2015 Conference

Full Presentation Panel

This panel undertakes a critical analysis of the term “Anthropocene” from the point of view of post-structural theory, speculative philosophy, art and imaginal ecology. Modern humans are the ultimate frontier species. Through the control and manipulation of nature, humans have pushed through the boundaries of competitive evolutionary constraints and redefined the very terms of how and where borders are formed amongst all of the biota of the Earth. The manipulation of natural ecosystem boundaries has allowed humans to flourish, however it has also led to the spread of invasive plants and animals, melting of the polar ice caps, rising seas, ocean acidification and dead zones, deforestation, freshwater depletion, desertification, over-fishing and overconsumption of natural resources and global warming. The disregard of ecological boundaries is not only causing one of the largest extinction events in Earth’s history but also raising important questions as to how humans will continue to thrive.

Each paper in this panel explores the role of boundaries in creating an integral ecology – a sustainable human/Earth community. What implications does the term “Anthropocene” have for the future of this planet? Could it lead to an erasure of difference (ecological and cultural) or act as a symbol that signals the end of a diverse planetary system? Will the term reinforce the hubris of the human race and continued ecological destruction? What responsibilities and opportunities do humans have to imagine a different world – a mutually enhancing human/Earth relationship – and are there perhaps more appropriate terms to symbolize this transition?

Individual Abstracts:

Kimberly Carfore - Planetary Difference under Erasure: A Post-Structural & Critical Analysis of the Anthropocene

Paul Crutzen’s moniker “Anthropocene” was coined during a meeting of fairly elite scientists.  As this term has the potential to determine the trajectory of humans, nonhumans, and the state of our planet in the future, it is important to consider what narratives are being highlighted and which are being erased in the epistemological move of naming the Anthropocene.  In my paper I will consider the following two questions—1) Who is choosing (i.e. who is doing the naming); and 2) Whose voices are being heard (and whose are not)?  To explore these questions I will use Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak’s seminal essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”

History has been androcentric—mostly males writing about males.  These writings have focused mainly around struggles over domination and land ownership.  Not only has history been androcentric, our thinking and philosophy has also been male-centered.  Western metaphysics is phallogocentric—a neologism coined by 20^th French philosopher Jacques Derrida—which refers to the privileging of the masculine (phallus/presence) in meaning making.  That which is present, vocal, and masculine has been privileged over that which might be considered invisible, non-vocal, and feminine.  While these “others” (non-humans, women, minorities, children, indigenous people) combined make up the majority of the planet, it is their stories that are threatened towards erasure in naming the Anthropocene.

In this paper I draw attention to the erasure of difference that might occur upon accepting the term “Anthropocene,” resulting in the possible homogenization of future generations to come.  Is ethnic and cultural apartheid on our horizon?  While this might be an extreme scenario, examining assumed structures that are potentially perpetuated in this naming is critical.  Might the term Androcene be more appropriate?  What about Elachistocene (Schneiderman 2014)?

David Steinrueck - Immanence and Environmental Justice

Quentin Meillassoux is a powerful force in the return to metaphysics in early 21st century European thought, aiming to construct a speculative philosophy that can deal with the important ethical and political concerns of our time. This paper deploys Timothy Morton’s hyperobjects to argue that the ‘Anthropocene’ has brought on 1) the collapse of Meillassoux’s critique of correlationism, 2) the realization of Meillassoux’s virtual God in the human being and 3) the necessity of self-imposed boundaries to restore the natural systems of the Earth.

The first section explores Meillassoux’s ontology – its metaphysical critique of human/nature correlationism and its understanding of immanence. Meillassoux breaks down human/world codependence and argues that not only is it impossible for humans to know the non-human world, but that anything is possible within it. Furthermore, this claim is extended to human existence; all the laws of the universe hold true until a chaotic event occurs and a new immanent existence emerges. Under these conditions, Meillassoux argues for the possibility of a future divine existence – a virtual God that could logically emerge from the field of chaos based on an unknown possible event.

The second section discusses Morton’s hyperobects – objects that defy the traditional sense of space and time – as possible events for establishing a new field of immanence. The Anthropocene is explored as a hyperobject event that has moved the human into the role of Meillassoux’s virtual God. What responsibility have humans taken on as ‘God’ of the universe? Is a self-caused human event possible – a boundary event that dethrones the human and restores the natural processes of the world? For a new event to occur the term ‘Anthropocene’ must be abandoned and a new reality must be envisioned that creates an immanent existence of respect and acknowledgement of non-human life on Earth.

Sam Hinds - The Role of Art and Media in Revisioning the Anthropocene
What makes humans human? A variety of characteristics have been posited as to what constitutes the defining factor distinguishing the human from the rest of the animal kingdom. One hallmark characteristic of the human is symbolic consciousness — the ability to generate abstract representations via sign or symbol which act as referents to the immediate world. The historical emergence of this ability coincided with an increased capacity to objectify and willfully act upon the world. It is the human’s unrivaled ability to enact change in the world, changes so dramatic that they are now generating significant changes on the geological level, that has given rise to the notion that the human species represents the chief driving force of geological change in the present geological epoch — thus, the proposed title of the Anthropocene.

What roles have signs and symbols played in the shaping of the present geological epoch? From the earliest remnants of cave art, to the bedazzling array of advertisements embellishing modern cityscapes, this paper will embark on an exploration of symbolic representation within particular art forms to reveal them as not only a representation of human life, but simultaneously as an active participant in influencing human behavior —  particularly those widespread activities that now place the biosphere of the late Cenozoic Era in such a precarious position. If sign and symbol are indeed playing a role in the current behaviors that are helping to reconstitute the Earth’s geological foundations, might new signs and symbols be enlisted through artistic expression to assist in bringing forward a new world? If so, what spaces within the public arena could best host this symbolic intervention?

Becca Tarnas – Towards An Imaginal Ecology

By giving a name to our new geological epoch—the Anthropocene—humanity is

coming into direct recognition of the fact that we have moved from being a single,

insignificant species to the level of a global power, a geologic force. As we cross the

boundaries of the Anthropocene we are given a rare opportunity to collectively imagine

our future impact upon this planet: will the name Anthropocene reinforce the hubris

which brought us the ravaging destruction of industrialization and the consumptive

growth of human greed, or will it awaken us to our newly realized responsibility as

shapers of our planetary future? This critical moment is one in which we must draw on

the power of imagination to envision what the future may hold. The imagination is a

multifaceted gift to ecology, one that can connect us to both our past and future, that can

connect us with spiritual strength and moral empathy, that allows us to see our human

role in a meaningful cosmos. Aspects of what could be called “imaginal ecology” can be

glimpsed throughout the work of Joanna Macy, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Mary

Evelyn Tucker, Christopher Bache, James Hillman, Theodore Roszak, David Abram, and

many other thinkers, as well as in the works of great creative artists and authors, such as

J.R.R. Tolkien, who provide a new perspective upon the world in which we live. By

recognizing the boundless power of the creative imagination, we can lay the foundations

for the Anthropocene so that the nobility of anthropos can be restored in reciprocal

relationship to the planet Earth.