Who speaks for the future of Earth? : how critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene

http://www.diva-portal.org

This is the published version of a paper published in Global Environmental Change.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J. et al. (2015)

Who speaks for the future of Earth?: how critical social science can extend the conversation on

the Anthropocene.

Global Environmental Change, 32: 211-218

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:

Who

speaks

for

the

future

of

Earth?

How

critical

social

science

can

extend

the

conversation

on

the

Anthropocene

Eva

Lo¨vbrand

*

,

Silke

Beck

,

Jason

Chilvers

,

Tim

Forsyth

,

Johan

Hedre´n

,

Mike

Hulme

,

Rolf

Lidskog

_,

_Eleftheria

_Vasileiadou

a

DepartmentofThematicStudies–EnvironmentalChange,Linko¨pingUniversity,58183Linko¨ping,Sweden

b

DepartmentofEnvironmentalPolitics,HelmholtzCentreforEnvironmentalResearch–UFZ,Permoserstraße15,04318Leipzig,Germany

c

SchoolofEnvironmentalSciences,UniversityofEastAnglia,NorwichResearchPark,NorwichNR47TJ,UK

d_{DepartmentofInternationalDevelopment,LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience,HoughtonStreet,LondonWC2A2AE,UK} e

DepartmentofGeography,King’sCollegeLondon,K4L.07,King’sBuilding,StrandCampus,LondonWC2R2LS,UK

f

EnvironmentalSociologySection,O¨rebroUniversity,70182O¨rebro,Sweden

g

DepartmentofIndustrialEngineering&InnovationSciences,TechnischeUniversiteitEindhoven,P.O.Box513,5600MBEindhoven,TheNetherlands

1. Introduction

Inrecentyearsleadingenvironmentalscientistshavetoldus thatweliveinanunprecedentedtimecalled‘theAnthropocene’. TheAnthropoceneconceptwascoinedbythechemistandNobel LaureatePaulCrutzenandbiologistEugeneStoermerattheturnof the new millennium to describe a new geological era fully dominatedbyhumanactivity(CrutzenandStoermer,2000).Since then it has taken root in scientific and popular discourse and offered a powerful narrative of human resource exploitation, planetarythresholds andenvironmental urgency.Centraltothe Anthropocenepropositionistheclaimthatwehaveleftthebenign eraoftheHolocene–whenhumancivilizationshavedeveloped

and thrived – and entered a much more unpredictable and dangeroustimewhenhumanityisunderminingtheplanetary life-supportsystemsuponwhichitdepends(Rockstro¨metal.,2009; Steffenetal.,2015).IntheAnthropocene,wearetold,theCartesian dualismbetweennatureandsocietyisbrokendownresultingina deep intertwining of the fates of nature and humankind (Zalasiewicetal.,2010,p.2231).

In thispaperwediscuss howthesocialsciencescan engage withthispowerfulenvironmentalnarrativeinproductiveways.In atimewheninternationalscienceinitiativessuchasFutureEarth are‘callingtoarms’andaskingenvironmentalscholarsacrossall disciplines to participate in an integrated analysis of the Anthropocene(Palsson etal., 2013), this is a pressingquestion thathastriggeredadiscussionontheroleofsocialandcultural theoryinthestudyofglobalenvironmentalchange(O’Brien,2012; Castree et al., 2014; Castree, 2014a). In a number of recent publications, scholarshavequestionedthemarginaland instru-mental roles granted to the social sciences and humanities in environmental research and problem-solving. Whereas the Anthropocene conceptrepresents a tremendous opportunityto ARTICLE INFO

Articlehistory:

Received5November2014

Receivedinrevisedform27March2015 Accepted28March2015

Availableonline

Keywords: Anthropocence Politics

Globalenvironmentalchange Socialscience

Criticalinterpretation Ontology

ABSTRACT

ThispaperaskshowthesocialsciencescanengagewiththeideaoftheAnthropoceneinproductive ways.Inresponsetothisquestionweoutlineaninterpretativeresearchagendathatallowscritical engagementwiththeAnthropoceneasasociallyandculturallyboundedobjectwithmanypossible meaningsandpoliticaltrajectories.Inordertofacilitatethekindofpoliticalmobilizationrequiredto meetthecomplexenvironmentalchallengesofourtimes,wearguethatthesocialsciencesshould refrainfrom adjusting to standardizedresearch agendas andtemplates. A more urgent analytical challengeliesinexposing,challengingandextendingtheontologicalassumptionsthatinformhowwe makesenseofandrespondtoarapidlychangingenvironment.Bycultivatingenvironmentalresearch thatopensupmultipleinterpretationsoftheAnthropocene,thesocialsciencescanhelptoextendthe realmofthepossibleforenvironmentalpolitics.

ß2015PublishedbyElsevierLtd.

* Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+46011363393.

E-mailaddresses:eva.lovbrand@liu.se(E.Lo¨vbrand),silke.beck@ufz.de(S.Beck), jason.chilvers@uea.ac.uk(J.Chilvers),t.j.forsyth@lse.ac.uk(T.Forsyth),

johan.hedren@liu.se(J.Hedre´n),mike.hulme@kcl.ac.uk(M.Hulme), rolf.lidskog@oru.se(R.Lidskog),E.Vasileiadou@tue.nl(E.Vasileiadou).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Global

Environmental

Change

j ou rna l hom e pa ge : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c om/ l o ca t e / gl oe n v cha

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012 0959-3780/ß2015PublishedbyElsevierLtd.

engage with questions of meaning, value, responsibility and purpose in a time of rapid and escalating change(Rose et al., 2012,p.1),criticsmaintainthattheinstitutionsandnetworksoutof whichtheAnthropoceneconcepthasemerged(notablytheglobal change research programmes of the International Council for Science,ICSU)todatehavefailedtobringqualitativequestionsof this kind to bear on their research activities. In the quest for solutions to urgent collective action problems, the focus has primarilybeenonmeansratherthanendsandattentionhashereby beendivertedawayfromthesocialandculturalnorms,practices andpowerrelationsthatdriveenvironmentalproblemsinthefirst place(O’Brien,2012).Asaconsequence,theglobalchangeresearch community has been charged of producing a post-political Anthropocenenarrativedominated by thenatural sciences and focusedon environmentalrather than social change(Malm and Hornborg,2014;Castreeetal.,2014;Swyngedouw,2014).

In thispaperwedrawuponthiscritiquetoexplorehowthe socialsciencesmayhelptoextendtheconceptualterrainwithin whichtheAnthropocenescholarshipcurrentlyoperates.Whilewe notethattheAnthropoceneisaconceptinthemaking,weargue that the mainstreamstory projected by leading environmental scientistsinhighprofilejournalarticlesandconference declara-tionssofarhasofferedarestrictedunderstandingoftheentangled relationsbetweennatural,socialandculturalworlds.Assuchithas also foreclosed the conversation on the range of social and environmentalfuturesthatarepossible,andindeeddesirable,in ‘theageofman’.Inordertopushtheconversationonthefutureof Earthinnewdirections,thispaperoutlinesaresearchagendafor the social sciences that invites critical engagement with the Anthropoceneas a socially and culturally bounded object with manypossiblemeaningsandpoliticaltrajectories.Tothatendwe mobilize the critical and interpretative social sciences. While analytically diverse and sometimes competing, the multiple theoretical traditions that we sort under this label share an interest in thinking creatively and critically about the causes, rationalities,practicesandpoliticsofenvironmentalresearchand policy-making.Ratherthanacceptingtheworldaswefindit,work inthisfieldpromptscholarstoreflectupontheideas,normsand powerrelationsthatmakeuptheworldandtoimagineitanew(for usefulexamples,seeDeath,2014;BradleyandHedre´n,2014).

