What is the most appropriate name for our current planetary epoch? PDF

Preview

Summary

Draft of first essay...

Description

Essay attempt: What is the most appropriate name for our current planetary epoch?

This essay examines the contemporary academic landscape concerned with the potential renaming of our current planetary epoch following evidence indicating a possible geochronological departure from the Holocene. Mike Davis appropriately depicts the process of periodisation as being a “complex, controversial art” (Davis, 2008); accordingly, my analytical approach seeks to navigate through the discordant scholarly field with a particular criteria of what I deem to be three essential consequences of the geoscientific debate. First, the production of a theory that satisfies scientific consensus in defining the current geological period; second, the creation of a platform for necessary interdisciplinary analysis, collaboration and debate; and third, the establishment of a conceptual foundation from which approaches towards current and prospective planetary ecological issues shall be based. Despite there being numerous propositions of terms that could effectively represent our current planetary epoch, such as ‘Plantationocene’ (Haraway et al., 2015), ‘Low-octane Anthropocene’ (Ruddiman, 2013) and ‘Palaeo-anthropocene (Foley et al., 2013), this essay takes inspiration from Dipesh Chakrabarty’s (2009) methodological approach and focuses on three specific these that I deem paramount in their engagements with all dimensions of the topic’s conceptual foundations: the ‘Anthropocene’ (Crutzen, 2002; Lewis and Maslin, 2015), the ‘Capitalocene’ (Malm and Hornborg, 2014; Moore, 2017) and the ‘Chthulucene’ (Haraway, 2015). Ultimately, it will be concluded that despite the Anthropocene and Capitalocene theses contributing essentially towards a better understanding of human positionality within the current ecological phase, their theoretical shortcomings indicate that Haraway’s Chthulucene is a more effective interpretation of the contemporary planetary “timespace” based on the criteria described above (Haraway, 2015, p.160).

The concept of the Anthropocene was widely popularised by Paul Crutzen in his publication: “Geology of Mankind” (Crutzen, 2002). The theory proposes that increasing anthropogenic impacts on our planetary environment have become severe to the extent that the geoscientific community should recognise the present period of epochal time as one distinctly separate to what is defined as the Holocene. As referred to in Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin’s ‘Defining the Anthropocene’, the process of formally specifying a geological period involves satisfying a set criteria based around the identification of global-scale changes that can be empirically recorded in the Earth’s stratigraphic material (Lewis and Maslin, 2015). For the Anthropocene, evidence of humanity’s planetary impact is extensive and includes the modification of the atmosphere’s chemical composition following mass fossil fuel burning and nuclear weapons testing, the disturbance of species-wide evolutionary progressions and the more recent mass production of technofossils (Lewis and Maslin, 2015). At present, the International Commission on Stratification (ICS) have formed a subcommission addressing the Anthropocene proposal and have declared that its formal acceptance requires it firstly satisfying the geological criteria for defining an epoch, and secondly it being useful as a term within the scientific community (Quanternary.stratigraphy.org, 2019). In clarification of this latter point, as Barry and Maslin emphasise: “the existence of the Anthropocene [thesis] has evident political and ethical implications” (Barry and Maslin, 2016, p.1); therefore, it is pertinent to examine a major determining factor for these implications: what should be considered its Global Standard Stratigraphic Point (GSSP). For example, if one considers the Anthropocene’s GSSP as being at some point during the time of the Colombian Exchange (Lewis and Maslin, 2015), a period in which mass human population reduction caused a regeneration of over 50 million hectares of forestation, as demonstrated in a significant dip in carbon dioxide records as evidenced in pollen data and fossil records, contemporary academic attention would identify processes of human demographic change as most relevant in relation to environmental change. On the other hand, if we were to take Crutzen’s original proposal of the GSSP being at 1784, the year associated with the invention of James Watt’s steam engine (Crutzen, 2002), greater responsibility would lie on how the processes of industrialisation

