and animals species.
II
If there has been more push back against the name from within the humanities than the sciences, it is likely because humanities scholars are more aware of the history of western anthropocentrism and efforts to move away from it in a diverse array of often intensely conflicting movements — such as post-structuralism, post-humanism, post-modernism, eco-criticism, deep ecology, biocentrism, et al. From this critical perspective, the term “Anthropocene” raises suspicions about the reinscription of anthropocentrism.
In distinction to Homogenocene (or a similar term), Anthropocene reflects this dominant Western paradigm. The same self-centered, providential belief in human exceptionalism that drove “us” to homogenize the planet’s species is now driving “us” to dismiss the planet’s species as the base geologic naming premise in favor of naming the planet after ourselves and our mighty power. Thus “Anthropocene” is not an anecdote to or struggle with anthropocentrism, it is its culmination.
Anthropocene is also suspect because — to the extent that “we” wish to name the new epoch after a force, it generically identifies that force as humanity as a whole, rather than the identifiable power structures most responsible for the geological Anthropocene traces: extinction, greenhouse gas emissions, creating/distributing nitrogen, etc. Whether one looks at the issue from a gender, race, economic, or geographic perspective, the genericizing of causality always benefits power by hiding power. (*See Note 2.)
From another angle, consider the assertion that the name “Anthropocene” breaks down the division of humans and nature by recognizing that humans are a geological force. There is a unity in this to be sure, but only at the cost of eradicating one of the binary terms: nature. Does it really make sense in any philosophical, political, emotive context to say we have accomplished the conceptual unification of humans and nature by denying the existence of nature, by proclaiming that we humans are now the sole, or at least most dominant “natural” force? How is it that we only got around to feeling at one with nature at the moment when we decided we were the most powerful force in nature? If the human/nature divide is fundamentally untenable at all times, why did we not embrace our naturalness at an earlier moment when we believed ourselves a species among species rather than the uber-species? It seems to me that “Anthropocene” does not signal a unity of humans and nature or a breaking down of conceptual barriers. It is the proclamation of dominance.
Finally, in thinking through the name “Anthropocene,” we must also note that in parallel to the formal geologic epochs, there have always been informal names. Buffon, in the late 1700s, was the first the posit a semi-modern, semi-scientific earth history, and his seventh and last historical stage was defined by humans governing nature. At no point from then to the present have geologists not informally named the current time something translatable as the “Age of Man.” From the very moment it became possible to imagine an Age of Man — from the moment we discovered that the Earth was old and humans young — geologists have informally named the current period as the Age of Man. Prior to that knowledge, there were no known ages preceding humans, thus no possibility of a human age.
The last incarnation before Anthropocene was Anthropogene (with a “g”). The term has been around since the early 20th century, but caught fire in the 1950s and 60s. To this day it is used in geology publications in Eastern Europe. So is Anthropozoic, the prior popular turn. Geology journals were even named after it as they are now named after Anthropocene. Other such terms have included Anthropolithic, Age of the Human Species, Psychozoic, Periode Anthropeian, Human Period, and Terrain Humain.
In this light, “Anthropocene” is more fundamentally the continuation of a long trend — a trend coextensive with modernity, colonialism, and geology as modern science — not a divergence or awakening. As such, the term “Anthropocene” is the latest incarnation of anthropocentric thinking.
Kieran Suckling is Executive Director of the Center for Biological Diversity. This article is taken by permission from a manuscript in progress and includes materials previously shared on Immanence and Ecology Without Nature. He can be reached at ksuckling@biologicaldiversity.org.
Notes
(1) The following epochs make up the Cenozoic era:
- Paleocene: oldest new fauna
- Eocene: dawning of new fauna
- Oligocene: few recent fauna (compared to today)
- Miocene: less recent fauna (appearing)
- Pliocene: more recent fauna (appearing)
- Pleistocene: most recent fauna (have appeared)
- Holocene: entirely recent fauna (are present)
(2) Editor’s note: For a strong case in favor of the term “Capitalocene” instead of the “Anthropocene,” see the work of historian Jason W. Moore. Moore’s theorization of capitalism as a “world-ecology” (as opposed to a world-economy) draws on a voluminous breadth of historical, economic, and ecological sources. The term is, however, subject to some of the same critiques as this article makes of Anthropocene — notably that it refers to the supposed cause of the change in biological conditions, not the nature of those conditions themselves.
[…] Suckling’s article “Against the Anthropocene,” posted over at sister blog Immanence, should be of interest to readers of this […]
Kieran,
I appreciate your analysis. Virtually all of the debate within the scientific and science-oriented communities has been about the existence of, starting point or geologic marker of the global impact. There has been very little discussion of the name itself and what is at stake geologically, philosophically, politically and culturally in choosing the name “Anthropocene” rather than some other. This is particularly strange since the name is of stronger motivational interest in the non-geologic world than the idea. In keeping with your description of the several hundred year history of “Anthropocene” names rising and falling in interest, I do think that a non-anthropocentric name like “Homogenocene” would likely generate less public interest. Such a name would not fulfill the anthropocentric desire.
Steffan, Crutzen and Vince note precursor concepts in a few papers, but in cursory fashion. They conclude with an unexplained statement that the “Anthropocene” however, is a new term and should not be confused with the previous. There is no sense of the history of ideas. Particularly interesting is their reference to a paper against the Psychozoic by Berry as evidence that the term was not taken seriously. They missed that Berry’s paper was written 40 years after the term first came into use and was proliferated through geology textbooks and international conferences. Contrary to their dismissal, the forty year long debate about the appropriateness of the term Psychozoic is strong evidence that it was taken very seriously. Will Anthropocene still be debated in 40 years?
The author’s would have done well more over in paying closer attention to Berry’s complaints as he raises many of the same issues discussed by Suckling and others in regard to anthropocentrism and the lumping of all of humanity into a single term associated with men and western elites.
In sum, epoch naming has very deep historical roots and motivations. We need deeper historical and philosophical analyses to understand the implications.
It is difficult to get a handle on the term “Anthropocene” because it means very different things to different people. For Crutzen and most scientists, the primary signification is danger. It names a condition of unsustainability and overshoot, a heading toward disaster. For Ellis and the techo-optimists associated with The Breakthrough Institute, the primary signification is power, overcoming and opportunity. It names a freedom from nature and constraint, a sense that as we neither rely on nor are compelled to preserve nature, we are free to design any future we wish. In this view, there are challenges (most of which will be addressed by breakthrough technologies), but no fundamental crises or dangers.
For some, mostly those toward the sciency side of the scale, the Anthropocene began at some not-yet-determined time when the human enterprise tipped the global ecological balance. It may be the Great Acceleration of the the 1950s, the fossil fuel revolution of the 1850s, or the perhaps even an earlier change in the global fire/forest regime. But in all cases, it is associated with a moment in human history, a time of great effect. For others, mostly those toward the techno-optimist side of the spectrum, there is a tendency to root out much earlier beginnings, essentially at any point a human impact can be ferreted out, regardless of the size of the impact. The Anthropocene is essentially co-extensive with humanity. The effect of the latter is to naturalize our impact on the planet (it is human nature from the get go) leading to the conclusion/assertion that the way forward is necessarily very similar to the past. The effect of the former, by identifying the Anthropocene as a particular moment in history, rather than with the process of History itself, emphasizes that our arrival at this is entirely contingent and future could be very different rather than a relatively linear continuation of the past.
These divergent uses of the term drives much of the optimist vs. realist debate. It is interesting to see how term also realigns what we imagine at least are traditional inclinations. The science wing, for example, in seeing a looming disaster tends toward calling for policy change, that is politics. The more humanist oriented optimists tend toward a largely apolitical faith in technological advance.
[…] Tony Barnosky and Jan Zalasiewicz have weighed in on the debate elicited by Kieran Suckling’s Against the Anthropocene. The continued debate can be read […]
[…] his post “Against the Anthropocene”, Kieran Suckling makes two main arguments. The first is that the […]
It seems that a common critique of the term Anthropocene is by addressing the inherent anthropocentrism in the term, and to point to how the term ‘Anthropocene’ itself breaks from geological conventions. As Kieran outlined above, ‘Homogenocene’ would fall more in line with the previous epochal typology since it refers to species composition rather than any cause of species/planetary changes. I think that this is a great term for both environmental and cultural reasons, but my question is related to the geological typology itself: it seems that the past geological epochs that make up the Cenozoic era are all named in direct relation to our current period, which itself indicates a temporal anthropocentrism (in terms of making geological comparisons to what we know about the world today). I’d be interested to know whether there are any debates amongst geologists about the ethics and moral responsibility of being a geologist today: should a new term (like ‘Anthropocene’ or ‘Homogenocene’) do anything other than name the current epoch? Since it seems to me that the epochs composing the Cenozoic era aren’t devoid of anthropocentrism entirely (most obviously: because we name them, but less obviously: because of what we named them), should geology aim to expand beyond their “mere” epochal typology into more critical/cultural/philosophical/policy debates?
Emil,
What you’re calling “temporal anthropocentrism” (an interesting coinage) seems similar to what historians call “presentism” — a reading of the past in terms of present-day assumptions. (Critics of presentism consider that unwarranted.) I think that’s correct about some geological terms.
In science, it seems that there’s some thought that goes into naming, but often — as in the naming of stars or subatomic particles — it’s just the whim of the discoverer. The name is considered far less important than the thing named. What the critics of the term “Anthropocene” seem to be suggesting is that scientists today ought to be more critical of the terms they choose.
[…] UVM. 2014. Immanence – Ecoculture, geophilosophy, mediapolitics: Against the Anthropocene. Accessed 27 October 2014, published 7 July 2014, http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2014/07/07/against-the-anthropocene/. […]
[…] Some opponents accuse the movement of arrogance: Who are we, to think we can make even a small dent on this sphere of mostly solid rock over 12 thousand kilometers across? Other critics think the Anthropocene is more about pop culture than geology. Some merely object to its human-centric name. […]
[…] Kieran Suckling. “Against the Anthropocene.” Immanence, July […]
[…] Kieran Suckling. “Against the Anthropocene.” Immanence, July […]
[…] the identifiable power structures most responsible for the geological Anthropocene traces,” wrote Kieran Suckling, founding director of the Center for Biological Diversity, in […]
[…] the identifiable power structures most responsible for the geological Anthropocene traces,” wrote Kieran Suckling, founding director of the Center for Biological Diversity, in […]
I am just writing to make you be aware of what a superb encounter my friend’s princess found reading your site. She picked up such a lot of details, most notably what it’s like to possess an incredible coaching nature to make other people just grasp chosen specialized matters. You really did more than my expected results. Thanks for delivering those good, safe, edifying and even easy guidance on the topic to Lizeth.