In the following we tapinto these intellectual resources to criticallyexaminethreeclaimsthatunderpintheproposedadvent of theAnthropocene.We callthese thepost-natural, the post-social,and thepost-politicalontology oftheAnthropocene.We beginbyoutliningwhatcharacterizeseachclaimandcontinueby discussinghowsocialinquirymayhelptointerpret,andultimately extend, thecultural, social and political assumptions theyrest uponandproject.Wecontendthatcriticalsocialengagementwith theAnthropocenedoes notpromiseanyimmediatesolutions to contemporary environmental challenges. The research agenda advancedinthispaperismorelikelytounsettletheAnthropocene and to pave the way for competing understandings of the entangled relations between natural and social worlds. Rather thanleadingastray,however,wearguethat suchinterpretative multiplicityoffersanimportantalternativetothecontemporary quest for integrated and solutions-oriented environmental re-search (Future Earth, 2013). In order to facilitate the kind of politicalmobilizationrequiredtomeetthecomplexenvironmental challengesofourtimes,thesocialsciencesneedtodomorethan askwhich‘productsandservices’societalstakeholdersneedinthe transitiontosustainability(FutureEarth,2014).Amorepressing analyticaltasklies in exposing and challenging the underlying culturalandsocialassumptionsthatinformhowwecollectively makessenseofandrespondtoachangingenvironment.Onlywhen extendingtheconversationonthefutureofEarthtoabroaderset ofknowledgetraditionsandcommunitiesisitpossible,weargue,

toharnessthecriticalpotentialoftheAnthropoceneandhereby extendtherealmofthepossibleforenvironmentalpolitics.Herein liesatremendousopportunityforsocialscience.

2. TheadventoftheAnthropocene

TheAnthropoceneisfarfromasettledconcept.Thegrowing numberofpublicationsonthetopicsuggestthatitisanideainthe makingthathassparkeddiverseinterdisciplinaryconversationson thestateoftheglobalenvironment,thedirectionoflatecapitalist society, and the possibility of a self-contained, rationalhuman subject(see,forinstance,Steffenetal.,2015;MalmandHornborg, 2014;Wakefield,2014).WhiletheAnthropoceneclearlyhasthe potential to draw ‘the humanities and the natural and social sciencesintodialogueinnewandexcitingways’(Roseetal.,2012, p.4),theconcepthasitshomeintheenvironmentalsciencesandis dominatedbyapersuasivesciencenarrativeofescalating human-inducedenvironmentalchange.Steffenetal.(2011a)tracetheidea ofahumandominatedplanetbacktoearlyobservationsofhuman alterations of land and sea found in volumes such as George Perkins Marsh’sThe EarthasModified by Human Action (1874), Eduard Seuss’ The Face of the Earth (1906), and Vladimir Vernadsky’sBiosphereandNoosphere(1945).Longbefore Nobel-prizewinningchemistPaulCrutzenandbiologistEugeneStoermer coinedtheAnthropoceneconceptinaglobalchangenewsletterin year2000,theenvironmentalconsequencesofhumanactivities suchaslandclearing,waterusageandfossilfuelburningwerewell documented and debated within the environmental sciences (Vitouseketal.,1997).WhenintegratedEarthSystemmodelswere introducedanddevelopedby internationalscienceprogrammes suchastheInternational-Geosphere-BiosphereProgramme(IGBP) inthelate1980s, thesefindingswerecompiledandaggregated into a global understanding of human-induced environmental change(UhrqvistandLo¨vbrand,2014).

Inthefollowingweexaminethreeontologicalclaimsemerging fromthesecoordinatedresearcheffortsand that nowformthe groundforthescientificAnthropocenenarrative.Theassumptions we make about this narrative rest upon a close reading of conference declarations such as the Amsterdam Declaration on GlobalChange(2001)andtheStateofthePlanetDeclaration(2012), aswellasjournalarticlesproducedbyleadingproponentsofthe AnthropoceneconceptsuchasPaulCrutzen,WillSteffenandJan Zalasiewic. While the significance and meaning of the Anthro-poceneremainscontestedandunsettled,wearguethatthereisa distinct story emerging from the global environmental change researchcommunitythatisaffectinghowtheconversationonthe futureofEarthcurrentlyisunfolding.

2.1. Thepost-naturalontologyoftheAnthropocene

Thedeepintertwiningofnaturalandhumansystemsisatthe heart of the scientific Anthropocene narrative (Oldfield et al., 2014). As clarified by Zalasiewic et al. (2010, p. 2228) the Anthropoceneconceptwascoinedinatimeof‘dawningrealization that humanactivity wasindeed changing theEarth on a scale comparablewithsomeofthemajoreventsoftheancientpast.’In Stoermer’sandCrutzen’spioneeringpaperfromyear2000,climate changeemergesastheprimarysignaloftheAnthropocene.The risingatmosphericconcentrationsofgreenhousegasesresulting from human land use change and fossil fuel burning here symbolize theabilityof ‘civilizedman’toalter naturalsystems totheextentthattheycannotbeconsidered‘natural’anymore.In otherstudiesthestronghuman‘footprintontheplanet’(Vitousek etal.,1997)isattributedtolandtransformationsthroughforestry and agriculture,biodiversityloss throughlandclearingand the introduction of alien species, the damming of rivers, the E.Lo¨vbrandetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange32(2015)211–218

terraformingeffectsoftheworld’smegacitiesortheintroduction of information and geoengineering technologies (Steffen et al., 2004;Zalasiewicetal.,2010;Galaz,2014).Takentogetherthese Anthropocene analyses suggest that humankind has become a globalscaleforcewiththeabilitytofundamentallyreshapethe planet.ThedominantinfluenceofhumanityhaspushedtheEarth intoanewgeologicalera‘whennaturalforcesandhumanforces aresointertwinedthatthefateofonedeterminesthefateofthe other’(Zalasiewicetal.,2010,p.2231).

Barryetal.(2013)refertothisfusingtogetherofhumanand non-humanhistoriesasthepost-naturalontologyofthe Anthro-pocene.The‘humanization’ofthenaturalenvironmentimpliedby theadventoftheAnthropocenesuggestsacrossingofthe human-nature divide inherited from the Enlightenment era. In the Anthropocene,natureisdomesticated,technologizedand capital-izedtotheextentthatitcannolongerbeconsiderednatural.As proclaimedbyCrutzenandSchwa¨gerl(2011)‘(i)t’snolongerus against‘‘Nature’’.Instead,it’swewhodecidewhatnatureisand whatitwillbe’.Whilethisconquestofthenaturalworldcanbe interpretedastheepitomeofhumanrationalityandprogress,the Anthropocene is not automatically ‘a hyperbolic narrative of totalizedhumanity’(Wakefield,2014,p.12).Formanyhumanist scholars‘theAnthropoceneisas muchaboutthedecenteringof humankindasitisaboutourrisinggeologicalsignificance’(Clark, 2014,p. 25 italicsin original). Itis a conceptthat emphasizes humanity’smaterialdependence,embodimentandfragility,and hereby invites us to rethink long-held assumptions about the autonomous,self-sufficienthumansubjectthatbeginsandends with itself (Wakefield, 2014). Interestingly, however, leading advocatesoftheAnthropoceneconcepthavetodatefailedtotake on board theontologicalimplications oftheir proposed ‘ageof man’.AlthoughtheAnthropoceneissaidtorepresentthe‘endof nature’(cf.McKibbin,1989),anerawhen‘natureisus’(Crutzen and Schwa¨gerl, 2011), the scientific Anthropocene narrative continuestoportraynatureasanobjectexternaltosocietywith ‘natural’limitsandtippingpointsthatcanbediscerned,quantified andmanagedwithsomedegreeofscientificobjectivity(Steffen etal.,2015).Asaconsequence,humankindisbothinsertedinto natureandre-elevatedaboveit(Baskin,2014,p.4).

Webelievethatthesocialsciencesarewellequippedtoaddress this tension by further socializing the Anthropocene concept. Acrossfieldssuchaspoliticalecology(e.g.Castree,2014b),science andtechnologystudies(STS)(Latour,2004;Jasanoff,2004),and genderstudies(Alaimo,2010)socialconstructivistscholarshave forsometimecriticallyinterrogatedhowsedimented representa-tions of nature and society are constituted or co-produced as hybridnature-cultures.Acentralontologicalassumptionrunning across this diverse critical-interpretative scholarship is that naturesnevercomereadymade.AssuggestedbyLatour(1993)

naturewillalways bea ‘quasi-object’ thatis real ina material sense,andyetdiscursivelynarratedandsociallymediated.From thisinterpretativehorizonthereisnopristineor‘natural’nature againstwhichtheadventoftheAnthropocenecanbeanalyzed. Natureisasmuchasocio-culturalphenomenonasabiophysical onethatcomesintobeingandgainsmeaningthrough representa-tionalpracticesandtechnologies(Baldwin,2003).Thequestionto askaboutnatureisthus notwhatitis orhowitchangesinan absoluteorfinalsense, but howitis enactedthroughscientific knowledgepracticesandwithwhatmaterialandpoliticaleffects. Threeepistemologicalimplicationsflowfromthismoreradical post-naturalpositionthatmayhelptopushtheconversationon thefutureofEarthinnewdirections.First,theinterpretativesocial sciencesinsistthatknowledgealwaysissituated,embodiedand contingent on pre-commitments and imaginaries of the future (Haraway, 1988). The needs, claims and actions of the human observer are always inseparable from the social, cultural and

material context in which s/he is embedded. This means that unmediatedrepresentationsofnatureareasunattainableasthey are undesirable. In their placewe finda reflexive and situated epistemologythatinvitesustorevisitwhospeaksfornature,what wemean bynature,andtodenaturalizewhatis giventousas natural(Castree,2014b).Second,subject/objectdistinctionsbreak down.Therepositioningoftheknowingsubjectasaself-conscious part of nature invites a constant reflection on the ethical assumptionsthatshapeourknowledge/value-commitmentsand thoseofothers(Chilvers,2013).Itisthroughsuchreflexivitythat anattitudeofhumilitycanbefosteredandroomismadeforthe exerciseofwisdom,along-treasuredhumanvirtuewhichbrings together knowledge and action in relational settings (Hulme, 2014).

Finally,amoreradicalpost-naturalscholarshipisattentiveto thematerialeffectsofparticularnaturerepresentations.Insome STSdebates,especiallyintheUSA,the‘co-production’concepthas beenadvancedtocriticallyinterrogatehowwaysofseeing and engaging with nature, often originating from the domains of scienceandtechnology,shapehowtheenvironmentisconstrued andacteduponinsocialandpoliticallife(Jasanoff,2004).Byasking whosenatureisbeingrepresentedandwhatthematerialeffectsof suchrepresentationsare,thisisaliteraturethathassoughtto de-naturalizetheprivilegedgazeofscienceandherebyopenupfor multiplewaysofknowingandexperiencingnature(Jasanoffand LongMartello,2004;Litfin,1997).Tointerpretandinterrogatethe possibilities of the Anthropocene from this more radical post-natural perspective opens up a plurality of nature framings, knowledgesandcosmologies.Emphasisisplacedonmappingand accounting for multiplicity as opposed to producing stable accounts of environmental change everyone can rally behind (e.g.Hulme,2010;Whatmore,2009;Stirling,2011).

2.2. Thepost-socialontologyoftheAnthropocene

The Anthropocene puts humans at the centre of global environmental change. Itis a story of ‘theAnthropos’that has conquered the planet and now is humanizing the natural environmentindangerousandunforeseeableways.The concep-tionofhumanityasageologicalforcethatisalteringthe‘natural’ dynamics of theEarth is effectively outlined in theAmsterdam DeclarationonGlobalChangeandtheStateofthePlanetDeclaration, jointlysignedbythechairsoftheIGBP,theInternationalHuman DimensionsProgrammeonGlobalEnviromentalChange (IHDP), theWorldClimateResearchProgramme(WCRP)andDIVERSITAS in2001and2012respectively.Reportingfromseveraldecadesof coordinated global environmental change research, the two conferencedeclarationshighlighthowhuman-drivenchangesto the Earth’s land surface, oceans, coasts and atmosphere are cascadingthroughtheEarthSysteminwaysthatnowendangerthe Earth’s environment and its inhabitants (Moore et al., 2002). ‘‘Consensusisgrowingthatwehavedriventheplanetintoanew epoch,theAnthropocene,inwhichmanyEarth-systemprocesses andthelivingfabricofecosystemsarenowdominatedbyhuman activities’’(BritoandStaffordSmith,2012).Giventhisemphasison thehumandimensionsofenvironmentalchangeitisremarkable, andhighlyparadoxical,thattheresultingAnthropocenenarrative todatehastoldussolittleaboutsocietaldynamics(Palssonetal., 2013; Malm and Hornborg, 2014). In the two conference declarations, humankind emerges mainly as an interconnected subsystemtothelargerEarthSystem,andassuch,asingleforce(of nature!),ageneralizeddeterminantofglobalchange.

Inthispaperwerefertothiscontractingofsocialdiversityand difference into a single path for humanity as the post-social ontologyoftheAnthropocene.AsnotedbyMalmandHornborg (2014)theproposed‘geologyofmankind’isnotgroundedinan

analysisofsocial relations,but ina naturalizedand aggregated accountofthehumanspecies.Luke(2009)interpretsthistendency touniversalize‘thehuman’intoapost-socialcategoryasaneffect of the prevailing quantitative metric in global environmental changeresearch.Inordertomap,monitorandultimatelymanage human-inducedenvironmentalchange,thediverseanddynamic possibilitiesfordifferentsocietiesandeconomiesarebynecessity narrowed and simplified. This interpretation is confirmed by severalsocialscientistsinvolvedinglobalenvironmentalchange research. O’Brien and Barnett (2013, p. 378), for instance,bear witnessofacertainorthodoxywithrespecttotheobjectofstudy and approachto knowledgewithin international global change researchinstitutionsandprogrammes.Byframingenvironmental change within the context of Earth System science, these institutions have fostered an epistemology that is focused on understanding and predicting environmental changes through integrated assessments and modelling studies. Whereas these effortshaveincreasedtheunderstandingthebiophysicalprocesses underpinningachangingenvironment,O’BrienandBarnett(2013, p.381)notethat‘thesocialdriversandhumanconsequencesare often overgeneralized (for example, in sweeping claims about impactsonwomenandthepoor)ordeterministic(asinaccounts ofclimatechangeforcingmassmigrationandwarfare).’

Wecontendthatadeeperinvolvementofthesocialsciencesin thestudyoftheAnthropocenewillhelptoovercomethis post-socialontology.WhenembeddingtheAnthropoceneinthesocial fabric, the human drivers, motivations and implications of environmentalchangecannolongerbegeneralized,butwillby necessitymultiply.Numerousstudieshaveillustratedhowglobal representationsofenvironmentalproblemssuchasclimatechange arecomplicated and challenged when theymeet thelocal and every-day life of particular people and places (Fogel, 2004; Liverman, 2009). After all, human beings are always and everywhereembedded.Individuals,groupsandorganizationslive inaworldofbiophysicalpropertiesandmaterialartefacts,butalso ina socio-culturalworldofmeaningsandmotivations(Jasanoff, 2010).Peopleandsocialgroupsdonotdeveloptheirowngoals, values and preferences apart from those that already exist in society, but in close relation to these. In order to explore the dynamicsand trajectoryof theAnthropocene, wethus need to understandthesituatedsocialdriversandimplicationsof‘human activities’suchasland-usechangeorenergyuse,andthemeanings andformsofpoliticalagencytheyproduceatparticulartimes.

