The Anthropoceneans

What does it mean for us to be citizens of the Anthropocene, both individually and collectively? This essay tries to answer that question in order to stimulate a wider conversation about how we should respond to and shape the socioecological transformations ahead of us. 1 1 Many of the ideas and arguments in this essay are explored in greater depth in my book (in preparation), Hope and Grief in the Anthropocene: Re‐conceptualising Human‐Nature Relations (Routledge, UK). Questions of grief are also explored in Head, L. 2016 ‘Grief, loss and the cultural politics of climate change’, a chapter in H. Bulkeley, M. Paterson and J. Stripple (eds) Towards a Cultural Politics of Climate Change: Devices, Desires and Dissent.
     

Critical development studies in the Anthropocene

In this short commentary, the ramifications of the Anthropocene for a broadly defined critical development studies are considered. The likely anthropogenic roots of increasing cyclonic intensity and associated impacts in the Pacific are drawn upon to propose four research agendas. The first focuses on how places are becoming connected through human‐induced changes to planetary systems. While direct causal relationships are difficult to draw, research efforts can highlight the disproportionate contributions particular development models, actors, and lifestyles are having on more distant socioecological systems. A second more conventional theme focuses on the uneven impacts of the Anthropocene on people and places, as well as on how development is practised and prioritised. A third theme explores how the Anthropocene can be used to retheorise development in creative and more‐than‐human ways, recognising non‐human agencies and the co‐production of development processes. A final agenda involves asking how critical development researchers can strategically use and repurpose the Anthropocene to pursue socially and environmentally progressive ends.     

‘Being in Being’: Contesting the Ontopolitics of Indigeneity

This article critiques the shift towards valorizing indigeneity in western thought and contemporary practice. This shift in approach to indigenous ways of knowing and being, historically derided under conditions of colonialism, is a reflection of the “ontological turn” in anthropology. Rather than seeing indigenous peoples as having an inferior or different understanding of the world to a modernist one, the ontological turn suggests that their importance lies in the fact that they constitute different worlds and “world” in a performatively different way. The radical promise this view holds is that a different world already exists in potentia, the access to which is a question of ontology—of being differently: ‘being in being’ rather than thinking, acting and world-making as if we were transcendent or “possessive” modern subjects. We argue that the ontopolitical arguments for the superiority of indigenous ways of being should not be seen as radical or emancipatory resistances to modernist or colonial epistemological and ontological legacies but rather as a new form of neoliberal governmentality, cynically manipulating critical, postcolonial and ecological sensibilities for its own ends. Thus, rather than “provincializing” dominant western hegemonic practices, such discourses of indigeneity extend them, instituting new forms of governing through calls for adaptation and resilience.     

We are never alone: a conversation on bio art with Eduardo Kac

Brazilian-born artist Eduardo Kac’s (Rio de Janeiro, 1962) work has raised eyebrows especially for his ‘transgenic art’ projects, among others: Genesis, 1999; GFP Bunny, 2000; The Eight Day, 2001; Natural History of the Enigma, 2003/08. In all of these, Kac and his scientific collaborators realize genetic interventions into living organisms at the same time as they trigger audience reactions to these from playful kinds of interaction that is integrated into the works’ open and dynamic creative process. Yet whereas the ethical and political challenges Kac’s work poses have sparked lively debates within and beyond the realm of the arts – can and must art engage with the ‘creative’ potentials of biotechnology and genetics? Do these not in fact (as Vilém Flusser and others have suggested) hold the key to realizing the vanguardist dream of merging art and life? Or should the artist, from the vantage point of his own creative practice, not rather warn us against the ethical and political risks involved in genetic engineering? – much less attention has been paid to the way Kac’s art also continues and transforms a particular legacy of post-concretist, ambient and performance art in Latin America.

Kac himself has referred to Brazilian artists Flávio de Carvalho, Hélio Oiticica and Lygia Clark as informing his interest in open, participative forms, which characterize both his transgenic and his earlier ‘tele-presence’ art projects. Other Latin American artists of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century have been producing intriguing engagements with living materials, multispecies habitats and organic remains, including such diverse names as Luis Fernando Benedit, Nicola Constantino, Nuno Ramos, or Teresa Margolles. In a conversation with Jens Andermann and Gabriel Giorgi at the University of Zurich’s Center of Latin American Studies on March 12, 2015, Kac addressed the way in which his work might be seen as continuing or challenging long-standing representations of the New World as a repository of ‘nature’, from colonial chronicles of discovery to contemporary discourses of biodiversity and conservation. To what extent is bio art – and the questions it raises about the Anthropocene as a threshold of radical biopolitical convergence between ‘history’ and ‘nature’ – necessarily ‘transcultural’ and planetary in its extension?