Impossible Sustainability and the Post-political Condition

Chapter
Part of the Urban and Landscape Perspectives book series (URBANLAND, volume 9)

Abstract

A great variety of examples of calamities and disasters all testify to the blurring of boundaries between the human and the artificial, the technological and the natural, the non-human and the cyborg-human; they certainly also suggest that there are all manner of Natures out there. While some of the examples promise ’sustainable’ forms of development, others seem to stray further away from what might be labelled as sustainable. Sustainable processes are sought for around the world and solutions for our precarious environmental condition are feverishly developed.

So, while one sort of sustainability seems to be predicated upon feverishly developing new Natures (like artificial meat, cloned stem cells or manufactured clean water), forcing Nature to act in a way we deem sustainable or socially necessary, the other type is predicated upon limiting or redressing our intervention in Nature, returning it to a presumably more benign condition, so that human and non-human sustainability in the medium- and long-term can be assured. Despite the apparent contradictions of these two ways of ’becoming sustainable’, they share the same basic vision that techno-natural and socio-metabolic interventions are urgently needed if we wish to secure the survival of the planet and much of what it contains. The examples suggest that we urgently need to interpolate our understandings of Nature, revisit what we mean by Nature, and, what we assume Nature to be.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Badiou, A. (2005a) Politics: A non-expressive dialectics. Conference is the politics of truth still thinkable? The Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, November 25–26th, 2005 [http://w-w.lacan.com/zi-zpopulism.htm; accessed 12/09/2006].
  3. Badiou, A. (2005b). Meta-politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 1–55). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (1997). The reinvention of politics: Rethinking modernity in the global social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, M. (2006) Who is killing New Orleans. The Nation [http://www.common-dreams.org/views06/0324-34.htm; accessed 24/03/2006].
  9. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Diken, B., & Laustsen, C. B. (2004) 7/11, 9/11, and post-politics. Online paper, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster [http://www.a.aa-aarg.org/text/3169/711-911-and-post-politics; accessed 30/08/2006].
  11. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hallward, P. (2005). Jacques Rancière and the subversion of mastery. Paragraph, 28(1), 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heynen, N. C., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.). (2006). In the nature of Cities. The politics of urban metabolism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lemke, T. (1999). The birth of bio-politics. Michel Foucault’s lectures at the college de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190–207.Google Scholar
  20. Levene, M. (2005) Rescue! history. A manifesto for the humanities in the age of climate change. An Appeal for Collaborators [http://www.crisis-forum.or-g.uk/rescue_history.htm; accessed 12/09/2006].
  21. Lomborg, B. (1998). The skeptical environmentalist. Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Marvin, S., & Medd, W. (2006). Metabolisms of obecity: Flows of fat through bodies, cities, and sewers. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Rancière, J. (1995). La Mésentente. Politique et Philosophie. Paris: Editions Galilée.Google Scholar
  25. Rancière, J. (1998). Disagreement. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rancière, J. (2001). Ten theses of politics. Theory and Event, 5, 3.Google Scholar
  27. Rancière, J. (2003). Comment and responses. Theory and Event, 6, 4.Google Scholar
  28. Rancière, J. (2005a). Chroniques des Temps Consensuels. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  29. Rancière, J. (2005b). La Haine de la Démocratie. Paris: La Fabrique éditions.Google Scholar
  30. Stengers, I. (2003). Cosmopolitiques. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  31. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Circulations and metabolisms: (hybrid) natures and (cyborg) cities. Science as Culture, 15(2), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomson, A. J. P. (2003) Re-placing the opposition: Rancière and Derrida. Conference Fidelity to the Disagreement, Goldsmith’s College, University of London, London, September 16–17th, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. Urbinati, N. (2003). Can cosmopolitan democracy be democratic? In D. Archibugi (Ed.), Debating cosmopolitics (pp. 67–85). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  35. Valentine, J. (2005). Rancière and contemporary political problems. Paragraph, 28(1), 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Žižek, S. (1992). Looking awry: An introduction to Jacques Lacan through popular culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Žižek, S. (1998). For a leftist appropriation of the European legacy. Journal of Political Ideologies, 3(1), 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Žižek, S. (1999a). Carl Schmitt in the age of post-politics. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), The challenge of Carl Schmitt (pp. 18–37). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  39. Žižek, S. (1999b). The ticklish subject. The absent centre of political ontology. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  40. Žižek, S. (2002). Revolution at the gate: Žižek on Lenin, the 1917 writings. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  41. Žižek, S. (2005a). Against human rights. New Left Review, 34, 115–131.Google Scholar
  42. Žižek, S. (2005b) Against the populist temptation. Conference Is the Politics of Truth still Thinkable? The Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, November 25–26th, 2005 [http://www.la-can.com/zi-zpopulism.htm; accessed 12/09/2006].
  43. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and Development, The University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations