{"id":7645,"date":"2014-06-12T09:34:06","date_gmt":"2014-06-12T14:34:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=7645"},"modified":"2015-03-24T10:20:49","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T15:20:49","slug":"on-naming-the-anthropocene","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2014\/06\/12\/on-naming-the-anthropocene\/","title":{"rendered":"On naming the Anthropocene"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following are the comments I prepared for the roundtable “The Arts and Humanities Respond to the Anthropocene<\/a>.” They follow in the line of critical thinking on the Anthropocene initiated by\u00a0gatherings like the Anthropocene Project (see here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>, and some of the posts\u00a0at A(S)CENE<\/a>) and journals like Environmental Humanities<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"HABITUS-9-medium-1024x682\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As a cultural theorist, I come to the topic naturally asking what the different theoretical paradigms in cultural and environmental theory can say about this term “Anthropocene.” These paradigms stretch across a spectrum that can be very loosely grouped into “realist” approaches and “constructivist” approaches.<\/p>\n

The first set (realism) considers a term like “the Anthropocene” as a way of naming something\u00a0that exists<\/em>. Specifically, it originates as the\u00a0naming of\u00a0a\u00a0geological stratum defined\u00a0by its\u00a0relationship\u00a0to\u00a0human\u00a0activities (i.e. to activities undertaken by the Anthropos, the species Homo Sapiens considered as a single unit). In turn, it raises questions over the\u00a0character and significance\u00a0of the \u201csomething that exists.\u201d<\/p>\n

The second (constructivism)\u00a0considers the term\u00a0as a way of naming something into existence<\/em>,\u00a0such that having been named it becomes a fact of which we can speak, a discursive reality. It then\u00a0raises questions about\u00a0how and why it is brought into existence, by whom and\u00a0through what means, bringing\u00a0what\u00a0opportunities and presenting what\u00a0risks, to\u00a0whose benefit and at whose expense, and as opposed to what\u00a0alternatives.<\/p>\n

The Anthropocene can be compared in these respects to other terms that have been brought into existence and that have carried out various kinds of work. Some examples:<\/p>\n

Epochal:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Renaissance, Enlightenment, modernity, postmodernity, globalization<\/p>\n

Sociopolitical:<\/em>\u00a0democracy, liberalism, socialism, capitalism, neoliberalism, globalization<\/p>\n

Movemental:<\/em> environmentalism, “tree hugger,” green politics, sustainability, environmental justice, climate justice, Creation Care, posthumanism<\/p>\n

Ecological:<\/em>\u00a0ecosystem, biodiversity,\u00a0global warming, climate change, sustainability, resilience<\/p>\n

Academic:<\/em> environmental studies, ecocriticism, environmental humanities, sustainability studies, posthumanities, the nonhuman turn<\/a>\u00a0(and see here<\/a>)<\/p>\n

From a more constructivist perspective, here are some of the things the naming of the\u00a0Anthropocene does:<\/p>\n

1. It\u00a0provokes thought, generates attention, brings other terms\/groups\/discourses together in ways that facilitate communication, exchange, and growth (funding, etc.).<\/p>\n

Specifically, it\u00a0brings the Human and the Natural together into a single temporal and spatial unit: the planet as defined by human activity (and interactivity with it). It is, in this sense, like \u201cglobalization\u201d but larger, with ecology now woven into this global frame.\u00a0For environmental humanists (among others) it lends the credibility of science (geology!). For earth scientists, it expands their purview to include the human. These are all clear gains and make the term worth supporting and working with. Any effort to bridge the “two cultures” divide in a way that recognizes both human agency and material reality is a good thing.<\/p>\n

2. At the same time,\u00a0it continues a certain trend of\u00a0rendering humanity singular in a way that blurs differences\u00a0between differently situated human groups — differentiated according to race, class, gender, social group, worldview, technical means, ecological livelihood, centrality or peripherality within political and economic systems, and so on. This means it blurs differences between different socio-ecological orders, that is, the very things that neo-materialist and post-constructivist approaches in the humanities and social sciences — like actor-network theory and others — are specifically attempting to focus on. In this sense, it does not particularly help us think through the ways we live on this earth, interacting with its other inhabitants, components, and flows.<\/p>\n

It is in this sense empirically inaccurate, or at least reductionist.\u00a0Humanity has (arguably) never acted — willfully,\u00a0consciously — as a single unit, even if it can be described analytically<\/em> as a single unit. Humans have been around for a long time and lived in many different ways, so “Anthropocene” is not\u00a0really\u00a0reducible to humans or humanity per se. Instead, it involves tools (and far from all tools) and ways of engaging those tools in relations with landscapes, ecosystems, and so on. It’s these that we need to get a better handle on. To what extent “Anthropocene” helps with this is debatable.<\/p>\n

In his keynote address last night, Andy Revkin<\/a> challenged the audience to come up with a better term.<\/p>\n

Let’s think about some of the alternatives that have been proposed for capturing the current planetary era in ways that allow us to critically assess it and\u00a0envision alternatives to\u00a0it. Here we are acknowledging that the point of “the Anthropocene” is to name an epoch in a pragmatically useful way, a way that allows us to understand its historical-geological novelty, but also to understand our positioning within it and the possibilities we have for shifting it in different\u00a0directions.<\/p>\n