Anthropocene: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The Anthropocene designation is far from settled fact, however, sparking intense debate within the social sciences, including human geography. Attributing global change to a universalized human “Anthropos,” many critical scholars argue, risks ignoring the fact that some human groups have contributed far more to globally problematic transformations than others. It also tends to elide the role of structural inequalities along the lines of race, gender, class, geography, and more in producing these changes, as well as the long-standing ecosocial crises experienced by indigenous communities. Indeed, the category of human itself has historically anchored social hierarchies and thus might be ill equipped to define a more desirable future. Singling out a species as irreversibly dominant might inhibit action by naturalizing and depoliticizing ecological crises, normalizing narratives of control as progress, institutionalizing human mastery, and reifying a false division between humans and the biophysical world of which we are a part. Social scientists, particularly those influenced by science and technology studies, also observe that writings on the Anthropocene tend to gloss over the diverse ways in which other organisms and objects shape and are coconstituted with human action. By now, these critiques should be impossible to ignore, yet existing scholarship on agrifood systems and the Anthropocene often misses the opportunity to address them.<Ref>Reisman, E., & Fairbairn, M. (2020). Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1–11. doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025</Ref></Blockquote> | The Anthropocene designation is far from settled fact, however, sparking intense debate within the social sciences, including human geography. Attributing global change to a universalized human “Anthropos,” many critical scholars argue, risks ignoring the fact that some human groups have contributed far more to globally problematic transformations than others. It also tends to elide the role of structural inequalities along the lines of race, gender, class, geography, and more in producing these changes, as well as the long-standing ecosocial crises experienced by indigenous communities. Indeed, the category of human itself has historically anchored social hierarchies and thus might be ill equipped to define a more desirable future. Singling out a species as irreversibly dominant might inhibit action by naturalizing and depoliticizing ecological crises, normalizing narratives of control as progress, institutionalizing human mastery, and reifying a false division between humans and the biophysical world of which we are a part. Social scientists, particularly those influenced by science and technology studies, also observe that writings on the Anthropocene tend to gloss over the diverse ways in which other organisms and objects shape and are coconstituted with human action. By now, these critiques should be impossible to ignore, yet existing scholarship on agrifood systems and the Anthropocene often misses the opportunity to address them.<Ref>Reisman, E., & Fairbairn, M. (2020). Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1–11. doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025</Ref></Blockquote> | ||
= Critical Agriculture Analysis = | |||
<Blockquote>We argue that critical agri-food scholarship provides a powerful vantage point from which to engage | |||
with the Anthropocene idea—one that precludes historical oversimplifications, enriches theoretical insights, and keeps alternative futures squarely in view. Rather than wholeheartedly accepting or rejecting the term Anthropocene, we embrace its controversial nature as a source of insight. The Anthropocene concept is contentious because it calls for a single, all-encompassing global story that risks erasure of alternatives. Focusing on agri-food systems as a central theme for understanding Anthropocene debates helps to hold several narratives simultaneously while keeping central concerns within the field of view. Examining the histories and theories of agrarian change alongside Anthropocene discourse, we argue, illustrates the limits, friction, and unevenness of human influence while underscoring the inseparability of people with their environments. Moreover, if the Anthropocene concept is to mobilize action for reversing problematic trends, it must address agriculture in a way that does not treat it only as a set of impacts to be avoided but rather as a site of political economic processes to be accounted for and reimagined. In this article we open up such possibilities by offering an integration of agri-food studies and critical Anthropocene scholarship, arguing that agri-food systems can serve as a critically engaged through line to competing Anthropocene origin stories, a source of theoretical insight for the complexity of human–environment relations, and a site of agency for forging alternative futures.<Ref>Reisman, E., & Fairbairn, M. (2020). Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1–11. doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
= Sources = | = Sources = | ||
Revision as of 00:53, 1 July 2023
Agriculture is everywhere. It produces not only food but also fiber (to make cloth, rope, and paper), fuel (to power buildings, vehicles, and machinery), “fun” (in the form of coffee, tea, spices, and intoxicants), and pharmaceuticals. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the environmental impacts associated with agriculture are frequently referenced as evidence that we have entered a new geologic time period—a “human dominated geological epoch” known as the Anthropocene. Rapid increases in water use, fertilizer contamination, deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and, of course, human population are among the most prominent metrics leveraged in support of the Anthropocene designation. Alarming statistics, often displayed as a series of exponential growth charts, portray agriculture’s expanding environmental toll. Agriculture, it appears, supplies ample evidence that the “age of humans” has arrived.
The Anthropocene designation is far from settled fact, however, sparking intense debate within the social sciences, including human geography. Attributing global change to a universalized human “Anthropos,” many critical scholars argue, risks ignoring the fact that some human groups have contributed far more to globally problematic transformations than others. It also tends to elide the role of structural inequalities along the lines of race, gender, class, geography, and more in producing these changes, as well as the long-standing ecosocial crises experienced by indigenous communities. Indeed, the category of human itself has historically anchored social hierarchies and thus might be ill equipped to define a more desirable future. Singling out a species as irreversibly dominant might inhibit action by naturalizing and depoliticizing ecological crises, normalizing narratives of control as progress, institutionalizing human mastery, and reifying a false division between humans and the biophysical world of which we are a part. Social scientists, particularly those influenced by science and technology studies, also observe that writings on the Anthropocene tend to gloss over the diverse ways in which other organisms and objects shape and are coconstituted with human action. By now, these critiques should be impossible to ignore, yet existing scholarship on agrifood systems and the Anthropocene often misses the opportunity to address them.[1]
Critical Agriculture Analysis
We argue that critical agri-food scholarship provides a powerful vantage point from which to engage with the Anthropocene idea—one that precludes historical oversimplifications, enriches theoretical insights, and keeps alternative futures squarely in view. Rather than wholeheartedly accepting or rejecting the term Anthropocene, we embrace its controversial nature as a source of insight. The Anthropocene concept is contentious because it calls for a single, all-encompassing global story that risks erasure of alternatives. Focusing on agri-food systems as a central theme for understanding Anthropocene debates helps to hold several narratives simultaneously while keeping central concerns within the field of view. Examining the histories and theories of agrarian change alongside Anthropocene discourse, we argue, illustrates the limits, friction, and unevenness of human influence while underscoring the inseparability of people with their environments. Moreover, if the Anthropocene concept is to mobilize action for reversing problematic trends, it must address agriculture in a way that does not treat it only as a set of impacts to be avoided but rather as a site of political economic processes to be accounted for and reimagined. In this article we open up such possibilities by offering an integration of agri-food studies and critical Anthropocene scholarship, arguing that agri-food systems can serve as a critically engaged through line to competing Anthropocene origin stories, a source of theoretical insight for the complexity of human–environment relations, and a site of agency for forging alternative futures.[2]
Sources
- ↑ Reisman, E., & Fairbairn, M. (2020). Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1–11. doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025
- ↑ Reisman, E., & Fairbairn, M. (2020). Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1–11. doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025