Through the anthropocene

Through the Anthropocene is a blog about our time, about change and about the anthropos. In it, I will discuss social changes that are happening around the world as well as environmental changes that are effecting the planet and people. This will be an ongoing process and the evolution of this blog will reflect my uncertainties and doubts. At the same time, unveiling these doubts is important to attain any kind of certainty – and it is particularly in the 'post-truth' world that coming to one's own certainty by allowing uncertainty becomes important. Indeed, the radical political changes that we are witnessing (I don't even want to name them because you can probably discern what I am referring to) appear to me as a rush to certainty, and a will to certainty too. For all that is comprehensible about this position, allowing uncertainty is extremely important, and also enlightening. Allowing uncertainty forces us to be more careful about our certainties, take time in deciding what is good or bad, allow the possibility of being shown wrong. Besides being an important direction to navigating the anthropocene, this approach is also the one I will be adopting in this blog.

Now, above I have mentioned to concepts that may need clarification.

First, what is the Anthropocene? The anthropocene refers to a specific meaning in geology and a more abstract one in social sciences and humanities. The first one directs to the increasing role that humans have in affecting the geological makeup of the earth. While scientists have been discussing for a while whether there are enough indicators to establish that we have entered a new geological epoch, it is safe to say that, even if the actual designation is still being debated, the scale of environmental change that humans can induce is quite remarkable, going beyond simple ecology and anthropogenic climate change.
The second meaning of the term, used in social sciences and the humanities, is much broader in scope, much more fluid and abstract. Scholars are still to find a proper definition of the term. But its value may be find precisely in that it is so hard to define, or that agreement cannot be met. Because of this, discussions about what the anthropocene means – what conceptual changes does it occur, what new practices will be like in such an age – are flourishing. I personally think that such a new concept is highly interesting for thinking through the changes occurring in our age in relation to how we are affecting, and being affected by the environment.

Secondly, it seems important also to understand what the anthropos is. Etymologically, anthropos is greek for Man. This is quite simple. But why use a new concept of anthropos, when we already have a work for designating the same thing. Well, one of the interesting thing about the anthropocene is that it gives us lots of new concepts to think about, and one of those is that of anthropos. I mean, it is quite important to think of the anthropos, about Man, about humanity, about what unites us as humans – or is it not? When considering events such as Brexit, Trump's election and the general rise of far-right politics across Europe, I can't help but sense a loss of humanist values. A loss of a general conception of humanity; something we are all engulfed in. This is lost in the face of individual self-interest, self-serving interest. And nothing wrong with that neither. But still there comes a point when you have to ask yourself the question:  would I die to save a fellow human, whoever that may be? This is probably to be taken case by case, but still. How far does my understanding and empathy extend? How far do I go noticing similarity, before it turns into difference? How far do I go calling someone a fellow friend, before they become a stranger, someone so different, so impossible to understand that I can no longer refer to them as human at all. I am obviously pushing it a bit here, but you know where I am getting at. Redefining the anthropos, putting back the anthropos at the centre of discussions, but without fetishising is nonetheless, appears to me quite important given our current global context.

Anyways, I shall stop this post here. But be sure that I will come back to these questions later. Feel free to comment, or follow the blog if you want to be part of the discussion!

PS: I found the work of B. Latour particularly helpful to get interested and start thinking through the anthropocene. Particularly good is Politics of Nature