Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sylla, Bernhard
Data de Publicação: 2020
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/64801
Resumo: 18 years after its introduction into scientific vocabulary, a vast discourse on the Anthropocene has settled in very heterogeneous scientific areas, from Biology and Geology to the Arts and Humanities, including Philosophy itself. Despite its multidisciplinarity, there seems to be a common presupposition in this discourse that often becomes a demand: to abandon a false dualism allegedly responsible for the lack of answers to the challenges that the new anthropocenic age poses to us. Antidualism seems to be a common denominator, widely shared by the most diverse authors of the Anthropocene discourse, but what is meant by ‘dualism’ seems extremely heterogeneous to me, embracing ontological, epistemological, and political dimensions, and sometimes mixing them. Whatever the combated dualism – nature and culture, social system and terrestrial system, Man and Earth, biosphere and noosphere, subject and object, observer and observed, natural sciences and human sciences, etc. – the golden key to unravelling and developing a different way of thinking and being capable of facing the environmental challenges of the present would be by overcoming these dualisms, that is, in a perspective that can account for the intersection and overlap of the hitherto opposed elements and which presupposes, in the end, their assimilation. How both imbrication and assimilation can or should be thought of, however, can vary greatly from one author to another. Based on these assumptions, I will focus on two criticisms of anti-dualism put forward by Andrew Feenberg and Gernot Böhme. Both critics chose the theories of Haraway and Latour – authors who are today among the most cited philosophers of the Anthropocene – as distinct exponents of anti-dualism. I will argue that criticism of anti-dualism is pertinent and necessary, but that the alternatives proposed by Feenberg and Böhme are not convincing.
id RCAP_0b8d8e73ade2c24d5e3ada7b94546a5c
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/64801
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Anti-dualism in the discourse on the AnthropoceneAnti-dualismo no discurso sobre o AntropocenoAnthropocenedualismanti-dualismphilosophy of technologyAntropocenodualismoantidualismofilosofia da tecnologiaHumanidades::Filosofia, Ética e Religião18 years after its introduction into scientific vocabulary, a vast discourse on the Anthropocene has settled in very heterogeneous scientific areas, from Biology and Geology to the Arts and Humanities, including Philosophy itself. Despite its multidisciplinarity, there seems to be a common presupposition in this discourse that often becomes a demand: to abandon a false dualism allegedly responsible for the lack of answers to the challenges that the new anthropocenic age poses to us. Antidualism seems to be a common denominator, widely shared by the most diverse authors of the Anthropocene discourse, but what is meant by ‘dualism’ seems extremely heterogeneous to me, embracing ontological, epistemological, and political dimensions, and sometimes mixing them. Whatever the combated dualism – nature and culture, social system and terrestrial system, Man and Earth, biosphere and noosphere, subject and object, observer and observed, natural sciences and human sciences, etc. – the golden key to unravelling and developing a different way of thinking and being capable of facing the environmental challenges of the present would be by overcoming these dualisms, that is, in a perspective that can account for the intersection and overlap of the hitherto opposed elements and which presupposes, in the end, their assimilation. How both imbrication and assimilation can or should be thought of, however, can vary greatly from one author to another. Based on these assumptions, I will focus on two criticisms of anti-dualism put forward by Andrew Feenberg and Gernot Böhme. Both critics chose the theories of Haraway and Latour – authors who are today among the most cited philosophers of the Anthropocene – as distinct exponents of anti-dualism. I will argue that criticism of anti-dualism is pertinent and necessary, but that the alternatives proposed by Feenberg and Böhme are not convincing.18 anos após a sua introdução no vocabulário científico existe um vasto discurso sobre o Antropoceno que se instalou em áreas científicas muito heterogéneas, desde a Biologia e Geologia até às Artes e Humanidades, inclusive na própria Filosofia. Apesar da sua multidisciplinariedade, parece haver neste discurso um pressuposto comum que, não raras vezes, se transforma numa exigência: a de abandonar um falso dualismo alegadamente responsável pela falta de respostas aos desafios que a nova era antropocénica nos coloca. O antidualismo parece ser um denominador comum, largamente partilhado pelos mais diversos autores do discurso sobre o Antropoceno, mas aquilo que se entende por ‘dualismo’ parece-me extremamente heterogéneo, abrangendo dimensões ontológicas, epistemológicas e políticas, e, por vezes, misturando-as. Seja qual for o dualismo combatido – natureza e cultura, sistema social e sistema terrestre, Homem e Terra, biosfera e noosfera, sujeito e objeto, observador