Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies
  4. Volume 15, Issue 2
  5. Article
Beyond Climate Change Information: Communicating the Anthropocene
  • ISSN: 1757-1898
  • E-ISSN: 1757-1901

Abstract

The Anthropocene, marked by significant anthropogenic impacts on a global scale, demands a completely new paradigm regarding the human-Earth alliance. It would not manifest as a more inclusive, culturally diverse, and holistic approach to the world, but rather at a seemingly one-world scale. The singularity of one-world universalism is rooted in the principle of human exceptionalism – the notion that humanity is at the centre of everything – even down to claims of structural determination on geological timescales. Our epistemological conservative view is that lifeworld is limited to existing as an ecological living space and the Earth is fixed as a mere background of our world-dwelling. At the same time, the Earth is silently yet progressively moving towards a crisis of uncertainty. Against a grand narrative of western universal assumptions in defining the Anthropocene, this article initially restructures the metanarrative by characterizing a proposal: a multiple-realization beyond speculative hermeneutics capable of fostering pluriversalization of reality layers at the geological constellation. This proposed concept explores the intersection of the geo(pluriverse)logical Anthropocene by acknowledging the interdependence and multiplication of realities, while appreciating and preserving the existence of many worlds alongside our precious Earth. It highlights the distinction between the realization of the Anthropocene in two contexts: the world and the Earth.

© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/cjcs_00091_1
2023-10-10
2025-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anzaldúa, G. and Keating, A. (2002), This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Autin, W. J. (2016), ‘Multiple dichotomies of the Anthropocene’, The Anthropocene Review, 3:3, pp. 218–30, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616646133.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barry, A. and Maslin, M. (2016), ‘The politics of the Anthropocene: A dialogue’, Geo: Geography and Environment, 3:2, pp. 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhaskar, R. (1993), Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blaser, M. (2019), ‘On the properly political (disposition for the) Anthropocene’, Anthropological Theory, 19:1, pp. 74–94, https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499618779745.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Braidotti, R. (2019), Posthuman Knowledge, Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cadena, M. de la (2019), ‘An invitation to live together’, Environmental Humanities, 11:2, pp. 477–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cadena, M. de la and Blaser, M. (2018), A World of Many Worlds, Durham: Duke University Press, https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478004318.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Castro, E. V. de and Danowski, D. (2018), ‘Humans and terrans in the Gaia War’, in M. de la Cadena and M. Blaser (eds), A World of Many Worlds, Duke University Press, pp. 172–204, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jpzq.10.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Crutzen, P. J. (2016), ‘Geology of mankind’, in P. Crutzen and H. Günter (eds), Paul J. Crutzen: A Pioneer on Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change in the Anthropocene, Cham: Springer, pp. 211–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, J. (2016), The Birth of the Anthropocene, Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Delanty, G. and Mota, A. (2017), ‘Governing the Anthropocene: Agency, governance, knowledge’, European Journal of Social Theory, 20:1, pp. 9–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Escobar, A. (2017), ‘Sustaining the pluriverse: The political ontology of territorial struggles in Latin America’, in M. Brightman and J. Lewis (eds), The Anthropology of Sustainability, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 237–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Escobar, A. (2018), Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence Autonomy and the Making of Worlds, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Escobar, A. and Frye, D. (2020), Pluriversal Politics: The Real and the Possible, Durham: Duke University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11315v0.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Foster, J. B. (2017), ‘Marx’s ecology in historical perspective’, in K. B. Anderson and B. Ollman (eds), Karl Marx, London: Routledge, pp. 609–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Foster, J. B. (2022), ‘An ecological Marxist perspective’, Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 74:5, pp. 1–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gaffney, O. and Steffen, W. (2017), ‘The Anthropocene equation’, The Anthropocene Review, 4:1, pp. 53–61, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616688022.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibbard, P., Walker, M., Bauer, A., Edgeworth, M., Edwards, L., Ellis, E., Finney, S., Gill, J. L., Maslin, M., Merritts, D. and Ruddiman, W. (2022), ‘The Anthropocene as an event, not an epoch’, Journal of Quaternary Science, 37:3, pp. 395–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamilton, C. (2020), ‘Towards a fifth ontology for the Anthropocene’, Angelaki, 25:4, pp. 110–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Haraway, D. (2015), ‘Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making kin’, Environmental Humanities, 6:1, pp. 159–65, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3615934.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Heikkurinen, P., Rinkinen, J., Järvensivu, T., Wilén, K. and Ruuska, T. (2016), ‘Organising in the Anthropocene: An ontological outline for ecocentric theorising’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, pp. 705–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Heikkurinen, P., Ruuska, T., Wilén, K. and Ulvila, M. (2019), ‘The Anthropocene exit: Reconciling discursive tensions on the new geological epoch’, Ecological Economics, 164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106369.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoelle, J. and Kawa, N. C. (2021), ‘Placing the Anthropos in Anthropocene’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111:3, pp. 655–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1842171.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Höhne, C. (2018), ‘From “talking the talk” to “walking the walk”?’, in T. Hickmann, L. Partzsch, P. Pattberg and S. Weiland (eds), The Anthropocene Debate and Political Science, London: Routledge, pp. 124–45, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351174121.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ingold, T. (2011), Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Law, J. (2015), ‘What’s wrong with a one-world world?’, Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 16:1, pp. 126–39, https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2015.1020066.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lewis, S. L. and Maslin, M. A. (2015), ‘A transparent framework for defining the Anthropocene epoch’, The Anthropocene Review, 2:2, pp. 128–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615588792.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Mahaswa, R. K. and Kim, M. S. (2023), ‘Introducing the pluriverse of the Anthropocene: Toward an ontological politics of environmental governance in Indonesia’, in A. Triyanti, M. Indrawan, L. Nurhidayah and M. A. Marfai (eds), Environmental Governance in Indonesia, Environment & Policy, vol. 61, Cham: Springer, pp. 15–31, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15904-6_2.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mahaswa, R. K. and Widhianto, A. (2020), ‘Questioning the “Anthropos” in the Anthropocene: Is the Anthropocene anthropocentric?’, SHS Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 76, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202122600035.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Malhi, Y. (2017), ‘The concept of the anthropocene’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42:1, pp. 77–104, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060854.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mbembe, A. (2019), Necropolitics, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mercier, T. (2019), ‘Uses of the “Pluriverse”: Cosmos, interrupted – or the others of humanities’, Ostium, 15:2, pp. 1–18, https://philpapers.org/archive/MERUOT.pdf. Accessed 22 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Moore, J. W. (2011), ‘Ecology, capital, and the nature of our times: Accumulation and crisis in the capitalist World-Ecology’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 17:1, pp. 107–46, https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2011.432.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Moore, J. W. (2015), Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, London: Verso Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Moore, J. W. (2017), Capitalism’s Ecologies: Culture Power and Crisis in the 21st Century, Oakland, CA: PM Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Morgan, M. (2019), ‘New materialism: An ontology for the Anthropocene’, Natural Resources Journal, 59:2, pp. 251–80, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3447625. Accessed 31 August 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Morton, T. (2013), Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Negarestani, R. (2014), ‘The labour of the inhuman’, in R. Mackay and A. Avanessian (eds), Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader, Falmouth: Urbanomic Media Ltd., pp. 425–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Oliver, K. (2015), Earth and World: Philosophy after the Apollo Missions, New York: Columbia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Purbandani, A. M. and Mahaswa, R. K. (2022), ‘Critical ecofeminism: Revisiting gender, ecological justice, and climate crisis’, Indonesian Feminist Journal, 27:3, pp. 74–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Segovia, C. A. and Gevorkyan, S. (2021), ‘Earth and world(s): From Heidegger’s Fourfold to contemporary anthropology’, Open Philosophy, 4:1, pp. 58–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. and Ludwig, C. (2015), ‘The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration’, The Anthropocene Review, 2:1, pp. 81–98, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Stengers, I. (2018), ‘The challenge of ontological politics’, in M. de la Cadena and M. Blaser (eds), A World of Many Worlds, New York: Duke University Press, pp. 83–111, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478004318-005.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Trischler, H. (2016), ‘The Anthropocene: A challenge for the history of science, technology, and the environment’, NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 24:3, pp. 309–35, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-016-0146-3.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Tsing, A. (2015), The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruin, Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Verburg, P. H., Dearing, J. A., Dyke, J. G., v.d. Leeuw, S., Seitzinger, S., Steffen, W. and Syvitski, J. (2016), ‘Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene’, Global Environmental Change, 39, pp. 328–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.007.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Vivaldi, J. (2021), ‘Xenological subjectivity: Rosi Braidotti and object-oriented ontology’, Open Philosophy, 4:1, pp. 311–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Waters, C. and Turner, S. (2022), ‘Defining the onset of the Anthropocene’, Science, 378:6621, pp. 706–08, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade2310.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Webster, M. and Mai, L. (2020), ‘Transnational environmental law in the Anthropocene’, Transnational Legal Theory, 11, pp. 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1778888.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Yusoff, K. (2020), ‘The inhumanities’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111:3, pp. 663–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Ellis, E. C., Head, M. J., Vidas, D., Steffen, W., Thomas, J. A., Horn, E., Summerhayes, C., Leinfelder, R., McNeill, J. R., Gałuszka, A., Williams, M., Barnosky, A., Richter, D., Gibbard, P., Syvitski, J., Jeandel, C., Cearreta, A., Cundy, A., Fairchild, I., Rose, N., Ivar do Sul, J., Shotyk, W., Turner, S., Wagreich, M. and Zinke, J. (2021), ‘The Anthropocene: Comparing its meaning in geology (chronostratigraphy) with conceptual approaches arising in other disciplines’, Earth’s Future, 9:3, pp. 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001896.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Zwier, J. and Boer, B. de (2023), ‘Earth becomes world? Scientific objects, nonmodern worlds, and the metaphysics of the Anthropocene’, Environmental Humanities, 15:1, pp. 64–86, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-10216162.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/cjcs_00091_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): anti-universalism; geohumanity; geological trajectory; geophilosophy; multi-realization; pluriversalization; speculative turn

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test