Dipesh Chakrabarty's The Climate Of History: Four Theses

1296 Words3 Pages

In Dipesh Chakrabarty’s essay, “The Climate of History: Four Theses,” he begins with “…the proposition that anthropogenic explanations of climate change spell the collapse of the age-old humanist distinction between natural history and human history.” With this initial statement, Chakrabarty declares that the advent of manmade climate change in the anthropocene, humans can no longer be considered separately from nature as they had been previously segregated by Enlightenment and western thinking. In other words, “humanism,” or human-centered thinking is neither relevant nor reasonable in the face of global climate change. According to Chakrabarty, since human and natural history are both intrinsically tied together, the fate of mankind is now …show more content…

“Paying attention” is not only about observation, but also actively questioning and intervening in the inner workings of authority. As suggested by Stengers, paying attention is a radical political act in that it resists the enclosure of knowledge and the cult of scientific expertise that alienates the “common” population. The act of paying attention is also one of the first steps to subverting the esoteric machinations of Science and Politics which work together to keep knowledge and power out of the laypeople’s reach. Ultimately, Stengers’ book addresses how to resist the forthcoming “barbarism” in the anthropocene. Among her recommendations of “naming Gaia” and confronting stupidity is paying attention; an act that may not necessarily satisfy the apathetic entity that is Gaia, or the natural world, but one that mitigates the sometimes harmful economy of information that exists today. For example, Stengers cites the phenomenon of open source programs, such as Linux, and the struggle of programmers against corporations and intellectual property laws as an example of knowledge that was brought into the common domain. Another occurrence that Stengers comments on is the “GMO event,” which in her view is one of …show more content…

The term serves as an alternate for other phrases referring to the era of modern man, such as “anthropocene” or “capitolocene,” which Haraway disagrees with. Rather than the ominous implications of the anthropocene and capitalocene, the Chthulucene is precarious, but not yet doomed because it consists of “ongoing multispecies stories and practices.” The concept of the Chthulucene implies a one-ness shared by all beings, human and non-human. By rejecting the anthropocene and capitolocene, Haraway also rejects the notion that dictates define the age we are currently living. “Anthro-“ and “capital-“ place a certain amount of blame on single entities, namely humans and capitalism, but in the rest of her work, Haraway suggests that recognizing unity and networks is ultimately more important than assigning fault. While the other terms seem to identify a cause for the modern age, Haraway’s Chtulucene emphasizes a method of thinking about and living with the present. In Haraway’s view, the Chtulucene is a vital part of reimagining our existence in the world. She goes on to discuss “tentacular thinking” and “making kin” as other aspects that are key to creating a sustainable world. In order to continue existing,

Open Document