AsociallyembeddedAnthropocenescholarshipalso acknowl-edgessocialandpoliticaldifferentiation.EversinceAgarwaland Narain (1991) illustrated the inequalities embedded in global representationsofclimatechange,socialscientistshaveinsisted thatwetakeseriouslythepowerrelationsthatgrantindividuals, groupsandcommunitiesdifferentabilitiestochallengeandbreak withentrenchedsocio-ecologicalarrangements(JasanoffandLong Martello,2004). As outlined by Baskin (2014, p. 8) the Indian subsistencefarmerorthePeruvianslum-dwellerareclearlyvery differentiallyresponsibleforecologicaldevastationandplanetary overshootthan inhabitantsof therich world.Neithercan their vulnerabilities be compared. Malm and Hornborg (2014) draw upon the experiences of hurricane Katrina in black and white neighbourhoodsofNewOrleans,andsealevelriseinBangladesh and the Netherlands, to illustrate the uneven distribution of environmentalrisksandvulnerabilitiesacrossallscalesofhuman society.Whenlinkingenvironmentalchangetosocialcategories suchasclass,race,gender,powerandcapitalwethusfindthatthe challengesoftheAnthropocenearefarfromuniversal.Rather,they emergefromdifferentsocio-political settings,producedifferent kindsof vulnerabilities and will therefore mostlikely generate differentkindsofpoliticalresponses(Liverman,2009;O’Brienand Barnett,2013).

2.3. Thepost-politicalontologyoftheAnthropocene

TheAnthropocenehastodatenotbeenpresentedasahopeful storyofhumandevelopmentandpurpose.Thedominantscientific narrativeisratheroneoftheurgencyandcrisis,withdeadlinesto meetandtippingpointsbeyondwhichinterventionsare‘toolate’.

Steffenetal.(2007),forinstance,stagetheAnthropoceneasastate ofexceptionwhenhumanresourceexploitationanddegradation hasbecomesopervasiveandprofoundthatitrivalssomeofthe greatforcesofnature.Itisadangerousandunpredictableage,we aretold,whenhumanactivitieshave pushed‘theEarthSystem outside the stable environmental state of the Holocene, with consequencesthataredetrimentalorevencatastrophicforlarge partsoftheworld’(Rockstro¨metal.,2009,p.472).WhileCrutzen and Stoermer originally linked this new era to the industrial revolutionin18thCenturyEurope,Steffenetal.(2007)primarily situatetheAnthropoceneinthepost-WorldWarIIerawhen‘the humanenterpriseswitchedgear’.During thisperiodthehuman populationhasgrownfasterthanatanyprevioustimeinhistory; industrialization has gained irresistible momentum; the world economy hasexpanded in unexpected ways;transport and IT-technologyhasrapidlytransformedmobilityandhuman connec-tivity(Steffenetal.,2007,p.618).Anunintendedside-effectofthis ‘greatacceleration’insocial andeconomicdevelopment,soitis argued,is dramaticenvironmentalchangewhichnowthreatens theplanetarylife-supportsystemsuponwhichhumancivilization depends(ibid).

Inordertocounteranimmanentecologicalcatastrophe,leading Anthropocene advocates have begun to define safe planetary boundariesbeyondwhichtheEarthSystemwillnolongerfunction in a stable,Holocene-like state(Rockstro¨met al.,2009; Steffen etal.,2015).Interestingly,thisinvocationofbiophysicallimitsfor socialandeconomicdevelopmentisseldomcoupledwithpotent suggestions for social and political transformation (for an interestingexception,seeDearingetal.,2014).Thefundamental challengestosocietalorganizationposedbytheAnthropoceneare, paradoxically,tobecounteredbymanyofthesameinstitutions thathaveallowedtherecenthumanconquestofthenaturalworld. Amongtheproposalsfor‘Earthstewardship’wefindinternational expertinstitutions,carbonpricingmechanisms,green technolo-giesandinternationalenvironmentaltreaties(Chapinetal.,2011; Steffenetal.,2011b;Biermann,2012).Werefertothisparadoxical relationshipbetweenenvironmentalapocalypticthoughtonthe onehand,andinstitutionalstatusquoontheother,asthe post-political ontology of the Anthropocene. Swyngedouw (2013)

definespost-politicsasasocio-politicalarrangementthatreplaces ideological contestation and struggles by techno-managerial planning. It is a condition where the articulationof divergent and conflicting trajectories for socio-political development is replacedby anormative consensusaroundcommon humanity-wideactioninfaceofpendingenvironmentalcatastrophe.When disagreement is allowed, suggests Swyngedouw (2013), it is primarilywithrespecttothechoiceoftechnologies,thedetailof themanagerialadjustments,andtheurgencyoftheirtimingand implementation.

Thispost-politicsofenvironmentalurgency,weargue,isclosely relatedtothelackofcriticalsocial andpoliticalanalysesofthe Anthropocene.Whenthecomplexenvironmentalchallengesofour timesareaccountedforinaggregatedterms,welosesightofthe situated conflicts, warped distribution of wealth and unequal powerrelations thatengine‘thegreatacceleration’.Asa conse-quence,thespaceforpoliticalcontestation,debateand reorienta-tionis alsorestricted.We believethata deeperinvolvement of critical social science in global environmental change research representsanimportantstepoutofthispost-politicalsituation. Acrossfieldssuchaspoliticalecology,post-colonialstudiesand E.Lo¨vbrandetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange32(2015)211–218

green political thought we find many examples of critical, interpretativeandnormativesocialtheorizingthatseekstopush theboundariesofenvironmentalthoughtandpolicypractice(for examples,see Bradley and Hedre´n,2014; Death,2014;Castree, 2014b).Whileworkinthisfieldisdiverseandincludesboth post-capitalist,post-colonialandpost-modernnarratives,itsharesthe powerofimaginationandthewilltochange.Insteadofaccepting thepost-politicalformulationofAnthropoceneas‘theapocalyptic endtoallthings’(Dalby,2013,p.191),criticalsocialinquirymay bothhelpdodiagnoseanddestabilizedominantsocial-ecological arrangements(e.g.ecologicalmodernization,greengrowth, eco-system services) and to open up conversations on political alternatives.Merelyanalyzingothersocial-ecologicalfuturesdoes not,ofcourse,guaranteetransgressionoftheideologies, institu-tionsandpowerrelationsthatbringaboutenvironmentalchange. Suchanalyzescan,however,maketheimpossibleseempossible andherebypushenvironmentalpoliticsinnewandunexpected directions.

3. ExtendingtheconversationonthefutureofEarth

ThepropositionthatwehavelefttheHoloceneandenteredinto a newgeologicalepoch fullydominatedby humanactivityis a challengingonethathaspavedthewayfornewformsofresearch coordinationandfunding.IntheStateofthePlanetDeclarationwe learnthat‘thatchallengesfacingaplanetunderpressuredemanda newapproachtoresearchthatismoreintegrative,international andsolutions-oriented’(BritoandStaffordSmith,2012).Inorderto accountforthedynamicsoftheplanetarylifesupportsystemasa whole, environmental scholars across the natural and social sciences arenow askedtofindnewwaysof collaborationthat make it possibletoputthevarious piecesof theEarthSystem togetherininnovativeandincisiveways(Steffenetal.,2004,p.32). Thebasicpremiseofthisbridgingofresearchtraditions,explain

Ignaciuketal.(2012),isthatnosingledisciplinecanadequately accountforthecomplexenvironmentalchallengesofourtimes.In ordertofullyunderstandwhyandhowtheEarth’senvironmentis changing, and hereby foster adequate policy responses the argumentgoes,coordinatedappraisalsof theAnthropoceneare required.

Astepinthisdirectionwastakenin2001whentheEarthSystem Science Partnership(ESSP) was established bythe International Council of Science (ICSU). Responding to mounting calls for coordinatedEarth Systemresearch, the partnershipreachedout totheglobalchangeresearchnetworksorganizedaroundtheWCRP, IGBP, IHDP and DIVERSITAS and brought about joint research projectsandagendas.IntimefortheUNConferenceonSustainable DevelopmentinRiodeJaneiro(Rio+20)insummer2012,theESSP transitionedintoamoreinstitutionalizedprogrammeforintegrated Earth System research called Future Earth. Whereas scientific integration and coordination remain lead motifs of this new researchprogramme,policyrelevancehassurfacedasanequally important mandate. In order to effectively address the urgent environmentalchallengesofourtimes,FutureEarthseeksto co-designsolutionswithsocietalstakeholdersandherebybeginthe transitiontoglobalsustainability(FutureEarth,2013,p.10).

Inthisquestforcoordinatedandsolutions-oriented environ-mentalresearch,FutureEarthhascalledforadeeperinvolvement of the social sciences. Scholars across political science, human geography,sociologyandeconomicsaretodayaskedtoalignwith global environmental change research agendas and hereby participatemorefullyinthestrongandimmediatecommitment ‘toactions that reduce theknown risks to Earth’s life support system’(Stafford-Smithetal.,2012,p.5;Palssonetal.,2013).In thefollowingweoutlinethreeentrypointstothiscollaborative endeavourforthecriticalandinterpretativesocialsciences.While

weinsistthatcriticalsocialinquiryhasmuchtooffer(andlearn from)globalenvironmentalchangeresearch,theresearchagenda advocated here does not strive for integrated accounts of the Anthropocene norwill it offerany immediate solutions tothe pressingenvironmentalchallengesoftheday.Amoreimportant role for thesocial sciences, we argue,is to harnessthe critical potentialoftheAnthropoceneandherebycreateopportunitiesto reasondifferentlyaboutthefutureofEarth.

3.1. Radicalizethepost-natural

FirstlywecontendthatacriticalAnthropoceneresearchagenda invites a seriousengagementwiththeepistemological implica-tionsofapost-naturalontology.Theadventofatrulyentangled socio-physicalnatureemergesasareasontoradicallychallenge and rethink the possibility and desirabilityof unified scientific accounts of environmental change, and to experiment with multipleandsituatedwaysofseeingandactinguponthehybrid world that we now inhabit. We recognize that the proposed research agenda of Future Earth takes steps in this direction through its focus on co-production and co-design. By aligning environmental research agendas with the knowledge needs of societal user groups, Future Earth aims to push the global environmental change community towards more transparent, salientandsolutions-orientedformsofknowledge(FutureEarth, 2013,p.21).According totheinitialdesigndocumentofFuture Earth (2013), this effort to open up the research process to stakeholders acrossthepublic, private and voluntarysectors is drivenbyadesiretodelivertheknowledgethatsocietyneedsto addressthecomplexenvironmentalproblemsofourtimes.While the ambition to close the gap between knowledge and action certainlyisanimportantone,wecontendthatthisshouldnotbe the only (or even primary) role for the social sciences in the continuedstudyoftheAnthropocene.Amoreradical interpreta-tionoftheco-productionconceptsuggeststhatwealsoneedto fosterresearchthatcriticallyinterrogateshowestablishednature conceptsandproblemrepresentationscomeabout,howtheyare maintained bynetworksof influenceand,ultimately, howthey condition the kinds of solutions that are deemed necessary at particulartimes.

The questions posedby the‘end of nature’areherebyboth epistemological andpolitical. A radicalpost-naturalscholarship willbynecessitychallengethemodernconceptofNatureasapure, singular and stable domainthat canbe accounted for through systemicobservation andscientificexplanation(Lorimer,2012). By cultivating an epistemology that situates environmental researchinrelationtoitssocial andmaterialsetting, thesocial sciencesmayinsteadhelptoillustratethatwhatcountsasnature andnaturalishistoricallyandculturallycontingentandtherefore subject to change. Many critical scholars insist that such conceptualcritiqueisnecessaryinordertoresistthemodernist dreamofmasteryaswellasanenvironmentalistrecoursetonature asasourceofmoralvalueandethicalinstruction(Wapner,2014). Toacknowledgetheimpossibilityofunmediatedrepresentations ofenvironmentalproblemsmayalsoopenupconversationsonthe futureofEarthtoalternativewaysofseeingandlivingwithnature, embedded in local cultural practices and knowledge-making traditions(Hulme,2010).Thepossibilitiesofsuchconversations arecurrentlyexploredanddebatedinrelationtothedesignofthe IntergovernmentalPlatformforBiologicalDiversityandEcosystem Services(IPBES)(Becketal.,2014).Inthesedebatesscholarshave pointed at the opportunities of connecting organized global biodiversity knowledge to local scales of meaning (Turnhout etal.,2012).

Todeviseresearchagendasandexpertinstitutionsthatallow local knowledge holders to rename, reclaim and redefine

environmentalresearchis,ofcourse,achallengingtaskthatdoes notpromisebetterormorecompleteunderstandingsof environ-mentalchange.Haraway(1988)remindsusthatthevisionofthe less powerful by no means is innocent. To experiment with multiple knowledge-ways should instead be approached as a criticalpracticethatmayhelptocontextualizetheformationof environmental knowledge in relation to power relations, and herebyfosterreflectiononwhoseknowledgethatdefines,shapes, andnamestheworld(TuhiwaiSmith,1999).

3.2. Highlightsocialdiversityanddifference

Secondly, we suggest that a critical Anthropocene research agendawillresistunifiedaccountsof‘thehuman’andinsteadwork tosituatepeopleandsocialgroupsintherichpatternsofcultural andhistoricaldiversity‘thatmakeusintowhoweare’(Roseetal., 2012, p. 2). In order to foster environmental research that is attentive to‘space, place, politics,power and culture’ (O’Brien, 2012,p.593)itisimportant,weargue,toquestiontheglobalizing instinct of standardized research templates and integrated researchquestions.Attemptstoaccountforthehumansignalin theEarthSystemthroughintegratedassessmentsandmodelling studies may indeed be driven by a genuine concern for the planetarylifesupportsystemasawhole.However,theyrunthe riskofproducinganemptyviewofhumanitythattellsuslittle about the lived experiences, fears, vulnerabilities, ideas and motivationsofrealpeople,inrealplaces.Environmentalscholars acrossthesocialscienceshaveforlongillustratedhow‘theglobal view’ofenvironmentalresearchrendershumanbeingsinvisible, bothasagentsandvictimsofenvironmentaldestruction (Litfin, 1997; Jasanoff, 2010). ‘In short, the Anthropocene reveals the powerofhumans,butitconcealswhoandwhatispowerfuland howthatpowerisenacted’(Baskin,2014,p.8).

Toquestionthehomogenizingeffectsofscientificintegration and coordination, we argue, is an important step in the reengagementwiththeAnthropoceneasa multipleobjectwith differentmeaningsandunequalconsequencesforparticularplaces andsocialgroups.Thesocialresearchagendaproposedherewill thuschallengerepresentationsofenvironmentalproblemsthatare ‘remoteordetachedfromthediversegeographiesofpersonalor collectivehistoryandculture’(Hulme,2010,p.5).Theadventof theAnthropocenemayindeedbeacommonconcernof human-kind, but can never beaddressed at ‘the species level’ (Dalby, 2013). In order to render the conceptmeaningful, we need to examinehow achanging environmentis interpreted,lived and enactedacrossmultiplesocio-politicalcontextsandtiedto non-materialvaluessuchasidentity,inclusion,andbelonging(O’Brien andBarnett,2013,p.382).Forexample,glaciersandforestsshould beunderstood not solely in terms of mass balances or carbon budgets,butalsoinrelationtotheirlocalculturesandhistories (Cruikshank, 2001;Fogel,2004). Thisisanimportant analytical taskifwearetounderstandthemany,andoftenconflicting,social divers,impacts,risksofandresponsestoenvironmentalchange.To recognizethatpeople’sexperiencesofnaturediffermayhelpusto reposition ‘the human’ as a heterogeneous social and political subjectandherebyre-connecttheAnthropoceneto‘therealmof immediacywheremeaningfulactionispossibleandmostlikelyto beeffective’(Litfin,1997,p.38).

3.3. Reintroducethepolitical

Finally, the Anthropocene research agenda advocated here approachestherecent‘geologyofmankind’asanopportunityto rethinkthepoliticalandherebychallengethemanagerialimpulse ofintegratedglobalenvironmentalresearch.Insteadofaccepting the scientific staging of the Anthropocene as a planetary

emergency and shared humanitarian cause beyond political dispute(Rockstro¨m etal.,2014),a criticalsocial analysisofthe Anthropocenehelpsustorethinkengagementswithnatures(in the plural) as political actsthat can yield very real ideological effects (Baldwin, 2003). We agree with Swyngedouw that the apocalypticvocabulary of thescientific Anthropocene narrative callsforaprofoundre-scriptingofnatureinpoliticalterms.‘The questionisnot anylongeraboutbringing environmentalissues intothedomainofpoliticsashasbeenthecaseofnowbutrather abouthowtobringthepoliticalintotheenvironment’( Swynge-douw,2013,p.2).

Tore-politicizetheAnthropocene,weargue,meansfosteringa vibrantpublicspacewheremanifoldanddivergent socio-ecologi-calrelationsandnatureconceptscanbeexposedanddebated.In order to enable such constructive politics of the environment, environmental scholars need to demonstrate that the Anthro-poceneisnottheendofpolitics.AsproclaimedbyDalby(2013,p. 191) ‘(t)heAnthropoceneisn’t theterminal phase, it’sthenext phase!’Webelievethatthesocialsciencescanhelptoopenupnew possibilitiesforenvironmentaldebatebyillustratingthatthereis nothingfoundationalin naturethatneeds,demands orrequires sustaining(Swyngedouw,2014,p.28).Ratherthanmaintaining the idealof a ‘natural’ or ‘sustainable’nature that can give us guidanceonhowtoconductourcollectivelives(Wapner,2014),it is important to ask critical questions about the kinds of environmentswewishtoinhabitandthekindssocietieswewant toproduce.Forsuchnewsocialarrangementstomaterialize,the social sciences needto cultivate political thought that extends beyond ‘the products and services’ demanded by societal stakeholders in the transition to sustainability (Future Earth, 2014). ‘Imaginativebreakthroughs’and ‘effectivesolutions’that matchthecomplexityofcontemporaryenvironmentalproblems (Stafford-Smith et al., 2012) will not primarily derive from solutions-orientedenvironmentalresearch. Morepromisingand urgent,weargue,areeffortstoopenconceptualandpoliticalspace where a diversity of green diagnoses, comprehensions and problematizations can be debated and contested (Bradley and Hedre´n,2014,p.4).

4. Conclusions

TheAnthropoceneisarich,potentandchallengingconceptthat nowisengagedwithacrossdiverseacademicfields.Inthispaper wehave primarilydiscussedinterpretationsemerging fromthe global environmental change research community. While this diverse interdisciplinaryscholarship doesnot easilyspeakwith onevoice,wehavearguedthattherecentstrivetointegrateand coordinate environmental research agendas has resulted in a distinctscientificnarrativethatnowisshapingconversationson thefutureofEarth.CentraltothisAnthropocenenarrativeisthe claimthathumankindhasbecomeaglobalscaleforcewiththe abilitytofundamentallyreshapetheplanet.Inatimewhenthe human imprintis everywhere,we have learned that natureis ‘beinganthroposizedathighspeed’(CrutzenandSchwa¨gerl,2011). WhereasthescientificAnthropocenenarrativemobilizesample empirical evidenceof this proclaimed ‘end of nature’, wehave argued that it is not followed by an equally thorough re-conceptualization of thehybrid world we now inhabit. Rooted inaquantitativeandpositivistresearchparadigm,thedominant storycontinuestoreproducenatureasanobjectexternaltosociety that is possible to know,monitor and manage from afar. This ‘ontologicalpriorityofnature’(Wapner,2014,p. 38)iscoupled withanequallynaturalizedviewofhumankind.Byimagining‘the Anthropos’asasingulargeologicalforce–aunitarysubsystemto thelargerEarthSystem–leadingadvocatesoftheAnthropocene concepthavedrawn‘thehuman’intonaturebutfailedtoaccount E.Lo¨vbrandetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange32(2015)211–218

for ‘the multiplicity and unequal social values, relations, and practicesofpowerthataccompanyactualhumans’(Baskin,2014, p. 8). This tendency to downplay the social dynamics of environmental change does not only lead to generalized and disembodiedaccountsofhumanagency.Italsorunstheriskof producingapost-politicalnarrativethatinvitestechno-managerial planningandexpertadministrationattheexpenseofdemocratic debateandcontestation.

Webelievethesocialsciencesarewellequippedtopushthe ideaoftheAnthropoceneinnewandmoreproductivedirections. Interpretation, differentiation and re-politicization represent centraltraitsofthisnextgenerationofAnthropocenescholarship, in which a plurality of actors are welcomed to deconstruct established frames of the planet and its inhabitants and to experiment with new ones. It is promising to note that conversationsofthiskindnowareunfoldingindiverseacademic settings.Acrossthehumanitiesandsocial sciences,scholarsare adoptingtheAnthropoceneconcepttoraisecriticalquestionson environmentalpolitics,culture,identityandethics.Itremainstobe seen to what extent these questions will inform the global environmentalresearchthatcurrentlyisdeveloped and institu-tionalizedbyFutureEarth.Effortstoextendtheconversationon thefutureofEarthtonewknowledgetraditionsandcommunities meansthat establishedresearch institutionsand networkswill havetorevisittheirontologicalandepistemologicalcommitments andbereadytoexperimentwithnewones.Thisisan uncomfort-ableandchallengingtaskthatisunlikelytofosteranyimmediate responsestotheknowledgedemandsfromsocietalstakeholders. Constructive exchange across scholarly pursuits involves a sustainedinterrogationof,andreflexivesensibilityto, taken-for-grantedassumptionsofjustwhatisatstakeintheAnthropocene. Ratherthanleadingastray,wehaveinthispaperarguedthat suchinterdisciplinaryinterventionsofferanecessarycomplement tothecontemporaryquestforintegratedandsolutions-oriented environmentalresearch.InordertoturntheAnthropoceneintoa critical event and a compelling story of social change, it is importanttorevisitanddebatetheculturalandsocialassumptions thatinformhowwecollectivelymakesenseofandrespondtoa changingenvironment.Whilegroundedin interpretative-analyti-cal critique, theresearchagenda outlined in this paperis thus intendedasaconstructiveprojectthatwillbroadentherangeof reflexivelyengaged rolesavailable tothesocial sciences in the continuedstudyofnature’sandsociety’sentanglement.

Acknowledgements

Thispaperbuilds upon theexpert forum‘Nested Networks: Between wishful thinking, empirical evidence and practical relevance’,held in LeipzigGermany in 2013.It wasfunded by the research project ‘Novel Forms of Governance by Nested Networks(NESNET)’fundedbytheGermanMinistryforEducation and Research, FundingInitiative ‘‘Research on the Relationship betweenScience,PoliticsandSociety’’(KZ01UZ1003).Theauthors acknowledge the financial support provided by the Linko¨ping UniversityResearchFellowProgramme.

References

Agarwal,A.,Narain,S.,1991.GlobalWarminginanUnequalWorld.Centrefor ScienceandtheEnvironment,NewDelhi.

Alaimo,S.,2010. BodilyNatures. Science,Environment andtheMaterialSelf. IndianaUniversityPress,Bloomington.

Baldwin,A.,2003.Thenatureoftheborealforest:governmentalityand forest-nature.SpaceCult.6(4),415–428.

Barry,J.,Mol,A.,Zito,A.,2013.Climatechangeethics,rights,andpolicies:an introduction.Environ.Polit.22(3),361–376.

Baskin,J.,2014.TheIdeologyoftheAnthropocene?MSSIResearchPaperNo.3. MelbourneSustainableSocietyInstitute,theUniversityofMelbourne.

Beck,S.,Borie,M.,Chilvers,J.,Esguerra,A.,Heubach,K.,Hulme,M.,Lidskog,R., Lo¨vbrand, E., Marquard,E., Miller, C.,Nadim, T., Neßho¨ver, C.,Settele, J., Turnhout,E.,Vasileiadou,E.,Go¨rg,C.,2014.Towardsareflexiveturninthe governanceofglobalenvironmentalexpertise.ThecasesoftheIPCCandthe IPBES.GAIA–Ecol.Perspect.Sci.Soc.23(2),80–87.

Biermann,F.,2012.Planetaryboundariesandearthsystemgovernance:exploring thelinks.Ecol.Econ.81,4–9.

Bradley,K.,Hedre´n,J.,2014.GreenUtopianism:Perspectives,Politicsand Micro-Practices.Routledge,London/NewYork.

Brito, L.,Stafford Smith, M.,2012. Stateof thePlanet Declaration.From the ConferencePlanetUnderPressureinLondon2012.Availableat:http://www. planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/state_of_planet_declaration.pdf.

Castree,N.,2014a.TheAnthropoceneandtheenvironmentalhumanities: extend-ingtheconversation.Environ.Humanit.5,233–260.

Castree,N.,2014b.MakingSenseofNature.Routledge,London/NewYork. Castree,N.,Adams,W.,Barry,J.,Brockington,D.,Bu¨scher,B.,Corbera,E.,Demeritt,

D.,Duffy,R.,Felt,U.,Neves,K.,Newell,P.,Pellizzoni,L.,Rigby,K.,Robbins,P., Robin,L.,BirdRose,D.,Ross,A.,Schlosberg,D.,So¨rlin,S.,West,P.,Whitehead,M., Wynne, B., 2014. Changingthe intellectualclimate. Nat.Clim.Change 4, 763–768.

Chapin,S.,Power,M.,Steward,T.,Pickett,A.,Freitag,A.,Raynolds,J.,Jackson,R.B., Lodge, D.M., Duke,C., Collins, S.L., Power, A.G.,Bartuska, A., 2011. Earth stewardship:scienceforactiontosustainthehuman-earthsystem.Ecosphere 2(8),1–20.

Chilvers,J.,2013.Reflexiveengagement?Actors,learningandreflexivityinpublic dialogueonscienceandtechnology. Sci.Commun.35(3),283–310. Clark,N.,2014.Geo-politicsandthedisasteroftheAnthropocene.Sociol.Rev.62S1,

19–37.

Cruikshank,J.,2001.Glaciersandclimatechange:perspectivesfromoraltradition. Arctic54(4),377–393.

Crutzen,P.J.,Stoermer,E.F.,2000.The‘‘anthropocene’’.Glob.ChangeNewsl.41, 17–18.

Crutzen,P.,Schwa¨gerl,C.,2011.Livingintheanthropocene:towardsanewglobal ethos. Yale Environ. 360. Available at: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/ living_in_the_anthropocene_toward_a_new_global_ethos/2363.

Dalby,S.,2013.BiopoliticsandclimatesecurityintheAnthropocene.Geoforum49, 184–192.

Dearing,J.,Wanga,R.,Zhang,K.,James,G.,Dyke,J.G.,Haberl,H.,Hossain,M.S., Langdon,P.G.,Lenton,T.M.,Raworth,K.,Brown,S.,Carstensen,J.,Cole,M.J., Cornell,S.E.,Dawson,T.P.,Doncasterm,P.,Eigenbrodm,F.,Florke,M.,Jeffers, E.,Mackay,A.W.,Nykvist,B.,Poppy,G.M.,2014.Safeandjustoperating spacesforregionalsocial-ecologicalsystems.Glob.Environ.Change28,227– 238.

Death,C.,2014.CriticalEnvironmentalPolitics.RoutledgeInterventionSeriesNew York.

Fogel,C.,2004.Thelocal,theglobalandtheKyotoProtocol.In:Jasanoff,S., Long-Martello,M.(Eds.),EarthlyPolitics.LocalandGlobainEnvironmental Gover-nance.TheMITPress,Cambridge,MA.

FutureEarth,2013.FutureEarthInitialScienceReport.InternationalCouncilof Science,Paris.

FutureEarth,2014.StrategicResearchAgenda2014.PrioritiesforaGlobal Sus-tainabilityResearchStrategy.InternationalCouncilforScience,Paris. Galaz,V.,2014.GlobalEnvironmentalGovernance,Technologyandpolitics:The

AnthropoceneGap.EdwardElgarPublishing,Cheltenham.

Haraway,D.J.,1988.Situatedknowledges:thesciencequestioninfeminismandthe privilegeofpartialperspective.Fem.Stud.14(3),575–599.

Hulme,M.,2010.Problemswithmakingandgoverningglobalkindsofknowledge. Glob.Environ.Change20,558–564.

Hulme,M.,2014.Climatechangeandvirtue:anapologetic.Humanities3(3), 299–312.

Ignaciuk,A.,Rice,M.,Bogardi,J.,Canadell,J.G.,Dhakal,S.,Ingram,J.,Leemans,R., Rosenberg,M.,2012.Respondingtocomplexsocietalchallenges:adecadeof EarthSystemSciencePartnership(ESSP)interdisciplinaryresearch.Curr.Opin. Environ.Sustain.4,147–158.

Jasanoff, S.,2004. Theidiomof co-production.In:Jasanoff, S.(Ed.), States of Knowledge.TheCo-ProductionofScienceandSocialOrder.Routledge, Lon-don/NewYork.

Jasanoff,S.,LongMartello,M.(Eds.),2004. EarthlyPolitics.LocalandGlobalin EnvironmentalGovernance.TheMITPress,Cambridge.

Jasanoff,S.,2010.Anewclimateforsociety.TheoryCult.Soc.27(2–3),233–253. Latour,B.,1993.WeHaveNeverBeenModern.HarvardUniversityPress,

Cam-bridge.

Latour,B.,2004.PoliticsofNature.HowtoBringScienceintoDemocracy.Harvard UniversityPress,Cambridge.

Litfin,K.,1997.Thegenderedeyeinthesky:afeministperspectiveonearth observationsatellites.Frontiers26–47.

Liverman,D.M.,2009.Conventionsofclimatechange:constructionsofdangerand thedispossessionoftheatmosphere.J.Hist.Geogr.35(2),279–296. Lorimer,J.,2012.MultinaturalgeographiesfortheAnthropocene.Prog.Hum.Geogr.

36(5),593–612.

Luke,T.,2009. Developingplanetaryaccountancy:fabricating natureasstock, serviceand systemforgreengovernmentality. Curr. Perspect.Soc.Theory 26,129–159.

Malm,A.,Hornborg,A.,2014.Thegeologyofmankind?Acritiqueofthe Anthro-pocenenarrative. AnthropoceneRev.1(1),62–69.

Moore,B.I.,Underdal,A.,Lemke,P.,Loreau,M.,2002.TheAmsterdamdeclarationon globalchange.In:Steffen,W.,et,al.(Eds.),ChallengesofaChangingEarth: ProceedingsoftheGlobalChangeOpenScienceConference.Springer-Verlag, NewYork.

O’Brien,K., 2012. Globalenvironmentalchange III:closing the gap between knowledgeandaction.Prog.Hum.Geogr.37(4),587–596.

O’Brien,K.,Barnett,J.,2013.Globalenvironmentalchangeandhumansecurity. Annu.Rev.Environ.Resour.38,373–391.

Oldfield,F.,Barnosky,T.,Dearing,J.,Fischer-Kowalski,M.,McNeill,J.,Steffen,W., Zalasiewicz,J.,2014.Theanthropocenereview:itssignificance,implications andtherationaleforanewtransdisciplinaryjournal.AnthropoceneRev.1,1–5. Palsson,G.,Szerszynski,B.,So¨rlin,S.,Marks,J.,Avril,B.,Crumley,C.,Hackmann,H., Holm,P., Ingram, J.,Kirman, A., Pardo Buendia, B.,Weehuizen, R., 2013. Reconceptualizingthe‘anthropos’intheAnthropocene:integratingthesocial sciencesandhumanitiesinglobalenvironmentalchangeresearch.Environ.Sci. Policy28,3–13.

Rockstro¨m,J.,Steffen,W.,Noone,K.,Persson,A˚.,ChapinIII,S.,Lambin,E.,Lenton, T.M.,Scheffer,M.,Folke,C.,Schellnhuber,H.J.,Nykvist,B.,deWit,C.A.,Hughes, T.,vanderLeeuw,S.,Rodhe,H.,So¨rlin,S.,Snyder,P.K.,Costanza,R.,Svedin,U., Falkenmark,M.,Karlberg,L.,Corell,R.W.,Fabry,V.J.,Hansen,J.,Walker,B., Liverman,D.,Richardson,K.,Crutzen,P.,Foley,J.A.,2009.Asafeoperatingspace forhumanity.Nature461,472–475.

Rockstro¨m, J.,Brasseur,G., Hoskins,B., Lucht,W., Schellnhuber, J., Kabat,P., Nakicenovic,N.,Gong,P.,Schlosser,P.,Ma´n˜ ezCosta,M.,Humble,A.,Eyre,N., Gleick,P.,James,R.,Lucena,A.,Masera,O.,Moench,M.,Schaeffer,R.,Seitzinger, S.,vanderLeeuw,S.,Ward,B.,Stern,N.,Hurrell,J.,Srivastava,L.,Morgan,J., Nobre,C.,Sokona,Y.,Cremades,R.,Roth,E.,Liverman,D.,Arnot,J.,2014.Climate change:thenecessary,thepossibleandthedesirableEarthLeagueclimate statementontheimplicationsforclimatepolicyfromthe5thIPCCAssessment. Earth’sFuture2,606–611.

Rose,D.B.,vanDoorenb,T.,Chrulewb,M.,Cookec,S.,Kearnesb,M.,O’Gormand,E., 2012.Thinkingthroughtheenvironment,unsettlingthehumanities.Environ. Humanit.1,1–5.

Stafford-Smith,M.,Gaffney,O.,Brito,L.,Ostrom,E.,Seitzinger,S.,2012. Intercon-nectedrisksandsolutionsforaplanetunderpressure—overviewand introduc-tion.Curr.Opin.Environ.Sustain.4,3–6.

Steffen,W.,Sanderson,A.,Tyson,P.D.,Ja¨ger,J.,Matson,P.A.,MooreIII,B.,Oldfield,F., Richardson,K.,Schellnhuber,H.J.,TurnerII.,B.L.,Wasson,R.J.,2004.Global

ChangeandtheEarthSystem:APlanetunderPressure.ExecutiveSummary InternationalGeosphere-BiosphereProgramme,Stockholm.

Steffen,W.,Crutzen,P.,McNeill,J.R.,2007.TheAnthropocene:arehumansnow overwhelmingthegreatforcesofnature? AMBIO36(8),614–621. Steffen,W.,Grinevald,J.,Crutzen,P.,McNeill,J.,2011a.TheAnthropocene:

concep-tualandhistoricalperspectives.Philos.Trans.R.Soc.A369,842–867. Steffen,W.,Persson,A˚.,Deutsch,L.,Zalasiewicz,J.,Williams,M.,Richardson,K.,

Crumley,C.,Crutzen,P.,Folke,C.,Gordon,L.,Molina,M.,Ramanathan,V., Rocksto¨m,J.,Scheffer,M.,Schellnhuber,H.J.,Svedin,U.,2011b.The Anthro-pocene:fromglobalchangetoplanetarystewardship.AMBIO40(7),739–761. Steffen,W.,Richardson,K.,Rockstro¨m,J.,Cornell,S.E.,Fetzer,I.,Bennett,E.M.,Biggs, R.,Carpenter,S.,deVries,W.,deWit,C.A.,Folke,C.,Gerten,D.,Heinke,J.,Mace, G.M., Persson,L.M.,Ramanathan, V., Reyers,B.,So¨rlin,S.,2015. Planetary boundaries:guidinghumandevelopmentonachangingplanet.Sci.Express 1–16.

Stirling,A.,2011.Pluralisingprogress:fromintegrativetransitionsto transforma-tivediversity.Environ.Innov.Soc.Transit.1,82–88.

Swyngedouw,E.,2013.Thenon-politicalpoliticsofclimatechange.ACME1–8. Swyngedouw, E., 2014. Anthropocenicpoliticization. From thepolitics of the

environmenttopoliticizingenvironments.In:Bradley,K.,Hedre´n,J. (Eds.), Green Utopianism. Perspectives, Politics and Micro-Practices. Routledge, London.

TuhiwaiSmith,L.,1999.DecolonizingMethodologies:ResearchandIndigenous Peoples.ZedBooks,London.

Turnhout,E.,Bloomfield,R.,Hulme,M.,Wynne,B.,Vogel,J.,2012.Listentothe voicesofexperience.Nature488,454–455.

Uhrqvist,O.,Lo¨vbrand,E.,2014.Renderingglobalchangeproblematic:the consti-tutiveeffectsofEarthSystemresearchintheIGBPandtheIHDP.Environ.Polit. 23(2),339–356.

Vitousek,P.M.,Mooney,H.A.,Lubchenko,J.,Melillo,J.M.,1997.Humandomination oftheEarth’secosystems.Science227,494–499.

Wakefield,S.,2014.Thecrisisistheage.Prog.Hum.Geogr.12–14.

Wapner,P.,2014.Thechangingnatureofnature:environmentalpoliticsinthe Anthropocene.Glob.Environ.Polit.14(4),36–54.

Whatmore,S.J.,2009.Mappingknowledgecontroversies:science,democracyand theredistributionofexpertise.Prog.Hum.Geogr.33,587–698.

Zalasiewic,A.,Williams,M.,Steffen,W.,Crutzen,P.,2010.Thenewworldofthe Anthropocene.Environ.Sci.Technol.44,2228–2231.

E.Lo¨vbrandetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange32(2015)211–218 218