Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:57:52.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Genealogy of the Anthropocene: The End of Risk and Limits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2020

Pierre Charbonnier
Pierre Charbonnier*
Affiliation:
CNRS-EHESS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article aims to shed light on the emergence of the Anthropocene as a concept within the social sciences and philosophy. It frames this evolution in the wider context of a crisis of knowledge, confronted with the need to consider global climate change as both an empirical ground and an inescapable political horizon. The central hypothesis is that the organization of knowledge concerning the relationships between modernity and nature has undergone a profound shift over the last decade, necessitating a reconfiguration of the two main concepts on which this knowledge relied: risk and limits. To consider the present situation through the concept of the Anthropocene is to imply that the rationality of risk (i.e., the suspension of modern political autonomy) and the notion of a fundamental limit to material development can no longer be considered separately. In the final part of the article, this hypothesis makes it possible to discuss some aspects of our current epistemological configuration.

Type
The Anthropocene
Information
Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales - English Edition , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 199 - 224
Copyright
© Éditions EHESS 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was translated from the French by Michael C. Behrent and edited by Robin Emlein and Chloe Morgan.

References

1. The first notable publication to use the concept of Anthropocene was an article by Crutzen, Paul J., “Geology of Mankind,” Nature 415, no. 6867 (2002): 23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. The term had previously been used in lectures and at conferences; see Bonneuil, Christophe and Fressoz, Jean-Baptiste, The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History, and Us [2013], trans. Fernbach, David (London: Verso, 2016), 16–17Google Scholar.

2. For a summary of existing positions, see Lewis, Simon L. and Maslin, Mark A., “Defining the Anthropocene,” Nature 519, no. 7542 (2015): 171–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Hornborg, Alf and Malm, Andreas, “The Geology of Mankind? A Critique of the Anthropocene Narrative,” The Anthropocene Review 1, no. 1 (2014): 62–69Google Scholar.

4. On the epistemological and political history of these debates, see Aykut, Stefan C. and Dahan, Amy, Gouverner le climat? Vingt ans de négociations internationales (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2015)Google Scholar; Uhrqvist, Ola and Lövbrand, Eva, “Rendering Global Change Problematic: The Constitutive Effects of Earth System Research in the IGBP and the IHDP,” Environmental Politics 23, no. 2 (2013): 339–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. The survey proposed by Romano, Antonella, “Making the History of Early Modern Science: Reflections on a Discipline in the Age of Globalization,” Annales HSS (English Edition) 70, no. 2 (2015): 307–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, offers a good description of the current state of the history of science and the field’s hopes for theoretical renewal following the profound upheaval of the 1980s and 1990s.

6. The most recent debates tend to validate the hypothesis that the Anthropocene occurred only recently, in the nuclear age. See notably Waters, Colin N.et al., “The Anthropocene Is Functionally and Stratigraphically Distinct from the Holocene,” Science 351, no. 6269 (2016): 137–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7. A project such as that of Daniel Lord Smail’s “deep history” has the merit of calling into question a number of historiographical habits, but it has yet to be introduced into ordinary historical practice. Smail, On Deep History and the Brain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008); Rafael Mandressi, “L’historien, le cerveau et l’ivresse des profondeurs,” in “Traduire et Introduire,” ed. Olivier Allard, Guillaume Calafat, and Natalia La Valle, special issue, Tracés 14 (2014): 113–26.

8. Descola, Philippe, Beyond Nature and Culture [2005], trans. Lloyd, Janet (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Pierre Charbonnier, La fin d’un grand partage. Nature et société, de Durkheim à Descola (Paris: Cnrs Éditions, 2015).

10. By anthropocentrism, philosophy refers to any tendency toward making humankind the source and exclusive object of value. For an overview of critiques in this vein, see Afeissa, Hicham-Stéphane, ed., Éthique de l’environnement. Nature, valeur, respect (Paris: J. Vrin, 2007)Google Scholar.

11. Leopold, Aldo, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1949)Google Scholar.

12. Jonsson, Fredrik Albritton, “The Origins of Cornucopianism: A Preliminary Genealogy,” Critical Historical Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 151–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Engels, Friedrich, Dialectics of Nature [1883], trans. Dutt, Clemens (New York: International Publishers, 1940)Google Scholar.

14. Malthus, Thomas Robert, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 2nd ed. (London: J. Johnson, 1803)Google Scholar.

15. On the political history of limits, see Aykut, Stefan C., “Les ‘limites’ du changement climatique,” Cités 63, no. 3 (2015): 195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. Steffen, Willet al., eds., Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet under Pressure (Berlin: Springer, 2004), 132–33Google Scholar.

17. Daly, Herman E., Toward a Steady-State Economy (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973)Google Scholar; Costanza, Robertet al., “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital,” Ecological Economics 25, no. 1 (1998): 3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Marina Fischer-Kowalski and Helmut Haberl, eds., Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2007).

19. Alf Hornborg, Joan Martinez-Alier, and John R. McNeill, eds., Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2007); John R. McNeill, Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001).

20. Debeir, Jean-Claude, Deléage, Jean-Paul, and Hémery, Daniel, Une histoire de l’énergie. Les servitudes de la puissance (Paris: Flammarion, 2013)Google Scholar.

21. Joan Martinez-Alier, The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002).

22. Shepard, Paul, Coming Home to the Pleistocene (Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books, 1998)Google Scholar.

23. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971); Jacques Grinevald, La biosphère de l’Anthropocène. Climat et pétrole, la double menace. Repères transdisciplinaires, 1824–2007 (Geneva: Georg, 2007). The particular importance of the work of Georgescu-Roegen must be noted, as it introduced the concept of degrowth and made possible, to a considerable degree, the translation of the metabolic tradition of the nineteenth century into a genuinely modern bioeconomics.

24. Shellenberger, Michael and Nordhaus, Ted, Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene (Oakland: Breakthrough Institute, 2011)Google Scholar.

25. Beck, Ulrich, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity [1986], trans. Ritter, Mark (London: Sage, 1992)Google Scholar.

26. Callon, Michel, Barthe, Yannick, and Lascoumes, Pierre, Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy [2001], trans. Burchell, Graham (Cambridge: MitPress, 2009)Google Scholar; Barthe, Yannick and Lemieux, Cyril, “Les risques collectifs sous le regard des sciences du politique. Nouveaux chantiers, vieilles questions,” Politix 11, no. 44 (1998): 7–28Google Scholar.

27. Francis Chateauraynaud and Didier Torny, Les sombres précurseurs. Une sociologie pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque (Paris: Éd. de l’Ehess, 1999).

28. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, L’apocalypse joyeuse. Une histoire du risque technologique (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 2012).

29. Coase, Ronald, “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics 3, no. 1 (1960): 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age [1979] (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

31. Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Pour un catastrophisme éclairé. Quand l’impossible est certain (Paris: Seuil, 2002).

32. Arthur P. J. Mol, Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy (Cambridge: Mit Press, 2001).

33. Beck, Risk Society, 24.

34. This is one of the decision-making systems described in Callon, Barthe, and Lascoumes, Acting in an Uncertain World.

35. Michael Bess, The Light-Green Society: Ecology and Technological Modernity in France 1960–2000 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).

36. Latour, Bruno, We Have Never Been Modern, trans. Porter, Catherine (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

37. Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World-System, 3 vols. (New York: Academic Press 1974–1989)Google Scholar.

38. Alf Hornborg, The Power of the Machine: Global Inequalities of Economy, Technology, and Environment (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2001).

39. Jean-François Mouhot, Des esclaves énergétiques. Réflexions sur le changement climatique (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2011).

40. Rolf Peter Sieferle, The Subterranean Forest: Energy Systems and the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge: White Horse Press, 2001).

41. Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

42. Alfred W. Crosby, The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492 (Westport: Greenwood, 1972).

43. Guha, Ramachandra, Environmentalism: A Global History (New York: Longman, 2000)Google Scholar.

44. Guha, Ramachandra, “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique,” in Technology and Values: Essential Readings, ed. Hanks, Craig (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010)Google Scholar.

45. White, Leslie A., “Energy and the Evolution of Culture,” American Anthropologist 45, no. 3 (1943): 335–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. Foster, John Bellamy, Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

47. Ehrlich, Paul R., The Population Bomb (New York: Ballantine Books, 1968)Google Scholar; Meadows, Donatella H.et al., The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind (New York: Universe Books, 1972)Google Scholar.

48. Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1776)Google Scholar, book 4, chapter 9.

49. Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (London: Victor Gollancz, 1945).

50. Pierre Rosanvallon, Le capitalisme utopique. Critique de l’idéologie économique (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 1979).

51. Fressoz, L’apocalypse joyeuse.

52. Callon, Barthe, and Lascoumes, Acting in an Uncertain World.

53. Supporters of technical democracy sometimes see their work as a critique of the rationality of risk, conceived above all as a tool for governing uncertainty through expert authorities shielded from public deliberation. See notably Callon, Barthe, and Lascoumes, Acting in an Uncertain World.

54. Lenton, Timothy M., “Early Warning of Climate Tipping Points,” Nature Climate Change 1, no. 4 (2011): 201–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. Wrigley, Edward A., “Energy and the English Industrial Revolution,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 371, no. 1986 (2013): 1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

56. A full-fledged study should be devoted to this question, but it is fair to ask what affinity exists between the present situation and the concerns elicited by the idea of a “nuclear winter.” The fear of global climate upheaval caused by atomic explosions and the array of knowledge to which this fear gave rise was, in a sense, a prefiguration of the current climate question. Even so, the geopolitical weight given to the doctrine of nuclear deterrence overshadowed environmental concerns strictly speaking, military security being conceived as a massive benefit of atomic technology. See Weart, Spencer R., The Discovery of Global Warming (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012).

58. Paul N. Edwards, A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming (Cambridge: Mit Press, 2010).

59. Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 1979)Google Scholar.

60. Collins, Harry M., Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

61. In an editorial published in Le Monde on May 22, 2010, entitled “Reestablishing a Reasonable Climate: When the Precautionary Principle Destabilizes French Rationalism,” Latour admonished climatologists to accept the political game imposed by climate skeptics, notably Claude Allègre. In Latour’s view, one cannot simply make traditional rationalist arguments, based on the undeniable objectivity of knowledge. One must accept the controversy for what it is, i.e., a space of political confrontation. This position is typical of a completely unreconstructed trust in the virtues of deliberation.

62. Whereas the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 seemed to have brought this controversy to a conclusion, Donald Trump’s election to the White House proves that climate denial is far from having spent all its political effects. This event even revealed the catastrophic potential of denial, as an entire governmental structure is now driven by a determination to eliminate restrictions on CO2 emissions. See Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of Doubt.

63. Steffen, Willet al., “The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369, no. 1938 (2011): 842–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

64. Latour, Bruno, “L’Anthropocène et la destruction de l’image du Globe,” in De l’univers clos au monde infini, ed. Hache, Émile (Bellevaux: Éd. Dehors, 2014), 27–54Google Scholar.

65. Chakrabarty, Dipesh, “The Climate of History: Four Theses,” Critical Inquiry 35, no. 2 (2009): 197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chakrabarty, “Postcolonial Studies and the Challenge of Climate Change,” New Literary History 43, no. 1 (2012): 1–18; Chakrabarty, “Climate and Capital: On Conjoined Histories,” Critical Inquiry 41, no. 1 (2014): 1–23.

66. Chakrabarty, “The Climate of History.”

67. Bruno Latour, An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns [2012], trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013), introduction.

68. Macé, Arnaud, “La naissance de la nature en Grèce ancienne,” in Anciens et modernes par-delà nature et société, ed. Haber, Stéphane and Macé, Arnaud (Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2012)Google Scholar.

69. Salmon, Gildas and Charbonnier, Pierre, “The Two Ontological Pluralisms of French Anthropology,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 20, no. 3 (2014): 567–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. Fredrik Albritton Jonsson, Enlightenment’s Frontier: The Scottish Highlands and the Origins of Environmentalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013); Pomeranz, The Great Divergence; and Timothy Mitchell, Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil (London: Verso, 2011). This list is obviously not exhaustive. It consists simply of prototypical references to historical works that are consistent with Anthropocenic rationality and which are destined to play a pivotal role in it, if they are not already doing so.

71. Rockström, Johanet al., “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity,” Nature 461, no. 7263 (2009): 472–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. The term refers to the biophysical coordinates within which the Earth is inhabitable.

72. Szerszynski, Bronislaw, Nature, Technology and the Sacred (Malden: Blackwell, 2004); Northcott, Michael S., A Political Theology of Climate Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2014)Google Scholar. In Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime [2015], trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge: Polity, 2017), Bruno Latour also attempts to establish a political theology on the basis of climate change. Barnett, Lydia, in “The Theology of Climate Change: Sin as Agency in the Enlightenment’s Anthropocene,” Environmental History 20, no. 2 (2015): 217–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has studied an interesting historical precedent, in which a climate alert resulted in a surge of apocalyptic premonitions. Ironically, we are simultaneously witnessing a time of Promethean optimism which also relates to theology, but in a way that is diametrically opposed: see, notably, Lynas, Mark, The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans (London: Fourth Estate, 2011)Google Scholar.

73. Morton, Timothy, Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013)Google Scholar.