Abstract
One of the most amazing conceptual revolutions in contemporary academic discourse has been the rise of the concept of the Anthropocene, the notion that humans now fundamentally affect the course of planetary geology. Amidst this conceptual turn a number of contested philosophical standpoints have emerged. This essay addresses one of these standpoints—posthumanism—an attempt based on a revived postmodern sensibility to disavow the centrality of humans in relation to nature. The essay compares posthumanism to an earlier modernist standpoint that attempted to civilise capitalism by decentring the cash nexus and talking about a Triple Bottom Line. The argument of the essay is that neither approaches work: the first because of internal incoherence based on a lack of grounding; and the second because it re-centres the economy without acknowledging it. Consideration of the weaknesses of these positions gives rise to considerations of what might constitute a viable alternative, one that still decentres the human, but continues to recognise the responsibility of all humans for ameliorating the devastating effects of anthropogenic impact.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It should be acknowledged that many modern humanists have been also arguing along the same lines.
- 2.
Anthony Miccoli (2010) has already provided a strong critique of posthumanism that develops that line of response.
- 3.
Here I am thinking of Jane Bennett (2010). Her work is often taken out of context. Quite distinct from most posthumanists , she is clear that she is talking about encounters between ontologically diverse actants , some human, some not (p. xiv).
- 4.
Hayles is an interesting figure in the posthumanist tradition because she is a critic of the cybernetic posthuman condition, while succumbing to the posthuman inevitability herself, saying she wants the kind of posthumanism which enhances embodiment: “my dream is a version of the posthuman that embraces the possibilities of information technologies without being seduced by fantasies of unlimited power and disembodied immortality, that recognises and celebrates finitude as a condition of human being, and that understands human life is embedded in a material world of great complexity , one on which we depend for our continued survival” (1999, p. 5). I agree with all of that, except for the claim that what she is describing is a posthuman condition.
- 5.
The version presented here is fairly flat, emphasising one main level of analysis (doing). For a much fuller account that begins to layer the approach in terms of four epistemological levels—doing, acting, relating and being—see James et al. (2015). For an example of how this method has been used in pedagogy see the curriculum development of the Ross Institute, New York, http://www.circlesofsustainability.org/projects/developing-a-sustainability-curriculum /.
References
Anderson, K. (2007). Race and the crisis of humanism. London: Routledge.
Australian Stock Exchange. (2015). Trading hours. Retrieved 5 November, 2015 from http://www.asx.com.au/about/trading-hours.htm
Bail, M. (1980). Homesickness. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan Publishers Australia.
Baker, G., & Morris, K. J. (2005). Descartes’ dualism. London: Routledge.
Barabba, V. P., & Zaltman, G. (1991). Hearing the voice of the market. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter. Durham, UK: Duke University Press.
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Carlson, D. (2015). Foreword. In N. Snaza & J. A. Weaver (Eds.), Posthumanism and educational research (pp. ix–xii). New York: Routledge.
de Rosa, R. (2010). Descartes and the puzzle of sensory representation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Descartes, R. (1998) Discourse on method and meditations on first philosophy (D. A. Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1637).
Descola, P. (2013). The ecology of others. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of twenty-first century business. Oxford, UK: Capstone.
Fisher, K. L., & Dellinger, E. (2015). Beat the crowd: How you can out-invest the herd by thinking differently. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Gleeson-White, J. (2014). Six capitals: The revolution capitalism has to have; or can accountants save the planet? Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Grenfell, D. (2012). Remembering the dead: From the customary to the modern in Timor-Leste. Local/Global, 11, 86–108. Retrieved from http://www.rmit.edu.au/research/research-institutes-centres-and-groups/research-centres/centre-for-global-research/publications/local-global-journal
Gross, R. (2015). Measuring organizational performance: A new approach to triple bottom line reporting and stakeholder engagement. British Journal of Business and Management Research, 2(1), 69–80. Retrieved from http://www.eajournals.org
Hawkins, G. (2006). The ethics of waste: How we relate to rubbish. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hassan, I. (1985). The culture of postmodernism. Theory, Culture and Society, 2(3), 119–131. doi:10.1177/0263276485002003010.
Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
James, A. (Producer), Mills, R., & Vallance, C. (Directors). (1992). Pole to pole [Television series]. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.
James, P., with Magee, L., Scerri, A., & Steger, M. (2015). Urban sustainability in theory and practice: Circles of sustainability. London: Routledge.
Lloro-Bidart, T. (2015). A political ecology of education in/for the Anthropocene. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 6, 128–148.
Magee, L., Scerri, A., James, P., Padgham, L., Thom, J., Deng, H., … Cahill, F. (2013). Reframing sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(1), 225–243. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2
Miccoli, A. (2010). Posthuman suffering and the technological embrace. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Miller, A. (2015). Losing animals: Ethics and care in a pedagogy of recovery. In N. Snaza & J. A. Weaver (Eds.), Posthumanism and educational research (pp. 104–118). New York: Routledge.
Payne, P. G. (2016). What next? Post-critical materialisms in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 47(2), 169–178.
Smith, A. (1776). Wealth of nations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Snaza, N., Appelbaum, P., Bayne, S., Carlson, D., Morris, M., Rotas, N., et al. (2014). Toward a posthumanist education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 39–55.
Snaza, N., & Weaver, J. A. (2015). Introduction: Education and the posthumanist turn. In N. Snaza & J. A. Weaver (Eds.), Posthumanism and educational research (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.
Weir, J. K. (2009). Murray river country: An ecological dialogue with traditional owners. Canberra, Australia: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
James, P. (2017). Alternative Paradigms for Sustainability: Decentring the Human Without Becoming Posthuman. In: Malone, K., Truong, S., Gray, T. (eds) Reimagining Sustainability in Precarious Times. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2550-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2550-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2548-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2550-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)