e observado, ciências da natureza e ciências humanas, etc. –, a chave de ouro para desencerrar e desenvolver um pensamento diferente, capaz de enfrentar os desafios ambientais do tempo presente, estaria na superação destes dualismos, i. e., numa perspetiva capaz não apenas de dar conta da intersecção e imbricação dos elementos até então opostos, mas que pressupõe, no fundo, a sua equiparação. Como se pode ou deve pensar tanto a imbricação como a equiparação, pode, no entanto, variar bastante de um autor para outro. Com base nestes pressupostos, focar-me-ei em duas críticas do antidualismo, apresentadas por Andrew Feenberg e por Gernot Böhme. Ambas as críticas escolheram as teorias de Haraway e Latour – autores que se encontram, hoje em dia, entre os mais citados filósofos do pensamento sobre o Antropoceno – como representantes distintos do antidualismo. Defenderei que a crítica ao antidualismo é pertinente e necessária, mas que as versões propostas por Feenberg e Böhme não convencem.Universidade do Minho. Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade (CEPS)Universidade do MinhoSylla, Bernhard20202020-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/64801engSylla, Bernhard (2020). Anti-Dualism in the Discourse on the Anthropocene. Ethics, Politics & Society, 3: 171-1882184 - 2582info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-21T12:24:06Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/64801Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T19:18:00.499420Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
Anti-dualismo no discurso sobre o Antropoceno
title Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
spellingShingle Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
Sylla, Bernhard
Anthropocene
dualism
anti-dualism
philosophy of technology
Antropoceno
dualismo
antidualismo
filosofia da tecnologia
Humanidades::Filosofia, Ética e Religião
title_short Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
title_full Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
title_fullStr Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
title_full_unstemmed Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
title_sort Anti-dualism in the discourse on the Anthropocene
author Sylla, Bernhard
author_facet Sylla, Bernhard
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade do Minho
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sylla, Bernhard
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anthropocene
dualism
anti-dualism
philosophy of technology
Antropoceno
dualismo
antidualismo
filosofia da tecnologia
Humanidades::Filosofia, Ética e Religião
topic Anthropocene
dualism
anti-dualism
philosophy of technology
Antropoceno
dualismo
antidualismo
filosofia da tecnologia
Humanidades::Filosofia, Ética e Religião
description 18 years after its introduction into scientific vocabulary, a vast discourse on the Anthropocene has settled in very heterogeneous scientific areas, from Biology and Geology to the Arts and Humanities, including Philosophy itself. Despite its multidisciplinarity, there seems to be a common presupposition in this discourse that often becomes a demand: to abandon a false dualism allegedly responsible for the lack of answers to the challenges that the new anthropocenic age poses to us. Antidualism seems to be a common denominator, widely shared by the most diverse authors of the Anthropocene discourse, but what is meant by ‘dualism’ seems extremely heterogeneous to me, embracing ontological, epistemological, and political dimensions, and sometimes mixing them. Whatever the combated dualism – nature and culture, social system and terrestrial system, Man and Earth, biosphere and noosphere, subject and object, observer and observed, natural sciences and human sciences, etc. – the golden key to unravelling and developing a different way of thinking and being capable of facing the environmental challenges of the present would be by overcoming these dualisms, that is, in a perspective that can account for the intersection and overlap of the hitherto opposed elements and which presupposes, in the end, their assimilation. How both imbrication and assimilation can or should be thought of, however, can vary greatly from one author to another. Based on these assumptions, I will focus on two criticisms of anti-dualism put forward by Andrew Feenberg and Gernot Böhme. Both critics chose the theories of Haraway and Latour – authors who are today among the most cited philosophers of the Anthropocene – as distinct exponents of anti-dualism. I will argue that criticism of anti-dualism is pertinent and necessary, but that the alternatives proposed by Feenberg and Böhme are not convincing.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/1822/64801
url http://hdl.handle.net/1822/64801
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Sylla, Bernhard (2020). Anti-Dualism in the Discourse on the Anthropocene. Ethics, Politics & Society, 3: 171-188
2184 - 2582
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade do Minho. Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade (CEPS)
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade do Minho. Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade (CEPS)
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799132634547224576