and capitalism affect our relations with nature. Ultimately, the ICS have stated that any formal acceptance of the Anthropocene would recognise its GSSP as being during the ‘Great Acceleration’ period of the mid-20th century (Quanternary.stratigraphy.org, 2019). In addition to there being distinct scientific signals at this time in consequence to the introduction of artificial radionuclides into our atmosphere, I expect the committee hopes that this GSSP would satisfy social scientists in its implication that the synchronous processes of industrialisation and demographic flux acted with inseparable influence in their contribution towards anthropogenically induced climate change. Ultimately, anthropogenic contributions towards the contemporary transformation of our planet’s environment has reached the extent that it is no longer possible to consider ourselves as “passive observers of Earth’s functioning” (Lewis and Maslin, 2015, x); instead, the argument dictates that this current planetary epoch ought to be named ‘Anthropocene’, thus etymologically depicting this era as defined by the ‘recent-human’. Furthermore, an acceptance of the Anthropocene thesis emphasises the necessity of the human species to consider ourselves as geological agents, or more evocatively: “stewards of the Earth system” (Steffen et al., 2007). This conceptual reframing will significantly affect our philo-political approaches towards contemporary and futuristic ecological issues; therefore, the creation of an academic platform supporting epistemological coordination between disciplines is essential for the required introduction of, what has been deemed, “a new regime of global environmental governance” (Barry and Maslin, 2016).

Since the induction of this debate within the scientific community, certain postmodernist critiques have targeted a contradiction within the term ‘Anthropocene’ due to the way in which it produces the idea of there being a singular human figure at its centre. Donna Haraway is one social scientist who takes issue with the epistemological concept of individualism in general and thus rejects the idea, particularly alluded to by those ‘Good Anthropocene’ theorists (Brand, 2010; Nordhaus and Shellenberger, 2004), of an ‘Anthropos’ figure whose ultimate destiny is to become a singular force with the responsibility of maintenance and control of our planetary systems. Instead, she emphasises that “the relation is the smallest unit of analysis” (Haraway, 2003, p.20); biologically

speaking, these relations she refers to concern the fact that, as Jane Bennett explains, “we are an array of bodies, the human is not exclusively human” (Bennett, 2010, p.112). This perspective does not represent some sort of philosophical metaphor. Humans are undisputedly holobionts that play host to vast communities of symbiotic organisms; consequently, if human bodies contain a plurality of biologically independent ecosystems, we must surely reject the idea that humans are anatomically individual at all (Gilbert, 2014). The significance of this scientific enlightenment cannot be understated within the epochal debate as it indicates that any examination of the socio-historical implications of the Anthropocene should be expanded to consider interspecies and inter-entity relations; this reconceptualisation is paramount in Haraway’s proposal of the ‘Chthulucene’, a theory that will be discussed in more detail later on in this piece.

A second critique of the Anthropocene hypothesis involves the fact that, despite scientific consensus on the physical evidence employed within its argument, there has been considerable backlash regarding the thesis’ implication of there necessarily being a species-wide acceptance of responsibility for the planet’s current ecological situation. Practically speaking, these arguments emphasise the fact that only a minute proportion of historical humanity may be held responsible for the drastic climatic consequences of the industrial revolution and its associated unsustainabilities: “the rise of population and the rise of emissions [are] disconnected from each other...and if correlation is negative, causation is out of the question” (Malm and Hornborg, 2014, p.65). In other words, by labelling this era of ecological turmoil: ‘Anthropocene’, there is danger of implying that there is some sort of biological inevitability within the DNA of Homo sapiens towards an entropic relationship with our environment. Malm and Hornborg refer to this “analytically flawed” line of thinking in their 2014 publication ‘The Geology of Mankind? A Critique of the Anthropocene narrative’: “we find it deeply paradoxical and disturbing that the growing acknowledgment of the impact of societal forces on the biosphere should be couched in terms of a narrative so completely dominated by natural science” (Malm and Hornborg, 2014, p.63). Instead, they suggest that is essential to explore the components of social and economic history that can explain our development into a geological force, rather than

relapse into the ethically dangerous territory of perspectives based on natural inevitability and biological determinism.

