Advertisement

Postenvironmentalism beyond Post-environmentalism

  • Chiara Certomà
Chapter
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter starts with the consideration that different post-environmentalist theories seem to be unable to provide an inspiring message for people engagement in environmental issues and introduces an alternative perspective based on the post-modern material-semiotic theory. This emerged from the seminal contribute of science sociologists and critical geographers which explored the constitutively heterogeneous characters of socio-environmental agents as both natural and cultural at once. From such a perspective, the chapter investigates how material semiotics can contribute to overcome existing interpretations of post-environmentalism, by challenging common understanding of the world ontology as well as mainstream epistemological perspective. The result suggests the need for a new gaze on existing forms of environmental commitment, which is here named as postenvironmentalism (without hyphen) through which the whole, multilayered, complex process of making and unmaking the world performed by hybrid assemblages is regarded as a political activity.

Keywords

Postenvironmentalism Latour hybrid actors heterogeneous networks 

References

  1. Adger, W., Benjaminsen, T., Brown, K., and Svarstad, H. 2001. “Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses.” Development and Change 32: 681–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcàntara, A.M. The End of Exclusive Environmentalism. Ensia. http://ensia.com/voices/the-end-of-exclusive-environmentalism/ July 2, 2013.
  3. Arias Maldonado, M. 2015. “Environment & Society. Socionatural Relations.” In The Anthropocene. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, S. 2012. “Postenvironmentalism and Technological “Abundance Reason.” Accessed January 4, 2012. http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/04/postenvironmentalism.
  5. Barry, A. 2001. Political Machines. Governing a Technological Society. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bate, R. 1995.“Post-environmentalism.” Economic Affairs Autumn.Google Scholar
  7. Beevers, M.D., and Petersen, B.C. 2009. “Review of T. Nordhaus and M. Shellenberger’s Break through.” Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 22:783–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennet, J. 2001. The Enchantment of Modern Life. Attachments, Crossing and Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bennet, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter. The Political Ecology of Things. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bingham, N. 2006. “Bees, Butterflies, and Bacteria: Biotechnology and the Politics of Nonhuman Friendship”. Environment and Planning A 38: 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bingham, N., and Hinchliffe, S. 2008. “Reconstituting Natures: Articulating Other Modes of Living Together”. Geoforum 39: 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bled, A. 2010. “Technological Choices in International Environmental Negotiations: An Actor.” Network Analysis Business Society 49: 570–590.Google Scholar
  13. Blühdorn, I., and Welsh, I. 2007. “Eco-politics Beyond the Paradigm of Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda.” Environmental Politics 16: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun, B., and Whatmore, S.J. 2010. Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy and Public Life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brick, P., and Cawley, R.M. 2008. “Producing Political Climate Change: The Hidden Life of US Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics 17: 200–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buck, C. 2012. “Post-environmentalism: An Internal Critique.” Environmental Politics 22/6. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2012.712793.Google Scholar
  17. Castree N., and MacMillan T. 2001. “Dissolving Dualisms: Actor-Network and the Reimagination of Nature.” In Social Nature edited by N. Castree and B. Braun. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Chaloupka, W. 2008. “The Environmentalist: ‘What Is to Be Done?’.” Environmental Politics 17:237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook, I. 2004. “Follow the Thing: Papaya.” Antipode 36: 624–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darier, E. 1999. Discourses of the Environment. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Davidson, D.J. 2009. “Review of T. Nordhaus and M. Shellenberger’s Break Through.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 5. http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol5iss1/book.nordhaus.html.
  22. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 2002. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Descola, P. 1996. “Constructing Nature. Symbolic Ecology and Social Practice.” In Nature and Society Anthropological Perspectives edited by P. Descola and G. Palsson. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Despret, V. 2005. “Sheep Do Have Opinions.” In Making Things Public-Atmosphere of Democracy edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dobson, A. 2010. “Democracy and Nature: Speaking and Listening.” Political Studies 58: 752–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dube, S. 2002. “Introduction: Enchantments of Modernity.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101: 729–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ellis, E. 2011. “Planet of No Return: Human Resilience on an Artificial Earth.” In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene edited by M. Shellenberg and T. Nordhaus. Washington D.C.: The Breacktrought Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Fairhead J., and Leach, M. 1996. Misreading African Landscape Society and Ecology in Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fall, J.J. 2005. Drawing The Line: Nature, Hybridity And Politics In Transboundary Spaces. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Fall, J.J. 2014. “Biosecurity and Ecology: Beyond the Nativist Debate.” In Biosecurity: The Socio-Politics of Invasive Species and Infectious Diseases edited by K. Barker, A. Dobson and S. Taylor. Abingdon: Earthscan/Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Featherstone, D.J. 2008. Resistance, Space and Political Identities: The Making of Counter-Global Networks. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gabrys, J. 2011. Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Geertz, C. 2000. Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton: Oxford Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Greimas, A.J. 1986. Sémantique structurale. Paris: Presse universitaires de France (or.ed. 1966).Google Scholar
  36. Haraway, D. 1991. “A Cyborg Manifesto Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 149–181. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Hinchliffe, S. 2007. Geography of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Hinchliffe, S, and Whatmore, S. 2006. “Living Cities: Toward a Politics of Conviviality.” Science as Culture 15: 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Horgan, J. 2011. “Killing Environmentalism to Save It: Two Greens Call for ‘Postenvironmentalism’.” Scientific American. December 26. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/killing-environmentalism-to-save-it-two-greens-call-for-postenvironmentalism.
  40. Law, J. 2004. “Enacting Naturecultures: A Note from STS.” Published by the Centre for Science Studies. Lancaster: Lancaster University. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/law-enacting-naturecultures.pdf.
  41. Kysar, D.A. 2008. “The Consultants’ Republic.” Harvard Law Review 121: 2041–2084.Google Scholar
  42. Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  43. Latour, B. 1993a. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. 1993b. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Latour, B. 1991. “Society Is Technology Made Durable.” In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination edited by J. Law, 103–132. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Latour, B. 1996. Aramis or the Love of Technology. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Latour, B. 1999. “On Recalling ANT.” In Actor-Network Theory and After edited by Law and Hassard, 15–26. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Latour, B. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Latour, B. 2008. “‘It’s Development, Stupid !’ or: How to Modernize Modernization.” In Post-environmentalism edited by J. Proctor. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Latour, B. 2011. “Love Your Monsters: Why We Must Care For Our Technologies As We Do Our Children.” In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene edited by M. Shellenberg and T. Nordhaus. Washington D.C.: The Breacktrought Institute.Google Scholar
  52. Latour, B., and Weibel, P. 2005. Making Things Public-Atmosphere of Democracy. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Law, J. 1991. “Strategies of power. Power, discretion and strategy.” In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination edited by J. Law, 165–191. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Law. 2008. “Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics.” In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. 3rd edn. edited by B.S. Turner, 141–158. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Law, J., and Hetherington, K. 2003. “Materialities, Spatialities, Globalities.” in The Spaces of Postmodernism: Readings in Human Geography edited by M. Dear and M. Flusty, 390–401. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Luke, T.W. 2009. “An Apparatus of Answers? Ecologism As Ideology in the 21st Century.” New Political Science 31: 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marres, N. 2005. “Issues Spark a Public Into Being. A key but Often Forgotten Point of the Lippmann-Dewwey Debate.” In Making Things Public-Atmosphere of Democracy edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel. Cambridge (MA): MIT.Google Scholar
  58. Marres, N. 2012. Material Participation. Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  59. Marres N., and Rogers, R. 2005. “Recipe for Tracing the Fate of Issues and Their Publics on the Web.” In Making things Public-Atmosphere of Democracy edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel. Cambridge (MA): MIT.Google Scholar
  60. Mauz, I, and Gravelle, J. 2005.“Wolves in the Valley. On making a Controversy Public.” In Making Things public-Atmosphere of Democracy edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Meyer, J.M. 2005. “Does Environmentalism Have a Future?.” 69–75. Dissent (Spring).Google Scholar
  62. Milton, K. 1996. Environmentalism and Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mol, A. 2002. “The Body Multiple.” In Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Mol, A., and Law, J. 2002. Complexities. Durhamf: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mouffe, C. 1998. “The Radical Centre: A Politics Without Adversary.” Soundings 9: 11–23.Google Scholar
  66. Olesen, F., and Markussen, R. 2007. “How to Place Material Things: From Essentialism to Material Semiotic Analysis of Sociotechnical Practice.” Convergence 13: 79–91.Google Scholar
  67. Parikka, J. 2011. The Materiality of Information Technology and Electronic Waste. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Pope, C. 2005. “An In-depth Response to “The Death of Environmentalism.”” The Grist, January 14. http://grist.org/article/pope-reprint/.
  69. Rootes, C. 2008. “Review of T. Nordhaus and M. Shellenberger’s Break through.” International Affairs 84: 1317–1319.Google Scholar
  70. Sagoff, M. 2011. “The Rise and Fall of Ecological Economics.” In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene edited by M. Shellenberg and T. Nordhaus. Washington D.C.: The Breacktrought Institute.Google Scholar
  71. Santolini, F. 2012. “Ambientalismo 2.0.” Huffington post, October 30. http://www.huffingtonpost.it/francesca-santolini/ambientalismo-20_b_2039843.html.
  72. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2011. “Liberalism’s Modest Proposal, Or the Tyranny of Scientific Rationality”. In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene edited by M. Shellenberg and T. Nordhaus. The Breacktrought institute.Google Scholar
  73. Schlosberg, D., and Rinfret, S. 2008. “Ecological Modernisation, American style.” Environmental Politics 17: 254–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shellenberger M., and Nordhaus, T. 2011. “Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene.” The Breacktrought Institute. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/philosophy/love-your-monsters-ebook.
  75. Spahl, T. 2014. “‘Environmentalism Has Become a Religion’.” Accessed May 19, 2014. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/environmentalism-has-become-a-religion/15033#.VYEksaYTjaY.
  76. Stanforth, C. 2006. “Using Actor-Network Theory to Analyze E-Government Implementation in Developing Countries.” Information Technologies and International Development 3: 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stengers, I. 2005. “The Cosmopolitical Proposal.” In Making Things Public-Atmosphere of Democracy edited by B. Latour and P. Weibel. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Susan Leigh Star. 1991. “Distribution of Power: Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of Conventions. On Being Allergic to Onions.” In A sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination edited by J. Law, 26–56. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Taylor, C. 1992. The Ethic of Authenticity. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Whatmore, S. 2000. “Heterogeneous Geographies. Reimagining the Space of N/nature.” In Cultural Turns/Geographical Turns: Perspectives on Cultural Geography edited by I. Cook, D. Crouch, S. Naylor and J. Ryan. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  81. Whatmore, S. 2002. Hybrid Geography. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  82. White, D., and Wilbert, C. 2006. “Introduction: Technonatural Time–Spaces.” Science as Culture 15: 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weber, M. 2005. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge (or.ed. 2005).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Certomà
    • 1
  1. 1.Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations