theology, a paradoxical conjunction appears here of described actuality with
prescribed urgency. It seems that the Anthropocene is framed from the outset as
much as a normative doctrine as a scientific analysis.
This leads to a further telling feature of ‘the Anthropocene’. As with ‘the
Nexus’ more widely, it is clear that the aggregate environmental impacts of diverse
global economies are truly devastating. However, for humans to exert unintended
impacts is very different from exercising collectively intentional control. Indeed, some
Anthropocene literature does acknowledge that even ‘self-control of mankind’
remains a speculative scenario (Faroult, 2009). Serious wider questions are raised
not only over what is meant by control, but who is doing it, how it is supposedly
enacted and on exactly what systems. After all, when has humanity as a whole
even undertaken – let alone controlled, still less achieved – any single explicitly
and collectively deliberate end?
Perhaps the confusion might be alleviated by redefining the problematic
Anthropocene concept in terms of human impacts, rather than notional human
‘control’, or substituting it with a similarly more careful definition of the Holocene?
There is anyhow a case for tracing global-scale human impacts back to the very
early Holocene (Zimov et al., 2011). And the difference between a starting point
a few hundred and a few thousand years ago is well below the chronological
resolution for comparable geological epochs. That this rather obvious course has
not been adopted confirms that ‘Anthropocene’ discourse is fulfilling a rather
particular political function. Crucially, this new category moves beyond the implicit
subjective acknowledgement of human impacts to a direct (ostensibly objective)
assertion of human ‘control’.
To be fair, a growing ‘Earth systems governance’ literature (Biermann, 2007) is
often more qualified in its treatment of notions of ‘Anthropocene’ control, referring
instead to apparently less deterministic notions of ‘governance’ and ‘stewardship’
(Chapin et al., 2011). However, substitution of more nuanced terms does little to
reduce the substantive tensions. ‘Governance’ is still frequently addressed in terms
of integrated knowledge, formal procedures, coercive instruments and individualistic
leadership. And, implying ‘control in absence of overarching authority’, even
‘stewardship’ is arguably not so much about diminished control, as diminished
accountability (Anon., 2013b).
What remains under-addressed is the general paradox that the more intensely
desired the control, the greater the necessity to comply with conditions for
tractability. Even an engineered artefact works only if designed in accordance with
inherent material constraints and propensities. No matter how much a governance
model might emphasize ‘polycentric’ coordination (Biermann et al., 2012b) (rather
than top-down hierarchy), then, if it remains subordinated to a particular agency
and ends, then the process is equally about control. And there are few more effective
means to assert iniquitous managerial control invisibly than by rhetorics of equal
collaboration. So, superficial shifts in terminology do little to alter the substantive
dynamics.
58 Andy Stirling
prescribed urgency. It seems that the Anthropocene is framed from the outset as
much as a normative doctrine as a scientific analysis.
This leads to a further telling feature of ‘the Anthropocene’. As with ‘the
Nexus’ more widely, it is clear that the aggregate environmental impacts of diverse
global economies are truly devastating. However, for humans to exert unintended
impacts is very different from exercising collectively intentional control. Indeed, some
Anthropocene literature does acknowledge that even ‘self-control of mankind’
remains a speculative scenario (Faroult, 2009). Serious wider questions are raised
not only over what is meant by control, but who is doing it, how it is supposedly
enacted and on exactly what systems. After all, when has humanity as a whole
even undertaken – let alone controlled, still less achieved – any single explicitly
and collectively deliberate end?
Perhaps the confusion might be alleviated by redefining the problematic
Anthropocene concept in terms of human impacts, rather than notional human
‘control’, or substituting it with a similarly more careful definition of the Holocene?
There is anyhow a case for tracing global-scale human impacts back to the very
early Holocene (Zimov et al., 2011). And the difference between a starting point
a few hundred and a few thousand years ago is well below the chronological
resolution for comparable geological epochs. That this rather obvious course has
not been adopted confirms that ‘Anthropocene’ discourse is fulfilling a rather
particular political function. Crucially, this new category moves beyond the implicit
subjective acknowledgement of human impacts to a direct (ostensibly objective)
assertion of human ‘control’.
To be fair, a growing ‘Earth systems governance’ literature (Biermann, 2007) is
often more qualified in its treatment of notions of ‘Anthropocene’ control, referring
instead to apparently less deterministic notions of ‘governance’ and ‘stewardship’
(Chapin et al., 2011). However, substitution of more nuanced terms does little to
reduce the substantive tensions. ‘Governance’ is still frequently addressed in terms
of integrated knowledge, formal procedures, coercive instruments and individualistic
leadership. And, implying ‘control in absence of overarching authority’, even
‘stewardship’ is arguably not so much about diminished control, as diminished
accountability (Anon., 2013b).
What remains under-addressed is the general paradox that the more intensely
desired the control, the greater the necessity to comply with conditions for
tractability. Even an engineered artefact works only if designed in accordance with
inherent material constraints and propensities. No matter how much a governance
model might emphasize ‘polycentric’ coordination (Biermann et al., 2012b) (rather
than top-down hierarchy), then, if it remains subordinated to a particular agency
and ends, then the process is equally about control. And there are few more effective
means to assert iniquitous managerial control invisibly than by rhetorics of equal
collaboration. So, superficial shifts in terminology do little to alter the substantive
dynamics.
58 Andy Stirling