This latter point reintroduces the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach towards the issue of contemporary periodisation. Sociohistorical geographer Jason Moore critiques the “shallow historicisation” (Moore, 2017, p.594) of the Anthropocene’s narrative and instead proposes the alternative term ‘Capitalocene’ as a more accurate title to reflect the human/nature binary that defines this current epoch. The argument for the Capitalocene applies Marxist analysis to suggest that, contrary to the Anthropocene’s narrative emphasising the significance of the collective human species effect on ecology, the development of a global capitalist economic system can be more accurately held as accountable. Moore’s central premise is that the exploitation of nature, and thus the perturbation of ecology, is inherently inevitable within the capitalist system due to the process of underproduction (Marx, 1977). Capitalist underproduction, which may be better understood if retitled to ‘overexploitation’, involves the inevitable process of capitalist enterprise fundamentally failing to renew the material conditions of production that are being utilised. This means that any negative impacts produced are externalised onto the environment and thus ultimately manifest in an accelerating cycle of unsustainability which causes a tendency towards crisis (O’Connor, 1988). For Moore, this process may be conceptually depicted as an essential component of the oikeios system whereby capitalists ‘appropriate’ their environment towards a state in which we are constantly seeking to expand the formal commodity system into the realm of ‘potential free work/energy’, a domain that often effectively represents the unexploited natural environment. For Moore, this ultimately demonstrates how the capitalist system is responsible for the current world ecological situation; the problem is not the warming of our climate itself, it is the mode of relations that have caused global warming to occur (Moore, 2017).

Marx refers to this capitalist process of expansion in his analysis of the period of ‘soil exhaustion’ during Britain’s second agricultural revolution: “nature is man’s inorganic body...man lives on nature” (Marx, 1977, p.112). This quotation highlights an essential characteristic of the Capitalocene whereby nature is seen as something internal to capitalism: the innate qualities existent in the capitalist system effectively becomes our “second nature” (Smith, 1984, Latour, 2014). For Malm and Hornborg, this concept corrects a further fundamental contradiction within the Anthropocene narrative in which climate change is simultaneously denaturalised, in having anthropogenically produced origins, yet also renaturalised, in the perception that, as effectively described by Alfred Crosby Jr, “man is a biological entity before he is a Roman Catholic or a capitalist or anything else” (Crosby Jr, 1973, p.xxv). Kathryn Yusoff also identifies this paradox in her critique of the Anthropocene thesis: “scientic literature on the Anthropocene both naturalizes ‘humanity’ (culture is made into nature) and reintroduces the nature/culture split” (Yusoff, 2015, p.6). Consequently, the argument suggests that in recognising the Capitalocene as the more appropriate name for our current planetary epoch, and therefore through accepting the significance of how historical economic processes have affected our relationship with nature, we will be in a greater position to directly address the inherently economic sources of contemporary and futuristic environmental issues.

However, just like with the Anthropocene proposal, if we were to consider the Capitalocene as the most appropriate name for our current planetary epoch there remains complications concerning what to declare as its GSSP. Although some deem the Industrial Revolution as satisfactory in representing the beginning of global capitalism (Malm and Hornborg, 2014; Latour, 2014), Moore himself has suggested that those social relations intrinsic to our capitalist world economy can be seen in development throughout several centuries prior. Indeed, Barry and Maslin concur that within capitalism, whatever it is taken to be, “there is no singular marker for its beginning” (Barry and Maslin, 2016, p.5). Fundamentally, this concern emphasises an essential deficiency in both the Anthropocene and Capitalocene narratives: despite committing to a definitive scientific approach in their methodologies, they both become complicated by a lack of clear qualitative changes, evident

at a specific point in time, positively distinguishing them from the other epochs. Haraway highlights this issue in her seminal piece ‘Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocece, Chthulucene: Making Kin’: “I think the issues about naming [these ‘cenes’] have to do with scale, rate/speed, synchronicity, and complexity” (Haraway, 2015, p.159). Furthermore, without academic consensus on what may be determined as the beginning of these proposed ‘cenes’, it subsequently becomes difficult to imagine a distinct ending for them either. This consideration is reminiscent of one of Latour’s central concerns outlined in his lecture ‘On some of the effects of capitalism’ (Latour, 2014) regarding the curious perception of a supposedly infinite and irreversible nature within the capitalist system. These reasons encourage me to concur with the perspective that we should more accurately consider the Anthropocene/Capitalocene as conceptually representing a boundary event between two geological epochs, rather than being perceived as definite epochs themselves (Barry and Maslin, 2016; Haraway, 2015).

It is now necessary to reintroduce Haraway’s alternative proposition of the Chthulucene. Haraway’s figure of the Chthulucene has multiple origins and implications but may be effectively considered as a representation of the entanglement of networks and relations between both organic species and abiotic forces that are currently assembled in influence of our planet’s ecological trajectories. It involves the human species recognising that we are part of a system that transcends the boundaries of our social, economic and even geological understanding. Typical of Haraway’s work, this is more of a figurative and evocative concept rather than anything directly scientific and quantifiable. She neglects to suggest any specific GSSP, instead stating that her Chthulucene represents “the dynamic ongoing sym-chthonic forces and powers of which people are a part...past, present, and to come” (Haraway, 2015, p.160). Furthermore, it is not offered in replacement of the other ‘cenes’ theses: Haraway emphasises that the Anthropocene and Capitalocene concepts are both effective and crucial in the way in which they materialise certain processes within the global system. Fundamentally, although the somewhat abstract nature of the Chthulucene thesis is likely to be frustrating for the geological side of the scientific community, it feels to

me as the most effective in producing an appropriate platform for us to comprehend our incredibly complex planetary situation. Furthermore, Haraway’s recommended approach towards environmental issues promotes methods of recuperation and recomposition; this feels like a more realistic attitude to adopt, rather than placing our hope in some form of miraculous redemption that will occur in tandem with the modernisation process (Haraway, 2015).

In justification of why I believe Haraway’s Chthulucene to be the most beneficial term to consider within the context of contemporary periodisation, I refer back to the three significant consequences of the geochronological debate outlined in this piece’s introduction. Firstly, Haraway’s work draws attention to important scientific details, concerning how our existence as holobionts contradicts ideologies grounded on the concept of human individuality, that otherwise go by unacknowledged within the arguments of the other ‘cenes’. Secondly, the Chthulucene’s conceptual flexibility suggests to me that it is appropriately more of a manifesto than a hypothesis; in other words, it seeks to gather academic attention around an idea within an environment that encourages interdisciplinary debate and collaboration. Finally, I suggest that from the basis of a Chthulucenic cross-curricular platform, there will be an encouragement of creative approaches regarding how to engage with contemporary and forthcoming ecological issues.

Barry, A. and Maslin, M. (2016). The politics of the anthropocene: a dialogue. Geo: Geography and Environment, 3(2). Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press. Brand, S. (2010). Whole earth discipline. London: Atlantic Books. Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The Climate of History: Four Theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), pp.197-222. Crosby Jr, A. (1972). The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Crutzen, P. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), pp.23-23. Davis, M. (2008). Tomgram: Mike Davis, Welcome to the Next Epoch | TomDispatch. [online] Tomdispatch.com. Available at: https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174949/mike_davis_welcome_to_the_next_epoch [Accessed 12 Nov. 2019]. Foley, S., Gronenborn, D., Andreae, M., Kadereit, J., Esper, J., Scholz, D., Pöschl, U., Jacob, D., Schöne, B., Schreg, R., Vött, A., Jordan, D., Lelieveld, J., Weller, C., Alt, K., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Bruhn, K., Tost, H., Sirocko, F. and Crutzen, P. (2013). The

Palaeoanthropocene – The beginnings of anthropogenic environmental change. Anthropocene, 3, pp.83-88. Gilbert, S. (2014). A holobiont birth narrative: the epigenetic transmission of the human microbiome. Frontiers in Genetics, 5. Haraway, D. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), pp.159-165. Haraway, D., Ishikawa, N., Gilbert, S., Olwig, K., Tsing, A. and Bubandt, N. (2015). Anthropologists Are Talking – About the Anthropocene. Ethnos, 81(3), pp.535-564. Latour, B. (2014). On some of the affects of capitalism. Lewis, S. and Maslin, M. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 519(7542), pp.171-180. Malm, A. and Hornborg, A. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review, 1(1), pp.62-69. Marx, K. (1977). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1884. M...