ANTI-DUALISM IN THE DISCOURSE ON THE ANTHROPOCENE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.107Keywords:
Anthropocene, dualism, anti-dualism, philosophy of technologyAbstract
18 years after its introduction into scientific vocabulary, a vast discourse on the Anthropocene has settled in very heterogeneous scientific areas, from Biology and Geology to the Arts and Humanities, including Philosophy itself. Despite its multidisciplinarity, there seems to be a common presupposition in this discourse that often becomes a demand: to abandon a false dualism allegedly responsible for the lack of answers to the challenges that the new anthropocenic age poses to us. Anti-dualism seems to be a common denominator, widely shared by the most diverse authors of the Anthropocene discourse, but what is meant by ‘dualism’ seems extremely heterogeneous to me, embracing ontological, epistemological, and political dimensions, and sometimes mixing them. Whatever the combated dualism – nature and culture, social system and terrestrial system, Man and Earth, biosphere and noosphere, subject and object, observer and observed, natural sciences and human sciences, etc. – the golden key to unravelling and developing a different way of thinking and being capable of facing the environmental challenges of the present would be by overcoming these dualisms, that is, in a perspective that can account for the intersection and overlap of the hitherto opposed elements and which presupposes, in the end, their assimilation. How both imbrication and assimilation can or should be thought of, however, can vary greatly from one author to another. Based on these assumptions, I will focus on two criticisms of anti-dualism put forward by Andrew Feenberg and Gernot Böhme. Both critics chose the theories of Haraway and Latour – authors who are today among the most cited philosophers of the Anthropocene – as distinct exponents of anti-dualism. I will argue that criticism of anti-dualism is pertinent and necessary, but that the alternatives proposed by Feenberg and Böhme are not convincing.
References
Bai, X. et al. (2016). Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda. Global Environmental Change, Volume 39: 351-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017
Blok, V. (2014). Reconnecting with Nature in the Age of Technology. The Heidegger and Radical Environmentalism Debate Revisited. Environmental Philosophy, 11/2: 307–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil20149913
Böhme, G. (2002). On Human Nature. In A. Grunwald, M. Gutman & E. Neumann-Held (eds.), On Human Nature. Anthropological, Biological, and Philosophical Foundations (pp. 3-14). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Bunge, M. (1977). Towards a Technoethics. The Monist, Vol. 60, No. 1: 96-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197760134
Dryzek, J. (2014). Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a Changing Earth System. Available on CJO 2014 doi:10.1017/S0007123414000453, pp. 1-20 [Republished in British Journal of Political Science, 46(4): 937-956]
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming Technology. A Critical Theory Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grunwald, A. (2002). Philosophy and the Concept of Technology? On the Anthropological Significance of Technology. In A. Grunwald, M. Gutman & E. Neumann-Held (eds.), On Human Nature. Anthropological, Biological, and Philosophical Foundations (pp. 179-194). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50023-7_13
Hamilton, C. (2015). Getting the Anthropocene so wrong. The Anthropocene Review, 2(2): 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615584974
Haraway, D. (1985). Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review 80: 65-108.
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham and London: Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q
Haraway, D. (2017). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fictionnownarrativemediaandtheoryinthe21stcentury/manifestly_haraway_----_a_cyborg_manifesto_science_technology_and_socialist-feminism_in_the_....pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474248655.0035
[Reedition of: Haraway, D. (1990). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In Idem, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (pp. 149-181). New York: Routledge.]
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern (trans. Catherine Porter). Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Politiques de la nature: Comment faire entrer la science en démocratie. Paris: La Découverte.
Latour, Bruno (2004). Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy (trans. Catherine Porter). Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039964
Latour, B. (2013). Facing Gaia: Six Lectures on the Political Theology of Nature. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeTjgod3jSSSXZHTU9Yb3FlYms/edit. Accessed 04/2018.
Palsson, G. et al. (2013). Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the Social Sciences and Humanities in Global Environmental Change Research. Environmental Science & Policy, 28: 3-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.004
